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





In connection with the Annual Report of Acquired Sales Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerard M. Jacobs, 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/ Gerard M. JacobsGerard M. Jacobs Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

August 11, 2011
Exhibit 21SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT     The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the Registrant.     Jurisdiction ofName IncorporationOKSB Statutory Trust I ConnecticutSBI Capital Trust II DelawareBusiness Consulting Group, Inc. OklahomaHealthcare Strategic Support, Inc. OklahomaSNB Bank of Wichita United StatesStillwater National Bank & Trust Company United StatesCash Source, Inc.* OklahomaCRK Properties, Inc.* OklahomaSWB, Inc.* OklahomaSNB Insurance Agency, Inc. * OklahomaSNB Real Estate Holdings, Inc. * DelawareStillwater National Building Corporation* OklahomaBNS, Inc.** OklahomaSNB REIT, Inc.*** DelawareStillwater Properties, Inc.**** OklahomaGrand Hill Investments, LLC***** Oklahoma * Direct subsidiary of Stillwater National Bank & Trust Company. ** Direct subsidiary of CRK Properties, Inc. *** Direct subsidiary of SNB Real Estate Holdings, Inc. **** Direct subsidiary of Stillwater National Building Corporation ***** Direct subsidiary of Stillwater Properties, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             9,731,679
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,924,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                         396,326
<INVENTORY>                                        2,522,311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  13,782,676
<PP&E>                                             7,527,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,797,491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    20,901,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              4,513,998
<BONDS>                                            5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              64,501
<OTHER-SE>                                        11,245,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      20,901,057
<SALES>                                           29,702,542
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  29,702,542
<CGS>                                             18,528,633
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     18,528,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  10,132,943
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      39,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (108,760)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,132,104
<INCOME-TAX>                                          60,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                       1,072,104
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .14


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of YaFarm Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hong Zhao, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








Dated:  August 14, 2009
/s/ Hong ZhaoBy:  Hong ZhaoIts:  Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by YaFarm Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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. 1D 17

- 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.
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 1 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 2 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 3 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 4 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 5 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 6 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 7 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 8 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 9 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 10 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 11 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 12 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 13 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 14 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 15 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 16 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 17 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 18 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 19 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 20 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 21 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 22 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 23 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 24 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 25 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 26 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 27 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 28 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 29 of 30
Case 2:09-cv-10864-GER-VMM Document 3-3 Filed 03/10/09 Page 30 of 30
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RAE ANDERSON BULLARD, 

and ROCKWOOD W. BULLARD, III, 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 09-CV-12839

v. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

INDYMAC BANK FSB, a federal 

banking corporation, et al., 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

WITHOUT POSTING BOND (DOC. # 74)

Plaintiffs Rae and Rockwood Bullard filed this mortgage foreclosure case in

2009. Ultimately, in September 2012, the court issued an order granting defendants’

motion for summary judgment and dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. 

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay pending appeal without bond. The motion

has been fully briefed and the court finds that oral argument would not assist in the

disposition of the matter. Accordingly, the court orders its submission on the briefs in

accordance with E.D. Mich. LR 5.1(e)(2).

The Bullards argue for a stay of enforcement of the judgment under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 62(d). They assert that this is required by the applicable standard, which employs

the same factors used to decide a motion for preliminary injunction, citing Michigan

Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir.

1991). Accordingly, they assert that they have a likelihood of success; that they will be

-1-

2:09-cv-12839-GCS-DAS Doc # 79 Filed 01/30/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3491
irreparably injured if the court denies the stay; that granting the stay will not harm the

defendants; and that granting the stay is in the public interest. 

The Bullards filed a notice of appeal in this action in October 2012. As

defendants point out, the appeal of this case and the mortgage foreclosure process will

likely take similar periods of time, or at least overlap for numerous months. If, as

defendants note, the appeal has not been decided by the time the statutory redemption

period (which defendants assert is one year in this case) is coming to a close, the

Bullards may seek a stay of the eviction action at that time. Moreover, the court agrees

with defendants that there is little likelihood of success in the Bullards’ appeal, and is

not persuaded that a balancing of the factors should result in the grant of the requested

stay. 

Because the court does not find a stay of foreclosure proceedings to be

appropriate in this case, it declines to address the issue of a bond. Plaintiffs’ motion is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2013

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

January 30, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:09-cv-12839-GCS-DAS Doc # 79 Filed 01/30/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3492
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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

ERNEST BUSTOS,

 Intervenor - Appellant,

 v.

PAUL S. RUBERA,

 Defendant.

No. 09-35655

D.C. No. 3:01-cv-01283-PA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Owen M. Panner, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 20, 2010** 

Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

Intervenor-Appellant Ernest Bustos (“Bustos”) appeals pro se an order of the

district court holding him in contempt for failure to obey the court’s Order to Show

FILED

JAN 27 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 “Once the finding of contempt has been made and a sanction imposed, the 1

order has acquired all the elements of operativeness and consequences necessary to

be possessed by any judicial order to enable it to have the status of a final decision

under § 1291.” Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 1983).

2

Cause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the 1

district court. 

Bustos is not a party to the ongoing receivership. See SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d

1130, 1140-43 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, he may appeal the contempt order

and thereby challenge the district court’s authority to issue the underlying show

cause order. See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2010)

(noting a nonparty seeking to challenge a court’s order may do so “only by electing

to ignore the order and appealing any ensuing contempt citation”).

We conclude the district court had jurisdiction to issue the Order to Show

Cause. Bustos brought himself within the district court’s jurisdiction by

committing seven purposeful acts in the forum that gave rise to this action. McGee

v. Int’l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223 (1957) (stating that a single action in the

forum can be enough if it is the basis for the cause of action). Moreover, the

district court had the inherent authority to determine if Bustos was using the

court’s docketing system to perpetuate a fraud. Cf. Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et

Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798 (1987); see also Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of

Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 831-33 (1994). Finally, we conclude the district
 We deny Bustos’s pending “Request for Emergency Injunctive Relief.” 2

Without a new notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review post-judgment

orders. Cf. Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 1996).

3

court did not abuse its discretion by holding Bustos in contempt and imposing

sanctions based on Bustos’ failure to comply with the Show Cause Order. See

Irwin v. Mascott, 370 F.3d 924, 931-32 (9th Cir. 2004).

AFFIRMED.

2
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 24

- 00036

- CV

I N THE I NTEREST OF L.E. AND P.E.,

C HILDREN §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 322nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 322

- 727064

- 2 2 )

May 23, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s final order

. It is ordered that the trial court ’ s final

order is affirmed.

S ECOND DISTRI CT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATSY N. SAKUMA,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT

OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by its board of directors; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 16791

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 00274

- DKW

KJM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18 , 2017 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismiss ing her action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(“RICO”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suita ble for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 16791

review de novo a dismissal under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine

. Noel v. Hall , 341

F.3d 1148, 1154 (9t h Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the

record, Thomson v. Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 105 8

- 59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Sakuma’s action was proper because Sakuma failed to allege

facts sufficient to state a plausible RICO c laim. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338,

341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for

relief); Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemo urs & Co. , 431 F.3d 353, 361

(9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a civil RICO claim).

We do not consider matters not specifically a nd distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

.

Sakuma’s motion to file supplemental excerpts of record (Docket Entry No.

40) is granted and the docket reflects that the supplemental excerpts of record have

been filed. All other pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Electric Car Company, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his 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.



Date: May 24, 2010

| |                            
| | ---------------------------
| |                            
| | /s/ Gary Spaniak           
| | Gary Spaniak               
| | Principal Executive Officer
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.69


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. :ABC(2012)1011-1
13062020130000620                      


 


Borrower
: Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd.


Lender :
Agricultural Bank of China, Shijiazhuang North City Branch


 


Signing Date : October 9, 2013


 


Loan Amount
: RMB100,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From October 9, 2013 to March 16,2014


 


Use of Loan
: Vehicle Purchase


 


Loan Interest : 6.16%


 


Date of Draft :October 9, 2013


 


Withdrawal Amount : RMB100,000,000


 


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


.


Repayment
Date : March 16, 2014


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge


- Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trade Co., Ltd. make pledge account receivable
to Agricultural Bank of China, Shijiazhuang North City Branch, with the contract no. ABC(2012)1011-8 2013100905
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 24, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128355 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MARK P. JAMES, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices and 

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee 

 SC: 128355 
 v COA: 257993 
 WCAC: 04-000002 

AUTO LAB DIAGNOSTICS & TUNE UP 

CENTERS and FARMERS INSURANCE 

EXCHANGE,

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SECOND INJURY FUND, PERMANENT & 

TOTAL DISABILITY PROVISIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On January 11, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the February 22, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the 

application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting 

leave to appeal, we REVERSE the decision of the Worker's Compensation Appellate 

Commission because, under the undisputed facts, plaintiff's attendance at the seminar was 

not an incident of his employment. As a result, plaintiff is not entitled to benefits because 

his injury on the trip to the seminar did not arise out of and in the course of his 

employment. Camburn v Northwest School District, 459 Mich 471 (1999). 

CAVANAGH, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I would remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted and 

for the application of Camburn v Northwest School Dist (After Remand), 459 Mich 471 

(1999). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2

 KELLY, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I would deny leave to appeal. The record contains ample facts to support the 

decision of the magistrate, the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission, and the 

Court of Appeals that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. 

t0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 24, 2006 

Clerk
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





In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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 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.





By:
/s/ Rowland W. Day IIRowland W. Day IIPrincipal Executive Officer





Dated:  May 13, 2011





This certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sawadee Ventures (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rachna Khanna,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


/s/ Rachna Khanna
------------------------------------
Rachna Khanna
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
November 12, 2009

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

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.