alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Cytta Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Gary Campbell,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;

     (1)  The Report 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 the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


/s/ Gary Campbell
----------------------------------
Name:  Gary Campbell
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date:  May 19, 2011
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.0
                         Consent of Independent Auditors


[LOGO OF STEGMAN & COMPANY
APPEARS HERE]



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

ANNAPOLIS BANCORP, INC.
Annapolis, Maryland

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement No. 333-58658 on Form S-8, and in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
ANNAPOLIS BANCORP, INC. for the year ended December 31, 2002 of our report dated
January 10, 2003 relating to the consolidated financial statements of ANNAPOLIS
BANCORP, INC.

                                   /s/ Stegman & Company



Baltimore, Maryland
March 21, 2003


                                       42
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlos Castro, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Arizona Department of Public Safety, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00753-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 55) and 

State Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 58). Upon review of the briefing, the Court notes 

that (i) the Motion to Amend (Doc. 55) is unopposed on the merits and (ii) the Motion to 

Strike (Doc. 58) is conditionally unopposed. 

 For good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 55). 

Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint as proposed within ten (10) business 

days of the filing of this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting State Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Doc. 

58) as set forth herein. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking page 2 line 15 through page 15 line 2 of 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 55). 
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED striking Docs. 55-2 through 55-7. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Request to File a Hard 

Copy of an Exhibit (Doc. 56). 

 Dated this 19th day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Aaron Neal Safford, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

William Lothrop, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-18-00493-PHX-JAT (JFM)

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the parties’ motion (consistent with their consent) to 

reassign this case to a Magistrate Judge for entry of final judgment. (Doc. 26). 

Presumably because they consent, the parties cite no authority beyond the Local Rules to 

support this transfer. 

 The Court notes that Petitioner filed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 

1 at 1). The Court further notes that in its answer, Respondent argued that this case is 

really a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, and should be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 22 at 1). This Court’s limited research has revealed that courts have 

held that Magistrate Judges may not preside over cases arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, 

even when the parties consent. See e.g., Johnston v. United States, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 

2001); Brown v. United States, 748 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 2016). 

 Based on this research, the Court questions whether this case can be decided by a 

Magistrate Judge, even with the consent of the parties. Thus, the Court will deny the 

motion without prejudice. If the parties choose to re-file the motion, they must address: 
- 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 

1) whether they agree that this case is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 2) the 

authority of a Magistrate Judge to hear cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and 3) if the 

Government still contends that this case is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the 

authority of a Magistrate Judge to hear a case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. If 

the parties fail to re-file the motion to reassign within two weeks, the Magistrate Judge to 

whom this case is referred shall proceed with the preparation of a Report and 

Recommendation. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reassign (Doc. 26) is denied, without 

prejudice. 

 Dated this 25th day of June, 2018.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 068 -CR

Ant honyDwig htRi c har ds , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MI LAM COUNTY , 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2191 4 , HO NORAB LE ED MAGRE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appellant Anthony Dwig ht Richards guilty of possessing more than one g ram but less than four

g rams of c ocaine with intent to deliver. SeeTe x. He a lth& Sa fe ty Code nn. § 481.112 (West 2003). The jury assessed punishment, e nhance d by a previous felony conviction, at seve nty -five year s in prison.

A police of

fice r investi gat i ng a disturbanc e ca ll stopped an automobile fitting the descr iption of the vehicle involved in the disturbance . Appellant wa s the driver and sole oc cupant of th e c ar . A p p e ll an t w a s ar r e s te d a f te r it w a s le ar n e d th a t h is dr iv e r ’ s li c e n s e w a s s u s p e n ded. I n ci d en tt o t h e a rr es t , a s m al l b ag o f c o ca i n e wa s fo u n d i nt h e c ar wh er e ap p el l an th adb ee ns i t t i n g. Mo re c oc a ine , p a c ka g e d in tw o s ma ll b a g s and

on e larg e r b a g , w a s fo un d in the c ar a ft e r i t was impounded.2 A p p e l l an t ’ s c o u rt - a

p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y h a s f i l e d a m o t i o nt o w i t h dr aw s u

p p o rt e d b y a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the require ments of An der s v. Ca lif or nia , 3 8 6 U
. S. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , b y p r e s e n ti n g a

p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a ti o no f

th e r e cord demonstratingwhy t h er e ar e no arg uable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U .S. 75 (1 98 8) ; Hi

gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7 (Tex
. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 51 6 S. W.2 d 6 84 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Ga ino us v . S

tate , 436 S
. W
. 2 d 1 3 7 (Tex . Crim. App. 1969). Appellant re ceive d a copy of counsel’s br ief a

nd has filed his own pro se brief. We h ave re vie we d th e re c or d, c ouns e l’ s b ri e f, and the pr o s e br ie f. We a g re e with counsel that the a

ppeal is fr ivolous and without merit. W e find nothing in t h e re co rd t h at m ight arguably support the appe al. Se e Bl e ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005) (holding that it is constitutional err or for appellate court to addre ss nonmeritorious arguments raised in pro se re sponse to An de rs brief) . Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 19, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
ex1032.htm


    
      

      

    


    


    December
4, 2008

     

    Mr.
Armando M. Codina

    Chairman

    Flagler
Development Group

    2855
Lejeune Road,  4th
Floor

    Coral
Gables, FL 33134

    


    


    Dear
Armando:

     

    This will
confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s
retainers and fees for 2009.

     

    1.           All
director’s fees and retainer (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your
service on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR
Corporation and American Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2009 through
December 31, 2009, will be deferred and paid to you in accordance with this
letter agreement.

     

    2.           Fees
will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Procedures
for Deferral of Board Retainers and Fees, as amended and restated, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).

     

    3.           On
the 30th business day after the date when you cease to be a Director of AMR
Corporation and any affiliates, and cease rendering services, the Stock
Equivalent Units accrued pursuant to the Plan will be converted to cash and paid
to you in a lump sum by multiplying the number of such Stock Equivalent Units by
the arithmetic mean of the high and the low of AMR stock (“fair market value”)
during the month when you ceased to be a Director of AMR Corporation and any
affiliates, and cease rendering services.  Payment cannot be
accelerated.

     

    4.           In
the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of
death will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the
calendar month immediately preceding your death, and the amount paid to
Margarita Codina.  The payment contemplated by this paragraph 4 will
be made on the 30th
business day following the date of your death.

     

    If the
foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the
originals (two are enclosed) and returning it to me.

     

    


    Very
truly yours,

     

    /s/ Kenneth W. Wimberly

     

    Kenneth
W. Wimberly

    Corporate
Secretary

    


    


    


    Accepted
and agreed:

    


    


    /s/
Armando M. Codina        

    Armando
M. Codina
#### Renae GREENE, Movant-Appellant v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 20714.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District. Division Two.

Sept. 6, 1996.

S. Dean Price, Springfield, for movant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jill C. LaHue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Renae Greene (movant) appeals an order denying a Rule 29.15 motion. This court affirms.

*578Movant presents one point relied on. It states:

> The hearing court clearly erred in overruling [movant’s] postconviction motion because [movant] received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Rule 84.04(d) applies to appeals in post-conviction motion proceedings. *Turner v. State,*669 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo.App.1984); *Haynes v. State,*661 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Mo.App.1983). It states, “The points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous,.... ”

Movant’s point relied on is patently conclu-sory. It yields no clue as to wherein and why movant claims the representation she received in the underlying criminal ease was ineffective. The point preserves nothing for appellate review. *Kennedy v. State,*771 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Mo.App.1989). The order denying movant’s Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed.
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Aldonte Anderson, 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00356-PHX-DLR

DETENTION ORDER 

 On June 7, 2018, Aldonte Anderson (the “Defendant”) appeared before this Court 

on a Petition to Revoke Conditions of Release. The Court has considered the information 

provided to the Court and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the 

Defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court makes the following findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1): 

☐ There is probable cause to believe that the Defendant has committed a 

Federal, State, or local crime while on release. 

☒ There is clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant has 

violated the conditions of release. 

 The Court makes the following findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2): 

☐ Rebuttable Presumption where Probable Cause to Believe Felony 

Committed on Pretrial Release. The Defendant has failed to rebut the 

presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will 

assure that the Defendant will not pose a danger to the safety of any 

other person or the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(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 

(providing that rebuttable presumption of dangerousness applies if 

there is probable cause to believe that while on release a defendant 

has committed a Federal, State, or local felony). 

☒ Flight Risk. After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(g), the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there 

is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure 

that the Defendant will not flee. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(A); U.S. 

v. Gotti, 794 F.2d 773, 778 (2nd Cir. 1986) (holding that “findings 

made under section 3148(b) may be established by a preponderance of 

the evidence”). 

☐ Dangerousness. After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3142(g), the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that there 

is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure 

that the Defendant will not pose a danger to the safety of any other 

person or the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2)(A); Gotti, 794 

F.2d at 778. 

☒ Compliance with Conditions. The Court finds by a preponderance of 

the evidence that the Defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition 

or combination of conditions of release. See 18 U.S.C. § 

3148(b)(2)(B); Gotti, 794 F.2d at 778. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 7th day of June, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Volcan Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.
 
 Date: August 31, 2010
 
 /s/ Pnina FeldmanPnina FeldmanChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Sholom FeldmanSholom FeldmanTreasurer and Secretary

(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2463-2464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1408]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 202

[Docket No. RM 95-7]


Registration of Claims to Copyright, Group Registration of 
Photographs

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is extending the comment period in its 
consideration of regulations permitting group registration of 
unpublished or published photographs.

DATES: The extended deadline for comments is February 9, 1996, and for 
reply comments is March 1, 1996.

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, fifteen copies of written comments should 
be addressed to Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General Counsel, 
Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, D.C. 
20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380. Telefax: (202) 707-8366. If by hand, 
fifteen copies should be brought to: Office of the General Counsel, 
Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-407, First 
and Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn J. Kretsinger, Acting General 
Counsel, Telephone: (202) 707-8380 or Telefax: (202) 707-8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 4, 1995, the Copyright Office 
published proposed regulations that permit group registration of 
unpublished or published photographs without the deposit of copies of 
the works. 60 FR 62057 (Dec. 4, 1995). The proposed regulations would 
enable photographers and photography businesses to seek the benefits of 
registration by making it less burdensome for them to register a claim 
to copyright in a large number of 

[[Page 2464]]
photographs taken by a single photographer or photography business.
    Due to the inordinate number of government and business closures 
that occurred during this time period, the Office is extending the 
period for submitting comments from January 18, 1996, to February 9, 
1996, and the deadline for reply comments from February 2, 1996, to 
March 1, 1996.

    Dated: January 23, 1996.
Marilyn J. Kretsinger,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-1408 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-U
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Volcan Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sholom Feldman, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)

The Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                         |  |     |                              
|------------------------ |  | --- | -----------------------------
|Date:  February 13, 2009 |  | By: | /s/ SHOLOM FELDMAN           
|                         |  |     | Sholom Feldman               
|                         |  |     | Treasurer and Secretary      
|                         |  |     | (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13739]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings:

    Name of Panel: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date of Meeting: June 12, 1996.
    Time of Meeting: 1:00 p.m.--EDT.
    Place of Meeting: Gateway Building, Room 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review grant applications.
    Contact Person: Paul H. Lenz, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Gateway Building, Room 2C212, National Institutes of 
Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9205, (301) 496-9666.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the above 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.

    Name of Panel: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date of Meeting: June 25, 1996.
    Time of Meeting: 2:00 p.m.--EDT.
    Place of Meeting: Gateway Building, Room 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review a grant application.
    Contact Person: Paul H. Lenz, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Gateway Building, Room 2C212, National Institutes of 
Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9205, (301) 496-9666.

    Name of Panel: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date of Meeting: July 9, 1996.
    Time of Meeting: 1:00-2:00 p.m.--EDT.
    Place of Meeting: Gateway Building, Room 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review a grant application.
    Contact Person: Arthur D. Schaerdel, DVM, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Gateway Building, Room 2C212, National Institutes of 
Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-9205, (301) 496-9666.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: May 28, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-13739 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.02






NET
TALK.COM, INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) OF THE


SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,


AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2009 of Net Talk.com, Inc.  (the “Company”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Guillermo Rodriguez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:




1.
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and




2.
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.










/s/
      Guillermo RodriguezGuillermo
      RodriguezChief
      Financial OfficerJuly
      31, 2009