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

Leon Arron Nopah, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-01186-PHX-DLR

DETENTION ORDER 

 On August 2, 2019, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. A detention and preliminary revocation hearing were 

held. The Court considered the information provided to the Court, the testimony of 

Probation Officer Ruben Salgado, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether 

Defendant should be released on conditions set by the Court and whether probable cause 

exists to believe the allegations set forth in the Petition were committed and that the 

defendant committed the allegations. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 

3143. 

/// 
- 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 found that probable cause exists that the allegations contained in the 

Petition filed December 7, 2018 were committed and that the defendant committed the 

allegations. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting an Admit/Deny Hearing for Tuesday, 

October 1, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Douglas L. Rayes in Courtroom 606 at the 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 

85003. 

 Dated this 2nd day of August, 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 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

William James Gilchrist, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-1018-PHX-SRB

DETENTION ORDER 

 In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the issue of 

detention was addressed at a hearing on September 16, 2015. The Court was informed 

that the defendant is subject to other custody and is not eligible for release at this time. 

 The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is subject to 

other custody and should be similarly detained in this case. If circumstances change such 

that defendant is no longer in custody in the other matter, defendant shall have leave to 

request that the matter of detention be reopened in this case. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending further proceedings. The 

defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated 

representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, 

from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The 

defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense 

counsel. On order of the Court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the 

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to 

Case 2:15-cr-01018-SRB Document 11 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court 

proceeding. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that should a motion for review/reconsideration of 

this detention order be filed, it is counsel's responsibility to deliver a copy of the motion 

for review/reconsideration to Pretrial Services at least one day prior to the hearing. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if a release to a third party is to be considered, it 

is counsel's responsibility to notify Pretrial Services sufficiently in advance of the hearing 

to allow Pretrial Services an opportunity to interview and investigate the potential third 

party custodian. 

 Dated this 17th day of September, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cr-01018-SRB Document 11 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2
#### Nathaniel Ritchey's Admr. et al. *v.*Geo. W. Sanders et al.

Personal Property — Adverse Holding.

The adverse holding of personal property for a period of five years give a perfect legal title.

APPEAL EROM GALLATIN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 27, 1867.

*Stevenson & Meyer, Lindsey & Lindsey, for appellants.*

*Jno. L. Scott, for appellees.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams : ■

Notwithstanding all the children and heirs of Nath’l Sanders, deceased, was estopped from setting np the will of 1824, on account of their written agreement not to do so, yet when G. W. Sanders did procure it, to be set up and recorded, and got possession of the two slaves, which he sold to Jno. A. Ritchey, after his mother’s death in 1841, he claimed and held them as bequeathed to him under the will, and though he had taken out titles of administration, with the will annexed, his holding was adverse to the legitimate administrator and the other heirs.

But if this be not so, Ritchey having purchased one of the slaves in 1846, and the other in 1848, his holding from the time of his respective purchases was open and notoriously in his own right, therefore adverse, and the statute commenced and continued to run until he was made a party, and he having held for five years, his title became established.

Nor is he a *pendente lite*purchaser, for at the respective dates of his purchases there was no pending litigation, involving the rights of G. W. Sanders to said slaves.

The judgment against Ritchey’s administrator and heirs was therefore wholly erroneous, and it is reversed, with directions to dismiss the proceedings against them absolutely.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Alivia R. Carruth","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/arcarrut\/","title":"STS-51A","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yigyTmkRKX\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-51a\/\">STS-51A<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-51a\/embed\/#?secret=yigyTmkRKX\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-51A” — NASA\" data-secret=\"yigyTmkRKX\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Hennion & Walsh, Inc. 487


Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated April 13, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 515 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-252322) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 13, 2021
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert S. Arrighi","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robertsarrighi\/","title":"Lewis Launched Lunar Orbiter 3 to the Moon in the 1960s","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"avLXgCoBHU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/lewis-launched-lunar-orbiter-3-to-the-moon-in-the-1960s\/\">Lewis Launched Lunar Orbiter 3 to the Moon in the 1960s<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/lewis-launched-lunar-orbiter-3-to-the-moon-in-the-1960s\/embed\/#?secret=avLXgCoBHU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Lewis Launched Lunar Orbiter 3 to the Moon in the 1960s” — NASA\" data-secret=\"avLXgCoBHU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/el-2002-00514.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1040}
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41548

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS RIVERA-NAVA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-396-1

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Rivera-Nava

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera-Nava has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41548 Document: 00514039924 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
No. 16-41548

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41548 Document: 00514039924 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50364

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR OCTAVIO MORALES-HINOJOSA,

DefendantAppellant.

---------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-97-CR-569-ALL-DB

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

October 28, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Cesar Octavio M o rales-Hinojosa (“Morales”), federal prisoner #80352-080, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of his sentence for illegal

reentry into the United States after deportation. Morales argues that he is entitled to a sentence

reduction under amendment 632 to the sentencing guidelines because the amendment clarified

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2's adjustment for deportation following an aggravated felony conviction.-2-

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a sentencing court may reduce a term of imprisonment

“based on a sentencing range that has been subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission

. . . ,

if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy stat ement s issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” Section 3582(c)(2) applies only to amendments to the sentencing guidelines that

operate retroactively, as set forth in subsection (c) of the applicable policy statement, U.S.S.G. §

1B1.10, p.s. See United States v. Drath , 89 F.3d 216, 217-18 (5th Cir. 1996)

.

Amendment 632 is not listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), p.s. Thus, an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

sentence reduction based on amendm ent 632 would not be consistent with the Sentencing

Commission’s policy statem ent. S ee id. at 218. Amendment 632 therefore cannot be given

retroactive effect in the contex t of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) m oti on. S ee id. T h e district court

lacked the authority to reduce Morales’s sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). S ee United

States v. Lopez , 26 F.3d 512, 515 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1994).

Morales contends, for the first time on appeal, that his indictment violated Apprendi v. New

Jersey

, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), by failing to allege all of the elements of his offense. Morales does not

indicate what element he believes was omitted from the indictment. Morales may no t raise his

Apprendi contention for the first time on appeal. S ee Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d

339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 1138 (2000).

AFFIRMED.
---

---

Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

This certification is given by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cowlitz Bancorporation (the "Registrant") pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Each of the
undersigned hereby certifies, with respect to the Registrant's quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), 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 result of operations of the
Company.

|/s/ Richard J. FitzpatrickRichard J. FitzpatrickChief Executive OfficerCowlitz Bancorporation
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|/s/ Gerald L. BrickeyGerald L. BrickeyChief Financial OfficerCowlitz Bancorporation
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|May 11, 2006
|------------

23

---

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7471

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NICHOLAS J. QUEEN, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-366-WMN, CA-97-1184-WMN) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas James Queen, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Nicholas James Queen appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion requesting immediate release from federal incarceration. Because the claims raised in the motion do not fall within the parameters of Rule 60(b), we affirm. To the extent that Queen challenges federal authorities’ power to take custody of him after his release from state custody, that claim should be raised in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West Supp. 1999) motion brought in the district of confinement. To the extent that Queen objects to the district court’s letter to the Bureau of Prisons clarifying that the court’s intent was that Queen’s federal sentence run concurrently with his state sentence, we note that theletter did not amend or modify Queen’s original sentence. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-80-14-N, CA-97-379-2)

Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Alvin Jackson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-80-14-N; CA-97-379-2

(E.D. Va. June 5, Oct. 8 & Nov. 13, 1997). We deny Williams’ motions for appointment of counsel and for oral argument. Further, we

deny Williams’ motion to supplement the record as moot as this

Court has already accepted the supplemental materials. 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.

DISMISSED
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2742 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2004 

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To extend certain authority of the Supreme Court Police, 

modify the venue of prosecutions relating to the Supreme 

Court building and grounds, and authorize the acceptance of gifts to the United States Supreme Court. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 2742 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE UNITED 

2 STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE TO PRO3 TECT COURT OFFICIALS OFF THE SUPREME 

4 COURT GROUNDS. 

5 Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States Code, 

6 is amended by striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2008’’. 

7 SEC. 2. VENUE FOR PROSECUTIONS RELATING TO THE 

8 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BUILDING 

9 AND GROUNDS. 

10 Section 6137 of title 40, United States Code, is 

11 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(b) VENUE AND PROCEDURE.—Prosecution for a 

14 violation described in subsection (a) shall be in the United 

15 States District Court for the District of Columbia or in 

16 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on infor17 mation by the United States Attorney or an Assistant 

18 United States Attorney.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. GIFTS TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. 

20 The Chief Justice or his designee is authorized to ac21 cept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts and bequests of 

22 personal property pertaining to the history of the United 
3 

S 2742 RFH 

1 States Supreme Court or its justices, but gifts or bequests 

2 of money shall be covered into the Treasury. 

Passed the Senate September 28, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3


                                CERTIFICATION OF
                VINCENT J. DESOSTOA, PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         OF SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350

         I, Vincent J. deSostoa, certify that the accompanying report on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Report") by the Company fully complies
with the requirement of that section.

         I further certify that the information contained in the report fairly
presents, in all material aspects, the financial operations and results of
operations of the Company.





                                              /s/  VINCENT J. DESOSTOA
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Name: Vincent J. deSostoa
                                              Date: March 28, 2003
**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**

I, Salil Dhaumya, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of Pan American Goldfields****Ltd. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2010 (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:  July 15, 2010

/S /Salil Dhaumya

_________________________________ 

Salil Dhaumya

Title: Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:15-mj-01648-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01648-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01648-JFM Document 3 Filed 09/03/15 Page 3 of 3