alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 110 (Thursday, June 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14294]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    \1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 
Stat. 803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect 
on January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
transferred certain functions to the Surface Transportation Board 
(Board). This notice relates to functions that are subject to Board 
jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[STB Finance Docket No. 32956]

Fort Worth and Western Railroad Company, Inc.--Trackage Rights 
Exemption--St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company

    The St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW) has agreed to 
assign its local and overhead trackage rights on a rail line owned by 
the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Property Acquisition Company (DARTPAC) to 
Fort Worth and Western Railroad Company, Inc. (FWWR), over 
approximately 28.77 miles of rail line in Texas between milepost 632.27 
at North Fort Worth and milepost 603.5 at Carrollton. The trackage 
rights were to become effective on or after May 24, 1996.
    This transaction will also permit FWWR to use the subject trackage 
to serve Hodge Yard, which it seeks to lease from SSW in a related 
pending proceeding, STB Finance Docket No. 32955, Fort Worth and 
Western Railroad Company, Inc.--Lease and Operation Exemption--St. 
Louis Southwestern Railroad Company. This notice is filed under 49 CFR 
1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 32956, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20423 and served on: Kevin M. Sheys, 
Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, 1020 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 400, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).

    Decided: May 29, 1996.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14294 Filed 6-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
```
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jane V.; John A.; John E.; Jane F.; John D.; 

John M.; Jane N.; and John W.; individually 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,,

Plaintiff,

v.

Motel 6 Operating L.P., a limited 

partnership; G6 Hospitality LLC, a limited 

liability company, dba Motel 6; and Does 1- 10,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-00242-DGC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND 

RELIEF FROM THE DEADLINES 

IN THE COURT’S JULY 6, 2018, 

ORDER

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 29-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Parties propose that the Court enter a schedule under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(e) in this matter to allow the Parties sufficient time to prepare the necessary 

class-wide settlement documents and seek preliminary to approval of the proposed classwide settlement. 

WHEREAS, on July 6, 2018, this Court granted the Parties Joint Notice of 

Settlement and Joint Motion for Relief from All Pending Deadlines, [Doc. 28], because 

the Parties certified that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims 

upon the Court’s approval of the proposed settlement; 

WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred regarding the timing of the 

requirements of settlement approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); 

WHEREAS, good cause exists for the Court to enter the following briefing 

schedule; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The Parties are no longer required to file a notice of voluntary dismissal and 

this matter will not be dismissed on August 31, 2018, under the terms of the Court’s July 

6, 2018, Order, see ECF No. 28;

(2) The Parties shall file a joint motion seeking preliminary approval of the 

class settlement and any related filings no later than October 5, 2018.

DATED this ___ day of August, 2018.

David G. Campbell

United States District Court Judge

Case 2:18-cv-00242-DGC Document 29-1 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00176

- CR No. 10

- 23

- 001 81

- CR
JAMES GAMBRELL , J R

. Appellant

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No s . 30096 & 30238

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 4, 2024, w e issued an opinion and judgment s in these causes of action affirming the trial court's judgment in trial court cause numbers 30096 and 30 238

. On the Court's own motion, we withdraw our opinion and judgment s of January 4, 2024 , and we substitute this opinion and accompanying judgment s in their stead

.Gambrell v. State Page 2

A court has jurisdiction to de te rmine whether it has jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918

S.W.2d 51 9, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The right to appeal in criminal cases is conferred by statute, and a party may appeal only from a judgment of conviction or an interlocutory order as authorized by statute. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. a rt. 44.02; T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
25.2(a)(2); Ragston v. State , 424 S.W. 3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). W hen this Court lacks jurisdiction, we have no power to act , and we must dismiss the attempted appeal.

See State v. Dunbar , 297 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

U pon further review of the record , we dismiss these appeals for lack of jurisdictio n.

P ER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson , and Justice Smith Appeals d is missed Opinion issued and filed March 4, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). N E D / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K A R L O Z A R G A R Y A N ; e t.a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72346 A ge nc yN os . A 096- 051- 926

A 096- 051- 927 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K a r lo Z a r g a ry a n , an a tiv e o f I r a n a n d c itiz e n o f

A rm e n ia , a n d h e rd au g h te r , a na t i ve of R us s i aa nd c i t i z e n of

A rm e ni a , pe t i t i on f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of Im m ig ra ti o n A p p ea ls’ o rd erd ism issin g th eir ap p ea l fro m an im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e’s 

# FI LED DE C 28 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSN ED / Res ea r ch 07- 72346 2 de c i s i on de ny i ng the i rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , a nd pr ot e c t i on unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rs u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , Zehat ye v. G on zales , 4 5 3 F . 3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 4 - 8 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , a n d we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe br i e f

de t e nt i on a n d b e a tin g Z a r g a ry a n s u f f e r e d in A rm e n iad idn o t r is e to th e le v e l o f p e r s e c u tio n . Se e Pr a s a d

v . I NS , 4 7 F . 3 d 3 3 6 , 3 3 9 -4 0 (9 th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ). S u b st an t i al ev i d en ce al so s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tZ a r ga ry a n doe s notha ve aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof fu tu re p ersecu t i o n b ased o n h er h u sb an d ’ s p o l i t i cal act i v i t i es o r h er eth n i ci ty, be c aus e he rhus ba nd a nd s i m i l a r l ys i tua t e d f a the rr e m a i n i n A rm e ni aw i thout in c id e n t. Se e Ar u ta v . I NS , 80 F . 3d 13 89 , 13 95 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). B e c au s e Z a r g a ry a n d idn o t e s tab lis h e lig ib ilityf o ra s y lu m , it n e c e s s a r ily f ol l ow s tha ts he di d nots a t i s f ythe m or e s tr i nge nts t a nda r d f orw i thhol di ng of r e m o v a l. See Zehat

ye , 453 F . 3d a t1190. Z a r ga ry a n ha s f

a i l e d t o s e tf

orth a nys ubs t a nt i ve a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng the a g e n c y ’s d e n ia l o f

C A T r e lie f

. Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rr a n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i ss ues notsupp ort ed by ar gu m entar e dee m ed w ai ved). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Roderick Bartlett, President, Chief Executive Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: July 26, 2014   /s/ Rod Bartlett Roderick Bartlett President and Chief Executive Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT23.1**

**Consentof Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-96467) pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan and the 1997 ShareIncentive Plan of IOMED, Inc. of our report dated August 3, 2006 with respectto the consolidated financial statements of IOMED, Inc. included in the AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2006.
|                      |   | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|                 |   |                      |
| Salt Lake City, Utah |   |                      |
| September 26, 2006   |   |                      |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14667]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-263-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

June 5, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 31, 1996, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective June 1, 
1996:

Twelfth Revised Sheet No. 8
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 9
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 13
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 16
Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 18

    ANR states that the above-referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
pursuant to the approved recovery mechanism of its Tariff to implement 
recovery of $6.0 million of costs that are associated with its 
obligations to Dakota Gasification Company (Dakota). ANR proposes a 
reservation surcharge applicable to its Part 284 firm transportation 
customers to collect ninety percent (90%) of the Dakota costs and an 
adjustment to the maximum base tariff rates of Rate Schedule ITS and 
overrun rates applicable to Rate Schedule FTS-2 so as to recover the 
remaining ten percent (10%). ANR advises that the proposed changes 
would decrease current quarterly Dakota Above-Market cost recoveries 
from $6.8 million to $6.0 million, based upon costs incurred from 
February 1996 to April 1996.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Sections 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14667 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Kenneth Carl ZITZMAN, Appellant, v. Janette LOHMAN, Director of Revenue, Respondent.

No. 67521.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 5, 1996.

Nancy Narrow Gaultney, Perryville, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General and James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Petitioner, driver’s licensee, appeals from a judgment denying limited driving privileges. The trial court found licensee was ineligible and dismissed the case. The sole issue before this court is whether the licensee is eligible for a limited driving privilege under § 302.309.3(6) RSMo 1994.1 If the provisions of § 302.309.3(6) are exclusive of § 302.309.3(5) then he is eligible. We find the limitations in subsection .3(5) are independent and not applicable to a request for limited driving privileges offered in .3(6). We reverse and remand.

The facts derived from the pleadings are taken as true. On January 3,1989, licensee’s driving privileges were cancelled for ten years due to alcohol related driving convictions. On two previous occasions he refused to submit to a chemical test, once in 1984, and a second time in 1988. He is ineligible for limited driving privileges under subsection .3(5).

*618Licensee interprets the restrictions on obtaining a hardship driving privilege for a five or ten year revocation contained in § 302.309.3(6) as unaffected by the requirements in § 302.309.3(5). The Director of Revenue obtained a dismissal on the contention licensee is ineligible for a .3(6) hardship driving privilege as a result of the two refusals to submit to a chemical test as provided in § 302.309.3(5)(g).

Statutory construction is a matter of law, not fact. *State ex rel. Igoe v. Bradford,*611 S.W.2d 343, 350 (Mo.App.1980). The opening paragraph of subdivision (5) provides: “Except as provided in subdivision (6) of this subsection, no person is eligible to receive hardship driving privilege whose license has been suspended or revoked for the following reasons ... (g) Who has violated more than once the provisions of section 577.041 RSMo, or a similar implied consent law of any other state.” By express language the provisions of .3(6) are an exception to the provisions of subdivision .3(5). Subdivision .3(5) applies to applicants who seek limited relief from suspensions and revocations of a term other than ten or five years. Subdivisions .3(6)(a) and (b) apply only to ten and five year revocations, respectively. Therefore, licensee is not ineligible for relief offered in .3(6) because of any provisions contained in .3(5).

Licensee may not be entitled to a limited driving privilege under .3(6). We hold, as a matter of law, he is not ineligible. We do not reach and do not decide the merits. Nor do we reach or decide a matter not reached by the trial court, eligibility under .3(6).

Dismissal judgment is reversed. We remand the case for consideration of the licensee’s petition under § 302.309.3(6).

REINHARD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

1

. All further statutory citations will be to RSMo 1994, unless otherwise noted.
H. Res. 508 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 29, 2009. 

Whereas general aviation includes all civilian flying except 

scheduled passenger airlines; 

Whereas there are nearly 600,000 licensed pilots in the 

United States and an estimated 500,000 of these pilots 

fly general aviation aircraft; 

Whereas the United States accounts for more than half of all 

general aviation activity worldwide; 

Whereas 170,000,000 passengers fly annually using personal 

aviation; 

Whereas there are more than 231,000 active general aviation 

aircraft in the United States; 

Whereas the general aviation industry contributes more than 

$150,000,000,000 to United States direct and indirect 

economic output; 

Whereas the United States general aviation industry employs 

nearly 1,300,000 people whose collective annual earnings 

exceed $53,000,000,000; 

Whereas general aviation contributes high-skill jobs in aircraft manufacturing, avionics and technology development, flight training, maintenance, modification, and 

technical support; 
2 

•HRES 508 EH 

Whereas an estimated 65 percent of general aviation flights 

are conducted for business and public services, many of 

which are located in or need access to smaller communities that do not have commercial aviation; 

Whereas general aviation helps save lives through the transport of blood supplies, vital transport organs, and other 

time-critical items; 

Whereas general aviation contributes to economic development by facilitating meetings and other activities for 

businesses of all sizes; 

Whereas general aviation is used to protect the environment 

by assisting with the surveying of wildlife, the mapping 

of wetlands, and the patrolling of parklands; 

Whereas general aviation is a vital tool for agricultural producers, who often rely on air service for crop planting 

and protection as well as livestock herd management; 

Whereas general aviation aids in law enforcement through patrolling highways, apprehending suspects, monitoring national borders, and locating lost children; 

Whereas there are 5,200 public use airports and more than 

13,000 privately owned landing facilities in the United 

States; and 

Whereas only about 500 of these airports have commercial 

airline service, making general aviation an integral part 

of the transportation system that supports communities 

across the United States and provides essential air travel 

options to businesses and the public: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
3 

•HRES 508 EH 

(1) recognizes the many contributions of the general 

aviation industry; and 

(2) encourages general aviation activities. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24500-24501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12155]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. 95N-0013]


Benton County Ag Center, Inc.; Withdrawal of a Notice of 
Opportunity for Hearing Proposing To Withdraw Approval of Medicated 
Feed Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA), is withdrawing a notice of opportunity for 
hearing (NOOH) on a proposal to withdraw approval of 11 medicated feed 
applications (MFA's) held by Benton County Ag Center, Inc. CVM has 
determined that the firm is in compliance with current good 
manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for medicated animal feeds 
and has instituted a system to maintain its compliance status.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 15, 1996.


[[Page 24501]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen A. Kandra, Center for Veterinary 
Medicine (HFV-246), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 
Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of April 26, 1995 (60 FR 20497), CVM provided an opportunity 
for hearing on a proposal to withdraw approval of 11 MFA's held by 
Benton County Ag Center, Inc., for the manufacture of animal feeds 
bearing or containing new animal drugs. CVM took this action based on 
the firm's apparent failure to comply with agency CGMP requirements for 
medicated animal feeds as evidenced by inspections conducted on 
December 22, 1992, and May 3, 4, 10, and 11, 1994.
    In a letter that FDA received on May 23, 1995, in response to the 
notice, Benton County Ag Center, Inc., stated it had made the necessary 
corrections to bring its operations into compliance with CGMP 
requirements since the last inspection. The letter requested that FDA 
reinspect the feed mill to verify its compliance status, and to 
withdraw the NOOH.
    On July 17 through 19, 1995, the Iowa Department of Agriculture, 
under contract with FDA pursuant to section 702(a) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 372(a)), reinspected the 
feed mill and found that the firm had corrected the previously noted 
CGMP deficiencies that had formed the basis for the NOOH. Additionally, 
FDA believes that the firm has taken measures to ensure that it will 
remain in compliance with CGMP's. Accordingly, CVM is withdrawing the 
April 26, 1995, NOOH on the proposal to withdraw approval of the firm's 
MFA's.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (sec. 512 (21 U.S.C. 360b)) and under authority delegated to the 
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine (21 CFR 5.84).

    Dated: April 2, 1996.
Michael J. Blackwell,
Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 96-12155 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of 51147,
      Inc.,
      for the Quarter Ending April 30, 2007, I, Michael Zahorik, Chief Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 51147, Inc. hereby certify pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
Such
      Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2007, fully
      complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.
The
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ended April 30, 2007, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of 51147, Inc.




Dated:
      October  2, 2007




**51147,
      INC.**




By:
            */s/
                Michael
                Zahorik*
              Chief
                Executive Officer and
              Chief
                Financial Officer