alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

Case No. 09-11526

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

BRADLEY S. AUSTIN,

Defendant/Counterclaimant/

Third-Party Plaintiff,

and

BRADLEY S. AUSTIN,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

vs.

DEANNA LYNN AUSTIN, et al.,

Third-Party Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO RECUSE [DOCS. #2, #22]

This matter has come before the Court on defendant/counterclaimant/third-party

plaintiff Bradley Austin’s motions to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a). In

his motions, Austin accuses this Court of being “pervasively biased” against him, both

as a pro se litigant and as a person subject to loan foreclosure. Austin’s claim of bias is

based on the Court’s rulings in other cases between the same parties, as the Court has

not entered any orders in the present case until today. Austin requests that “this entire

litigation should be retroactively referred to another U.S. District Judge for review and

reconsideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 prior to any serious consideration by the

2:09-cv-11526-GCS-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 06/29/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 345
2

6th Circuit Court of Appeals.”

Mr. Austin’s primary objection concerns the Court’s use of the doctrine of res

judicata in case 08-13697 and 07-15127. Austin contends that the opinions relied on by

the Court to support the application of res judicata were not “final” judgments. Austin

has taken appeals in both of those cases, therefore taking advantage of his legal right to

seek review of this Court’s rulings. Austin’s contention that the Court incorrectly applied

the law in his previous cases does not provide support for his motion for recusal.

Mr. Austin further submits that this Court is prejudice and bias against him based

on his status as a pro se litigant and a victim of predatory lending practices. Austin

made this same argument in his motion for recusal in case 08-13697, which the Court

considered and denied. Austin’s characterization of this Court’s rulings in his cases as

evidence of bias and prejudice does not make it so. The Court finds that a reasonable,

objective person knowing all of the circumstances could not question the impartiality of

this judge. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant/counterclaimant/third-party plaintiff

Bradley Austin’s motions to recuse are DENIED.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that if Bradley Austin files any further

frivolous, repetitive pleadings with the Court, the Court will consider imposing

appropriate sanctions.

Dated: June 29, 2009

S/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-11526-GCS-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 06/29/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 346
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

June 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Josephine Chaffee

Deputy Clerk

2:09-cv-11526-GCS-PJK Doc # 23 Filed 06/29/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 347
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46001-46002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18061]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. QF08-530-000]

Lowe's Home Improvement Centers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Notice 
of Self-Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

July 30, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 28, 2008, Lowe's Home Improvement 
Centers, Inc., Wilkesboro, North Carolina, filed with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-certification of a 
facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility pursuant to 18 CFR 
292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.
    This qualifying cogeneration facility consists of a 500 kW packaged 
diesel engine generator set operating on 2 fuel oil. The 
package is set on a concrete pad. The unit is self-contained, including 
all necessary switchgear and controls. The electricity is generated at 
480 V, 3 phase, 60 Hz. The facility is located at 111 River Oaks Drive, 
Tarboro, NC 27886.
    This qualifying facility interconnects with the Town of Tarboro's 
electric distribution system. The facility will provide standby power 
and occasionally supplementary power to Lowe's Home Improvement Center.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding 
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification 
provides notice that the entity making the filing has determined the 
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any 
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so 
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC

[[Page 46002]]

Online service, please e-mail [email protected], or call (866) 
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18061 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
#### Cornell ALLEN, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 64452.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 19, 1994.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for movant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Cornell Allen, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16762]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 91-75; RM-7230]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Conway and Myrtle Beach, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Lee W. Shubert, Trustee, 
reallots Channel 281C1 from Conway to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and 
modifies Station WYAV(FM)'s license accordingly. See 56 FR 14054, April 
5, 1991. Channel 281C1 can be allotted to Myrtle Beach in compliance 
with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a 
site restriction of 20.2 kilometers (12.6 miles) southwest to avoid a 
short-spacing to Station WLTT(FM), Channel 279C3, Shallotte, North 
Carolina, at petitioner's present transmitter site. The coordinates for 
Channel 281C1 at Myrtle Beach are North Latitude 33-35-27 and West 
Longitude 79-02-53. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 91-75, adopted June 14, 1996, and 
released June 21, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 
20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Sections 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 
154, as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under South 
Carolina, is amended by removing Channel 281C1 at Conway, and adding 
Channel 281C1 at Myrtle Beach.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-16762 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Exhibit 3.3(a)
 APPENDIX A
 Third Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement
of Abingdon Futures Fund L.P.
  W I T N E S S E T H




---



##### 



Formation and Name.
  Principal Office.
  Business.
       A-2




---



##### 



Term, Dissolution and Fiscal Year.
 Term.
 Dissolution.
 Fiscal Year.
 Net Worth of General Partner.
  Capital Contributions and Units of Partnership Interest.
  A-3




---



##### 



Allocation of Profits and Losses.
 Capital Accounts.
 Allocations.
   A-4




---



##### 



Allocations for Tax Purposes.
 Definitions.
 Net Assets per Class.
 A-5




---



##### 



Net Assets of the Partnership.
 Net Asset Value per Unit.
 Expenses and Limitation Thereof.
 Limited Liability of Limited Partners.
   Return of Limited Partners Capital Contribution.
 A-6




---



##### 



Management of the Partnership.
      A-7




---



##### 



Audits and Reports to Limited Partners.
   Transfer, Redemption and Conversion of Units.
 Initial Limited Partner.
 A-8




---



##### 



Transfer.
  A-9




---



##### 



Redemption.
   A-10




---



##### 



Conversion
    Private Placement of Units of Limited Partnership Interest.
  Admission of Additional Partners.
  Special Power of Attorney.
  A-11




---



##### 



Withdrawal of a Partner.
  No Personal Liability for Return of Capital.
  Indemnification.
  A-12




---



##### 



Amendments; Meetings.
 Amendments with Consent of the General Partner.
  A-13




---



##### 



Meetings.
 Amendments and Actions without Consent of the General Partner.
 Continuation.
 A-14




---



##### 



Governing Law.
  Miscellaneous.
 Priority among Limited Partners.
 Notices.
 Binding Effect.
 Captions.
 A-15




---



##### 



General Partner:
Ceres Managed Futures LLCBy:
    /s/ Walter DavisWalter DavisPresident and Director 
  
 By:
    /s/ Walter DavisWalter DavisPresident and Director A-16
ROBERT MCKINNON, III,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0426

Opinion filed March 3, 2017.

Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Robert McKinnon, III, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits. 

ROBERTS, C.J., WINOKUR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Arlandus MAYO, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent.

No. 67302.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 8, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 25, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 21, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL NO. 09-20353-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

-vDEMEKCO MOTTON, ET.AL,

Defendants,

 /

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE MOTIONS

Defendant Motton having filed a Motion for Extension of Motion Deadline Date; now

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Motion 

Deadline Date is granted. Defendant shall file any motions by November 18, 2009. 

S/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: November 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on November 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cr-20353-PJD-MKM Doc # 54 Filed 11/04/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 218
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 1st Home
Buy & Sell Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel L. Baxter, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.
  /s/ 
      Daniel L. BaxterDaniel
      L. Baxter
                Principal
      Executive Officer
                February
      27, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RENNEL PITTS,

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

Petitioner,

Case No. 09-12329

v.

C. ZYCH,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

On June 16, 2009, Petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2241, claiming that a Bureau of Prisons regulation excluding certain inmates from early

release is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The regulations exclude inmates

with prior misdemeanor or felony convictions for certain serious or violent crimes. On

June 19, 2009, this Court issued an Order summarily denying Petitioner’s writ of habeas

corpus on the merits. (Doc. 4). This Court said the Bureau’s regulation was a valid

exercise of its authority. 

Petitioner appealed. The Sixth Circuit vacated this Court’s Order and remanded

with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, because the Petitioner’s challenge is

not yet ripe. See Pitts v. Zych, 2011 WL 852091 at *1 (6th Cir. March 11, 2011). The

Bureau had not yet decided that Pitts was ineligible for early release. The Court said:

“Until the relevant legal staff of the Bureau determines that Pitts is ineligible for early

release, we do not know whether Pitts will suffer any injury.” Id. at *2. Furthermore, the

Court said it is not a foregone conclusion that Pitts would be denied early release

because he does not say whether he has a prior conviction which would render him

2:09-cv-12329-VAR-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 05/12/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 55
ineligible under the regulation. Id. 

In accordance with the Sixth Circuit’s Opinion and Mandate, this Court

DISMISSES Petitioner’s claims for want of jurisdiction. 

IT IS ORDERED.

S/Victoria A. Roberts 

Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: May 12, 2011

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this

document was served on the attorneys of

record and Rennel Pitts by electronic means

or U.S. Mail on May 12, 2011.

s/Carol A. Pinegar 

Deputy Clerk

 

2:09-cv-12329-VAR-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 05/12/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 56
# Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect To the Actions of Certain Persons To Undermine the Sovereignty of Lebanon Or Its Democratic Processes And Institutions

On August 1, 2007, by Executive Order 13441, I declared a national emergency and ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes or institutions and certain other persons, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706).  I took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the actions of certain persons to undermine Lebanon's legitimate and democratically elected government or democratic institutions, to contribute to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Lebanon, including through politically motivated violence and intimidation, to reassert Syrian control or contribute to Syrian interference in Lebanon, or to infringe upon or undermine Lebanese sovereignty which contributes to political and economic instability in that country and the region.

Because these actions continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on August 1, 2007, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond August 1, 2008.  Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13441.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. E8–17787 Filed 7–30–08; 10:30 am]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:06−cr−20465−NGE−MKM

Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

Joseph Whiting,

Defendant(s).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the Notice(s) of Appeal filed in this case and this Certificate

of Service was served upon:

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse

100 East Fifth Street, Fifth Floor

Cincinnati, OH 45202−3988

the defendant(s), and all attorneys of record, by electronic means or first class U.S. mail, on

September 28, 2015.

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT

By: s/ D. Peruski 

Deputy Clerk

Dated: September 28, 2015

2:06-cr-20465-NGE-MKM Doc # 2730 Filed 09/28/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 19731
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.62


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : 2013JIYINDAIZIDI13100912


 


Borrower
:Hebei Chuanglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd.


Lender :
CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing
Date : September 2, 2013


Loan Amount
: RMB70,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From September 2, 2013 to September 2, 2014


Use of Loan
: Working Capital


Loan Interest : 6.6%


Date of
Draft :September 2, 2013


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB70,000,000


Payment Method : The interest should be repaid by monthly. The
principal shall be fully repaid at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment
Date :September 2, 2014


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge


 


- Hebei Chuanglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The
Maximum Pledge Contract with the lender, with the contract no. 2012JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI12140568
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARLE STEINBERG, Case No. 09-11836

Plaintiff, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

United States District Judge

v.

CHARLES YOUNG, JR. et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

OPINION & ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO HOLD DEFENDANTS IN CONTEMPT [Doc. No. 28]

On June 10, 2009, Plaintiff Earle Steinberg (“Steinberg”) filed a “Motion to Hold

Defendants Charles Young, Jr., OU Home, Inc., OU Village, Inc., Operation Unification, Inc. in

Civil Contempt for Violation of Temporary Restraining Order and For Sanctions” [Doc. No. 28]. 

In that Motion, Steinberg alleges that the Defendants violated the Court’s temporary restraining

order (“TRO”) by transferring funds while an asset freeze was in effect. [Doc. No. 28, p.4, ¶12]. 

The Court issued the TRO pending a hearing on Steinberg’s Motion for Preliminary

Injunction [Doc. No. 11] and Motion for Appointment of Receiver [Doc. No. 12]. Oral argument

was heard by the Court on both of these motions on June 24, 2009, and the Court issued a written

opinion denying both motions on June 30, 2009 [Doc. No. 35]. 

Defendants argue that the transfers from the bank account ending in -2885 were internal

transfers done to make payroll for employees. [Def.’s Br., Doc. No. 30, ¶5]. Defendant further

argues that the other transfers complained of by Steinberg were drawn in order to run the

business of Young’s companies as envisioned by the TRO. Id. at ¶6. 

2:09-cv-11836-SFC-DAS Doc # 37 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1851
2

After considering the briefs of both parties, the Court declines to hold oral argument on

this motion pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). 

To justify holding a litigant in civil contempt, the moving party must demonstrate by

clear and convincing evidence that the non-moving party “violated a definite and specific order

of the court. . . .” Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund of Local Union #58 v. Gary’s Elec. Serv.

Co., 340 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2003). In the instant case, Steinberg has not convinced the

Court by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants violated the TRO. Further, the Court

has already denied Steinberg’s motion for preliminary injunction, in effect holding that the TRO

should not have been issued in the first place. The Court therefore DENIES Steinberg’s Motion

for Contempt [Doc. No. 28]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: August 4, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

August 4, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11836-SFC-DAS Doc # 37 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1852
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 CAI International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Masaaki (John) Nishibori, President and Chief Executive 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 6, 2009



/s/ MASAAKI (JOHN) NISHIBORIMasaaki (John) NishiboriPresident and Chief Executive Officer
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
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
October 21, 2010/s/ Patricia D. ChiodoPatricia D. ChiodoSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
October 21, 2010