alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1
 RCN CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES
 Entity Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationRCN Corporation
    
    DelawareRCN Corporation Subsidiaries:Brain Storm Networks, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaNEON Communications Group, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Digital Services, LLC
    
    DelawareRCN Entertainment, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Finance LLC DelawareRCN Financial Management, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Internet Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Telecom Services, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaRCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC
    
    IllinoisRFM 2 LLC
    
    DelawareRLH Property Corporation
    
    New JerseyTEC AIR, Inc.
    
    DelawareUNET Holding, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Entertainment, Inc. Subsidiaries:Hot Spot Productions, Inc.
    
    New YorkON TV, Inc.
    
    New YorkRCN Internet Services, Inc. Subsidiary:RCN Telecom Services of Washington, D.C., Inc. (52%)
    
    District of ColumbiaRCN Telecom Services of Massachusetts, Inc. Subsidiary:RCN-BecoCom, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsRCN Telecom Services, Inc. Subsidiaries:RCN International Holdings, Inc. DelawareRCN New York Communications, LLC New YorkRCN Telecom Services of Massachusetts, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsRCN Telecom Services of Philadelphia, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaRCN Telecom Services of Virginia, Inc.
    
    VirginiaRCN Telecom Services of Washington, D.C., Inc. (48%)
    
    District of Columbia




---



##### 



Entity Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationRCN Telecom Services of Illinois, LLC Subsidiaries:21st Century Telecom Services, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Cable TV of Chicago, Inc.
    
    DelawareRCN Telecom Services of Washington, D.C. Subsidiary:Starpower Communications LLC
    
    DelawareNEON Communications Group, Inc. Subsidiary:NEON Communications, Inc.
    
    DelawareATC Merger Corp.
    
    New York415 Greenwich GC Tenant, LLC
    
    New York415 Greenwich GC MM LLC
    
    New YorkNEON Communications, Inc. Subsidiaries:NEON Connect, Inc.
    
    DelawareNEON Optica, Inc.
    
    DelawareNEON Transcom, Inc.
    
    DelawareNEON Virginia Connect, LLC
    
    DelawareNEON Optica, Inc. Subsidiaries:NorthEast Optic Network of Connecticut, Inc.
    
    DelawareNorthEast Optic Network of New York, Inc.
    
    DelawareNEON Securities Corp.
    
    Massachusetts
  2
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Travelport Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Jeff Clarke, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Michael E. Rescoe, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

|/s/JEFF CLARKEJeff Clarke Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 25, 2008             |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL E. RESCOEMichael E. Rescoe Chief Financial OfficerJanuary 25, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YOU FANG YUAN, AKA Youfang Yuan,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72091

Agency No. A075-497-950

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 21, 2015** 

Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

You Fang Yuan, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse

of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

FILED

JUL 28 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for

review. 

We lack jurisdiction to consider Yuan’s challenges to the BIA’s August 11,

2011, order dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of her

asylum and withholding of removal claims because Yuan did not petition for

review of that order. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.

2005).

In denying Yuan’s motion to reconsider, the BIA found she failed to

establish any error in its prior conclusion that she did not meet her burden of proof

to corroborate her claim under the REAL ID Act. The BIA did not abuse its

discretion in making this finding. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Mohammed, 400

F.3d at 791 (the court reverses the denial of a motion to reconsider only if the BIA

acted “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law”). We do not consider the new

contentions regarding corroboration that Yuan raises for the first time in her

opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no

jurisdiction to review issues not exhausted in administrative proceedings below).

Because this finding by the BIA is dispositive of her motion to reconsider,

we do not reach Yuan’s remaining challenges to the BIA’s denial of her motion. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 12-72091
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

NICOLE HERRERA and JORGE HERRERA,

Appellants,

v.

AMANDA FADER,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-874

[April 18, 2019]

Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Carol Lisa Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE-14-006494-25.

Hinda Klein of Conroy Simberg, Hollywood, for appellants.

Brett M. Rosen, Jocelyn A. Santana and Mustafa H. Dandashly of 

Goldberg & Rosen, P.A., Miami, and Pamela Beckham and Robert J. 

Beckham, Jr., of Beckham & Beckham, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 

Steven Madina, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Carla Hacker Agnew, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00882-PHX-SRB (ESW)

ORDER 

 Petitioner Steven Madina, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison ComplexYuma, filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (Doc. 1). The Court has required Respondents to answer the Petition (Doc. 6 at 

2). The time for Respondents to file their answer has not run (Doc. 12). 

 On June 1, 2018, Petitioner filed his “Motion for Apointment [sic] of Counselor ” 

(Doc. 10). Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel because he lacks the legal 

knowledge to proceed with his case and the inmate assisting him in the past was 

transferred from Petitioner’s facility. 

 “Indigent state prisoners applying for habeas corpus relief are not entitled to 

appointed counsel unless the circumstances of a particular case indicate that appointed 

counsel is necessary to prevent due process violations.” Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 

1196 (9th Cir. 1986). However, the Court has discretion to appoint counsel when “the 

interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). “In deciding whether to 
- 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 

appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of 

success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se 

in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 

954 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “Neither of these considerations is 

dispositive and instead must be viewed together.” Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). 

 Having considered both elements, Petitioner has not shown that the interests of 

justice require the appointment of counsel in this case. Petitioner has not demonstrated a 

likelihood of success on the merits, nor has he shown that he is experiencing difficulty in 

litigating this case because of the complexity of the issues involved. Petitioner’s filings 

with the Court, as well as the instant motion, indicate that Petitioner remains capable of 

navigating his proceedings and presenting arguments to the Court. Petitioner is in a 

position no different than many pro se prisoner litigants. Should the Court determine that 

an evidentiary hearing in this matter is required or counsel is necessary for the effective 

utilization of discovery procedures, counsel may be appointed. See Rules 6(a) and 8(c), 

28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s “Motion for Apointment [sic] of 

Counselor ” (Doc. 10). 

 Dated this 9th day of July, 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 ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sally Holdings LLC (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, GaryG. Winterhalter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|        | By:                        | /s/ Gary G. Winterhalter |
|-------------|----------------------------|--------------------------|
|        | Gary G. Winterhalter       |
|        | Chief Executive Officer of |
|        | Sally Holdings LLC         |
|        |                       |
|        |                       |
| May 4, 2010 |                       |

 

----
##### 



Exhibit 13.3 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 Annual Report of China Southern Airlines Company Limited (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Xu Jie Bo, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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. Date: June 29, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Xu Jie BoName: Xu Jie BoTitle: Chief Financial Officer
  *
    
    This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 854 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 854

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 27, 2009.
Whereas Weber State University (WSU) was founded in 1889 as Weber State Academy;
Whereas WSU celebrates its 120th anniversary this year;
Whereas WSU is a public university that offers associate's, bachelor's, and 
        master's degrees, as well as professional, liberal arts, and technical 
        certificates;
Whereas WSU is located in Ogden, Utah, and has an additional campus in Layton, 
        Utah;
Whereas WSU serves more than 23,000 full-time and part-time students;
Whereas the WSU Wildcats have 14 intercollegiate programs that participate in 
        the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I athletics;
Whereas Weber State University promotes community involvement and community-
        based learning experiences for its students; and
Whereas Weber State University prides itself in its excellent teaching, 
        commitment to meeting the needs of students, and ongoing service to the 
        community: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates Weber State University on the 120th anniversary of 
        its founding as an institution of higher education; and
            (2) recognizes the contributions of Weber State University to its 
        students and community.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned, David Neuberg, the Chief Executive Officer of Karat Platinum Inc.
      (Formerly Sentra Consulting Corp.) (the "Company"), does hereby certify under
      the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,
      2008
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.





Dated:
                August 13, 2008
            
            /s/
                David NeubergDavid
                NeubergChief
                Executive Officer




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.
Exhibit 1 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 227-1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 6 of 6
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION  Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), Robert C. Bowen, the Chief Executive Officer of Scientific Learning Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 1.
        The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2.
        The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:
        March 10, 2006 /s/ Robert C. Bowen Robert C. Bowen Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies and is being furnished with this Periodic Report, shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or otherwise subject to liability under that Section and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Periodic Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2686
BARRINGTON F. WATKIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL P. W. STONE, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OFTHE ARMY; RICHARD CHENEY, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; CHARLES M. WIKER, Defense Commissary Agency European Region; A. NEAL NEWMAN, DA, Hq; LA WRENCE N. SELF, DA, Hq; MR. CURTIS, DOD, Manager, Defense Commissary Agency; MICHAEL LUDD, DOD, Product Manager, Defense Commissary Agency; JAMES BECKER, Colonel; WILLIAM H. OTT, Colonel, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-95-91-A) Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 7, 1997 Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barrington F. Watkis, Appellant Pro Se. Janet Rehnquist, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order (1) denying his motion for reconsideration of a prior order denying his motion for appointment of counsel and (2) denying his motion for recusal. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Watkis v. Stone , No. CA-95-91-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1039 

To provide grants for the renovation, modernization or construction of law 

enforcement facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, and Mr. BAYH) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide grants for the renovation, modernization or 

construction of law enforcement facilities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protect Those Who 

5 Serve Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES.—The 

9 term ‘‘law enforcement facilities’’ means any buildVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:44 May 16, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1039.IS S1039

jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1039 IS

1 ing or facilities that houses State or local public 

2 safety officers that have law enforcement standing. 

3 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of 

4 the several States, the District of Columbia, the 

5 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 

6 of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, 

7 Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or posses8 sion of the United States, and any Indian tribe. 

9 SEC. 3. GRANTS. 

10 The Attorney General is authorized to make grants 

11 to States for the renovation, modernization, and construc12 tion of law enforcement facilities. 

13 SEC. 4. MATCHING REQUIREMENT. 

14 (a) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—The matching re15 quirements for this Act are as follows: 

16 (1) Law enforcement facilities serving popu17 lations of over 50,000 or more shall agree to match 

18 the Federal grant funds with an amount of non-Fed19 eral funds equal to 20 percent of the total project 

20 cost. 

21 (2) Law enforcement facilities serving popu22 lations between 20,000 and 50,000 shall agree to 

23 match the Federal grant funds with an amount of 

24 non-Federal funds equal to 10 percent of the total 

25 project cost. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1039 IS

1 (3) Law enforcement facilities serving areas 

2 with a population of 20,000 or fewer shall agree to 

3 match the Federal grant funds with an amount of 

4 non-Federal funds equal to 5 percent of the total 

5 project cost. 

6 (b) COST-SHARE.—For purposes of this section, the 

7 regional projects’ cost-share shall be based on the total 

8 population and demographics of the entire region. 

9 SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. 

10 The Attorney General shall prescribe requirements, 

11 including application requirements, for grants under the 

12 program under this Act. 

13 SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

14 There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

15 this Act $500,000,000 for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 33 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 33 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 33 Filed 04/09/18 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 33 Filed 04/09/18 Page 4 of 4
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 16

- 00402

- CR
EX PARTE ROBERTO GOM EZ JR. From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016CR4743 Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2016
APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT
Th is appeal arises from the denial of appellant ’ s pretrial writ of habeas corpus seeking
relief from excessive bail. On September 23, 2016, appellant’s attorney notified this court that the appeal is now moot because a ppellant subsequently posted bond and was released , and , a t the
announcement of trial on September 16, 2016 , appellant failed to appear. Given the nature of this appeal, the appeal is now moot. See Ex parte Polasek , 04

- 15

- 00590

- CR, 2015 WL 7566236, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Nov. 25, 2015, no pet.) (same). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as

moot.
PER CURIAM Do not publish
Exhibit 32



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 CX2 Technologies., Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam Reiser  Chief Executive Officer, President, Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the end of and for the period covered by the Report.



Date: December 12, 2007



/s/ Adam Reiser

_______________________________________

Adam Reiser  Chief Executive Officer, President, Principal Executive,

Financial and Accounting Officer