UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549



Form 10-QSB



(Mark One)

[X]

QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007



[ ]

TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT





For the transition period from _________to _________



Commission file number 0-10256





SHELTER PROPERTIES II

(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)







South Carolina

57-0709233

(State or other jurisdiction of

(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)

Identification No.)



55 Beattie Place, P.O. Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)



(864) 239-1000

(Issuer's telephone number)





Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X  No ___



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes __ No  X_









PART I  FINANCIAL INFORMATION





ITEM 1.

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS





SHELTER PROPERTIES II

BALANCE SHEET

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)



September 30, 2007







|                                          |           |         
|----------------------------------------- | --------- | --------
|Assets                                    |           |         
|Cash and cash equivalents                 |           | $    208
|Receivables and deposits                  |           | 244     
|Other assets                              |           | 549     
|Investment properties:                    |           |         
|Land                                      | $  1,630  |         
|Buildings and related personal property   | 32,130    |         
|                                          | 33,760    |         
|Less accumulated depreciation             | (20,944)  | 12,816  
|                                          |           |         
|                                          |           | $13,817 
|Liabilities and Partners' Deficit         |           |         
|Liabilities                               |           |         
|Accounts payable                          |           | $    344
|Tenant security deposit liabilities       |           | 162     
|Accrued property taxes                    |           | 418     
|Other liabilities                         |           | 275     
|Due to affiliates (Note B)                |           | 1,028   
|Mortgage notes payable                    |           | 13,484  
|                                          |           |         
|Partners' Deficit                         |           |         
|General partners                          | $    (68) |         
|Limited partners (27,500 units issued and |           |         
|outstanding)                              | (1,826)   | (1,894) 
|                                          |           |         
|                                          |           | $13,817 





See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements













SHELTER PROPERTIES II

STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per unit data)



| |                                         |                   |         |         |         |  |  | 
| | --------------------------------------- | ----------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- |  |  | 
| | Three Months Ended                      | Nine Months Ended
| | September 30,                           | September 30,    
| |                                         | 2007              | 2006    | 2007    | 2006   
| | Revenues:                               |                   |         |         |        
| | Rental income                           | $ 1,453           | $ 1,496 | $ 4,359 | $ 4,415
| | Other income                            | 200               | 158     | 541     | 466    
| | Total revenues                          | 1,653             | 1,654   | 4,900   | 4,881  
| |                                         |                   |         |         |        
| | Expenses:                               |                   |         |         |        
| | Operating                               | 816               | 783     | 2,440   | 2,211  
| | General and administrative              | 47                | 43      | 155     | 136    
| | Depreciation                            | 290               | 277     | 848     | 833    
| | Interest                                | 227               | 254     | 712     | 780    
| | Property taxes                          | 160               | 73      | 386     | 254    
| | Total expenses                          | 1,540             | 1,430   | 4,541   | 4,214  
| |                                         |                   |         |         |        
| | Casualty gain (Note C)                  | --                | --      | --      | 67     
| |                                         |                   |         |         |        
| | Net income                              | $113              | $224    | $359    | $734   
| |                                         |                   |         |         |        
| | Net income allocated to                 |                   |         |         |        
| | general partners (1%)                   | $     1           | $     2 | $     4 | $     7
| | Net income allocated to                 |                   |         |         |        
| | limited partners (99%)                  | 112               | 222     | 355     | 727    
| |                                         |                   |         |         |        
| |                                         | $113              | $224    | $359    | $734   
| |                                         |                   |         |         |        
| | Net income per limited partnership unit | $4.07             | $8.08   | $12.91  | $26.44 





See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements

















SHELTER PROPERTIES II

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except unit data)







|                               |             |          |          |         
|------------------------------ | ----------- | -------- | -------- | --------
|                               | Limited     |          |          |         
|                               | Partnership | General  | Limited  |         
|                               | Units       | Partners | Partners | Total   
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Original capital contributions | 27,500      | $2       | $27,500  | $27,502 
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Partners' deficit at           |             |          |          |         
|December 31, 2006              | 27,500      | $   (72) | $(2,181) | $(2,253)
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Net income for the nine months |             |          |          |         
|ended September 30, 2007       | --          | 4        | 355      | 359     
|                               |             |          |          |         
|Partners' deficit at           |             |          |          |         
|September 30, 2007             | 27,500      | $(68)    | $(1,826) | $(1,894)





See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements













SHELTER PROPERTIES II

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(in thousands)



|                                                      |                   |        
|----------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | -------
|                                                      | Nine Months Ended
|                                                      | September 30,    
|                                                      | 2007              | 2006   
|Cash flows from operating activities:                 |                   |        
|Net income                                            | $   359           | $   734
|Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash       |                   |        
|provided by operating activities:                     |                   |        
|Depreciation                                          | 848               | 833    
|Casualty gain                                         | --                | (67)   
|Amortization of loan costs                            | 18                | 18     
|Change in accounts:                                   |                   |        
|Receivables and deposits                              | (98)              | (34)   
|Other assets                                          | (80)              | (72)   
|Accounts payable                                      | (24)              | (108)  
|Tenant security deposit liabilities                   | 42                | 11     
|Accrued property taxes                                | 162               | 23     
|Due to affiliates                                     | 153               | 90     
|Other liabilities                                     | (30)              | (15)   
|Net cash provided by operating activities             | 1,350             | 1,413  
|                                                      |                   |        
|Cash flows from investing activities:                 |                   |        
|Property improvements and replacements                | (1,461)           | (888)  
|Insurance proceeds received                           | --                | 105    
|Net withdrawals from restricted escrows               | 26                | 9      
|Net cash used in investing activities                 | (1,435)           | (774)  
|                                                      |                   |        
|Cash flows from financing activities:                 |                   |        
|Payments on mortgage notes payable                    | (440)             | (410)  
|Advances from affiliate                               | 515               | 174    
|Repayment of advances from affiliate                  | --                | (495)  
|Net cash provided by (used in) financing              |                   |        
|activities                                            | 75                | (731)  
|                                                      |                   |        
|Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents             | (10)              | (92)   
|                                                      |                   |        
|Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period      | 218               | 353    
|Cash and cash equivalents at end of period            | $208              | $261   
|                                                      |                   |        
|Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:     |                   |        
|Cash paid for interest, net of capitalized interest   | $644              | $808   
|Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity:         |                   |        
|Property improvements and replacements included in    |                   |        
|accounts payable                                      | $262              | $30    
|Property improvements and replacements adjustment for |                   |        
|casualty event (Note C)                               | $--               | $48    



Included in property improvements and replacements for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 are approximately $170,000 and $14,000, respectively, of improvements, which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2006 and 2005.



See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements













SHELTER PROPERTIES II

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)



Note A - Basis of Presentation



The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Shelter Properties II (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-QSB and Item 310 (b) of Regulation S-B.  Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements.  In the opinion of Shelter Realty II Corporation (the "Corporate General Partner"), all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2007 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007. For further information, refer to the financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006. The Corporate General Partner is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. The non-corporate general partner, AIMCO Properties, L.P., is also an affiliate of AIMCO.



Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2006 balances to conform to the 2007 presentation.



Recent Accounting Pronouncements



In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 157, Fair Value Measurements. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants in the market in which the reporting entity transacts. SFAS No. 157 applies whenever other standards require assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value and does not expand the use of fair value in any new circumstances. SFAS No. 157 establishes a hierarchy that prioritizes the information used in developing fair value estimates. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to quoted prices in active markets and the lowest priority to unobservable data, such as the reporting entitys own data. SFAS No. 157 requires fair value measurements to be disclosed by level within the fair value hierarchy. SFAS No. 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Partnershipdoes not anticipate that the adoption of SFAS No. 157 will have a material effect on the Partnerships financial statements.



In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. SFAS No. 159 permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not currently required to be measured at fair value. The objective is to improve financial reporting by providing entities with the opportunity to mitigate volatility in reported earnings caused by measuring related assets and liabilities differently without having to apply complex hedge accounting provisions. SFAS No. 159 also establishes presentation and disclosure requirements designed to facilitate comparisons between entities that choose different measurement attributes for similar types of assets and liabilities. SFAS No. 159 is effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. The Partnership has not yet determined whether it will elect the fair value option for any of its financial instruments.













In June 2007, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (the AICPA) issued Statement of Position No. 07-1, Clarification of the Scope of the Audit and Accounting Guide Investment Companies and Accounting by Parent Companies and Equity Method Investors for Investments in Investment Companies ("SOP 07-1").  SOP 07-1 provides guidance for determining whether the accounting principles of the AICPA Audit and Accounting Guide Investment Companies are required to be applied to an entity by clarifying the definition of an investment company and, whether investment company accounting should be retained by a parent company upon consolidation of an investment company subsidiary, or by an investor in the application of the equity method of accounting to an investment company investee.  SOP 07-1 applies to reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2007; however, the FASB has decided to issue an exposure draft that would indefinitely delay the effective date of SOP 07-1 until the FASB can reassess the provisions of SOP 07-1.  The Partnership is currently evaluating the impact, if any, that adoption of SOP 07-1 may have on its financial statements in the period of adoption.



Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties



The Partnership has no employees and depends on the Corporate General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities. The Partnership Agreement provides for certain payments to affiliates for services and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership.



Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from both of the Partnership's properties as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $242,000 and $240,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, which are included in operating expenses.



Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $266,000 and $190,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, which is included in general and administrative expenses and investment properties. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment properties for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 are construction management services provided by an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner of approximately $141,000 and $101,000, respectively. In connection with the redevelopment project at Signal Pointe Apartments (as discussed in Note D), an affiliate of the General Partner is to receive a redevelopment planning fee of approximately $25,000 and a redevelopment supervision fee of 4% of the actual redevelopment costs, or approximately $312,000 based on current estimated redevelopment costs.  The Partnership was charged the $25,000 redevelopment planning fee during the nine months ended September 30, 2007, which is included in investment properties.  At September 30, 2007, the Partnership owed approximately $272,000 for accountable administrative expenses which is included in due to affiliates on the accompanying balance sheet.



In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, prior to 2006 the Corporate General Partner loaned the Partnership funds primarily to assist in the hurricane cleanup and repairs required at Parktown Townhouses due to flood damage as well as operations at both of the Partnerships properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2007, the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $515,000 to pay real estate taxes at Parktown Townhouses and operating expenses at both properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $174,000 to pay outstanding accounts payable at both investment properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership repaid approximately $530,000 in advances and accrued interest. There were no such payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2007.  Interest on advances is charged at the prime rate plus 2%, or 9.75% at September 30, 2007. Interest expense was approximately $39,000 and $31,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. As of September 30, 2007, the indebtedness to the Corporate General Partner is approximately $651,000, including accrued interest, which is included in due to affiliates on the accompanying balance sheet.



During 1983, a payable to the general partners of approximately $58,000 was accrued for sales commissions earned. In addition, during 2003, the Partnership accrued a sales commission due to the Corporate General Partner of approximately $47,000 related to the sale of Raintree Apartments. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, these liabilities cannot be paid until certain levels of return are received by the limited partners.  As of September 30, 2007, the level of return to the limited partners has not been met and these obligations were included in due to affiliates on the accompanying balance sheet.



The Partnership insures its properties up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property casualty, general liability and vehicle liability.  The Partnership insures its properties above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the Corporate General Partner.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $173,000 and $126,000, respectively for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration.



Note C - Casualty Events



In November 2005, Signal Pointe Apartments incurred approximately $46,000 in damages from a fire.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership received insurance proceeds of approximately $39,000 and wrote off undepreciated damaged assets of approximately $8,000, resulting in a casualty gain of approximately $31,000.



In February 2005, Parktown Townhouses incurred damages from a fire. During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Partnership received insurance proceeds of approximately $192,000, estimated total building damages at approximately $309,000, wrote off undepreciated damaged assets of approximately $267,000 and did not recognize a loss related to this event as additional insurance proceeds were expected to be received during 2006. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership received additional insurance proceeds of approximately $66,000 for building damages and approximately $51,000 for emergency repairs and clean up costs incurred and charged to operating expenses during the year ended December 31, 2005. The Partnership changed its casualty calculation estimate upon completion of improvements and recorded a casualty gain in the amount of approximately $36,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as a result of the write off of undepreciated damaged assets of approximately $223,000. This change in estimate resulted in an increase of approximately $48,000 of property improvements and replacements for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The receipt of the $51,000 was reflected as a reduction to operating expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2006.



Note D  Redevelopment



In August 2007, the Partnership began a redevelopment project at Signal Pointe Apartments in order for the property to remain competitive in the Winter Park area.  Based on current redevelopment plans, the Corporate General Partner anticipates the redevelopment to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2008 at a total estimated cost of approximately $8,361,000, of which approximately $30,000 was completed as of September 30, 2007. The redevelopment is expected to consist of major landscaping, exterior and structural improvements, the addition of detached garages and storage units and the conversion of two clubhouses to a fitness center and internet café.  The project is expected to be funded from operations and advances from an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner.  During the construction period, certain expenses are expected to be capitalized and depreciated over the remaining life of the property.  No such costs were capitalized for the nine months ended September 30, 2007.



Note E - Contingencies



In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its Corporate General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain Corporate General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order.



On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the Appeal) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the courts use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees.



On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial courts order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.  The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts order striking the first amended complaint.



On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings.  The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objectors Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objectors Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objectors Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.  On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Courts June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders. On December 14, 2006, Objector filed his Appellants Brief.  The Partnership and its affiliates, as well as counsel for the Settlement Class, both filed Respondents Briefs on May 17, 2007.  Objector filed his response on August 3, 2007.  No hearing date has yet been scheduled.



The Corporate General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnerships overall operations.



The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation matters involving it or its investment properties that are not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business.



Environmental



Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for management, and the costs of removal or remediation, of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to manage or remedy properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by government agencies, and potential fines or penalties imposed by such agencies in connection therewith, the presence of hazardous substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal, remediation or disposal of hazardous substances through a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of its properties, the Partnership could potentially be liable for environmental liabilities or costs associated with its properties.



Mold



The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements.  The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure.  Affiliates of the Corporate General Partner have implemented policies, procedures, third-party audits and training and the Corporate General Partner believes that these measures will prevent or eliminate mold exposure and will minimize the effects that mold may have on residents.  To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions.  Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the Corporate General Partner can make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnerships financial condition or results of operations.













ITEM 2.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION



The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and defending claims and any adverse outcomes and possible environmental liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



The Partnership's investment properties consist of two apartment complexes. The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the properties for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006:



|                             |           |     
|---------------------------- | --------- | ----
|                             | Average  
|                             | Occupancy
|Property                     | 2007      | 2006
|                             |           |     
|Parktown Townhouses (1)      |           |     
|Deer Park, Texas             | 88%       | 93% 
|Signal Pointe Apartments (2) |           |     
|Winter Park, Florida         | 91%       | 95% 



(1)

The Corporate General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy at Parktown Townhouses to units not being available for rent due to an ongoing construction project at the property and to competition in the local market.



(2)

The Corporate General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy at Signal Pointe Apartments to increased competition.



The Partnerships financial results depend upon a number of factors including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the investment properties, interest rates on mortgage loans, costs incurred to operate the investment properties, general economic conditions and weather. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the Corporate General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment properties to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the Corporate General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, the Corporate General Partner may use rental concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions; accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Corporate General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely or positively affect the Partnerships financial results.















Results of Operations



The Partnerships net income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007 was approximately $113,000 and $359,000, respectively, compared to net income of approximately $224,000 and $734,000, respectively, for the corresponding periods in 2006.  The decrease in net income for the three months ended September 30, 2007 is due to an increase in total expenses.  The decrease in net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 is due to an increase in total expenses and the recognition of a casualty gain in 2006.



Total expenses increased for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007 due to increases in operating, depreciation, property tax, and general and administrative expenses, partially offset by a decrease in interest expense.  Operating expenses increased for the three months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to contract maintenance expense at Signal Pointe Apartments and advertising expenses at both of the Partnerships investment properties.  Operating expense increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 due to increases in contract maintenance, repairs and clean up costs associated with water infiltration at Signal Pointe Apartments, insurance expense as a result of increased premiums at both investment properties and the receipt of insurance proceeds in 2006 to cover casualty cleanup costs at Parktown Townhouses, as discussed below.  Depreciation expense increased for both periods due to property improvements and replacements placed into service during the past twelve months at both investment properties.  Property tax expense increased for both periods primarily due to an increase in the assessed value of both properties and a refund received at Parktown Townhouses in 2006 as a result of the successful appeal of the assessed value of the property, partially offset by an increase in real estate taxes capitalized related to a construction project at Parktowne Townhouses. Interest expense decreased for both periods as a result of a reduction in interest on the mortgages encumbering the investment properties as a result of scheduled principal payments, which reduced the carrying balance of the loans, and an increase in the amount of interest capitalized related to a construction project at Parktown Townhouses.



The increase in general and administrative expenses for the three months ended September 30, 2007 is primarily due to an increase in professional expenses associated with the administration of the Partnership.  General and administrative expenses increased for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 primarily due to an increase in management reimbursements to an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement and an increase in legal costs associated with the amendment of the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.



Total revenues remained relatively constant for both the three and nine months ended September 30, 2007, as an increase in other income was substantially offset by a decrease in rental income.  Rental income decreased for both periods due to a decrease in occupancy, partially offset by an increase in the average rental rate at both investment properties. Other income increased for both periods primarily due to an increase in tenant utility reimbursements at Signal Pointe Apartments.



In November 2005, Signal Pointe Apartments incurred approximately $46,000 in damages from a fire.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership received insurance proceeds of approximately $39,000 and wrote off undepreciated damaged assets of approximately $8,000, resulting in a casualty gain of approximately $31,000.















In February 2005, Parktown Townhouses incurred damages from a fire. During the year ended December 31, 2005, the Partnership received insurance proceeds of approximately $192,000, estimated total building damages at approximately $309,000, wrote off undepreciated damaged assets of approximately $267,000 and did not recognize a loss related to this event as additional insurance proceeds were expected to be received during 2006. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership received additional insurance proceeds of approximately $66,000 for building damages and approximately $51,000 for emergency repairs and clean up costs incurred and charged to operating expenses during the year ended December 31, 2005. The Partnership changed its casualty calculation estimate upon completion of improvements and recorded a casualty gain in the amount of approximately $36,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 as a result of the write off of undepreciated damaged assets of approximately $223,000. This change in estimate resulted in an increase of approximately $48,000 of property improvements and replacements for the nine months ended September 30, 2006. The receipt of the $51,000 was reflected as a reduction to operating expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2006.



Liquidity and Capital Resources



At September 30, 2007, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $208,000, compared to approximately $261,000 at September 30, 2006. The decrease in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $10,000 from December 31, 2006 is due to approximately $1,435,000 of cash used in investing activities, partially offset by approximately $1,350,000 and $75,000 of cash provided by operating and financing activities, respectively.  Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements, partially offset by net withdrawals from a restricted escrow. Cash provided by financing activities consisted of advances from an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner, partially offset by principal payments made on the mortgages encumbering the Partnerships investment properties.  The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.



The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the properties to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state, and local legal and regulatory requirements. The Corporate General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance.  For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance. Capital improvements planned for each of the Partnership's properties are detailed below.



Parktown Townhouses



The Partnership completed approximately $654,000 of capital improvements at Parktown Townhouses during the nine months ended September 30, 2007, consisting primarily of structural upgrades, countertops, building improvements, and floor covering replacement. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property. The property is currently undergoing a construction project related to improvements to the buildings, as discussed above.  As a result of this project, interest expense of approximately $99,000, property tax expense of approximately $30,000 and operating costs of approximately $14,000 have been capitalized during the nine months ended September 30, 2007. Based on current construction plans, the Corporate General Partner anticipates the construction to be completed during the fourth quarter of 2007 at a total estimated cost of approximately $645,000.  The project is expected to be funded from operating cash flow and advances from an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner. In addition to the construction project, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2007. Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property.



Signal Pointe Apartments



During the nine months ended September 30, 2007, the Partnership completed approximately $30,000 of capital improvements at Signal Pointe Apartments arising from the redevelopment of the property. Additional capital improvements of approximately $869,000 were also completed which consisted primarily of building improvements, plumbing fixtures, fire safety upgrades, garbage disposals, structural upgrades, fencing, and air conditioning unit and floor covering replacements. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property.  In August 2007, the Partnership began a redevelopment project at Signal Pointe Apartments in order for the property to remain competitive in the Winter Park area.  Based on current redevelopment plans, the Corporate General Partner anticipates the redevelopment to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2008 at a total estimated cost of approximately $8,361,000, of which approximately $30,000 was completed as of September 30, 2007. The redevelopment is expected to consist of major landscaping, exterior and structural improvements, the addition of detached garages and storage units and the conversion of two clubhouses to a fitness center and internet café.  The project is expected to be funded from operations and advances from an affiliate of the Corporate General Partner.  In addition to the redevelopment project, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2007. Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property.



Capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from operations, Partnership reserves or advances from affiliates of the Corporate General Partner.  To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.



In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, prior to 2006 the Corporate General Partner loaned the Partnership funds primarily to assist in the hurricane cleanup and repairs required at Parktown Townhouses due to flood damage as well as operations at both of the Partnerships properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2007, the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $515,000 to pay real estate taxes at Parktown Townhouses and operating expenses at both properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Corporate General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $174,000 to pay outstanding accounts payable at both investment properties. During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Partnership repaid approximately $530,000 in advances and accrued interest. There were no such payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2007.  Interest on advances is charged at the prime rate plus 2%, or 9.75% at September 30, 2007. Interest expense was approximately $39,000 and $31,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. As of September 30, 2007, the indebtedness to the Corporate General Partner is approximately $651,000, including accrued interest, which is included in due to affiliates.



The Partnership's assets are thought to be generally sufficient for any near term needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering the Partnership's properties of approximately $13,484,000 is amortized over 240 months with a maturity date of January 1, 2021, at which time the loans are scheduled to be fully amortized.















No distributions were made during the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations and the timing of property sales and/or refinancings. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. In light of the amounts accrued and payable to affiliates of the Corporate General Partner at September 30, 2007 and the ongoing redevelopment project at Signal Pointe Apartments, there can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations after planned capital expenditures to permit any distributions to its partners in 2007 or subsequent periods.



The Partnership Agreement provides for partners to receive distributions from the net proceeds of the sales of properties, the net proceeds from refinancings and net cash from operations as those terms are defined in the Partnership Agreement. The Partnership Agreement requires that the limited partners be furnished with a statement of Net Cash from Operations as such term is defined in the Partnership Agreement. Net Cash from Operations should not be considered an alternative to net income as an indicator of the Partnership's operating performance or to cash flows as a measure of liquidity. Below is a reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities as disclosed in the statements of cash flows included in Item 1. Financial Statements to Net Cash from Operations as defined in the Partnership Agreement.



|                                                  |                   |        
|------------------------------------------------- | ----------------- | -------
|                                                  | Nine months ended
|                                                  | September 30,    
|                                                  | 2007              | 2006   
|                                                  | (in thousands)   
|Net cash provided by operating activities         | $ 1,350           | $ 1,413
|Payments on mortgage notes payable                | (440)             | (410)  
|Property improvements and replacements            | (1,461)           | (888)  
|Change in restricted escrows, net                 | 26                | 9      
|Changes in reserves for net operating liabilities | (125)             | 105    
|Additional reserves                               | --                | (229)  
|Net cash used in operations                       | $(650)            | $--    



During the nine months ended September 30, 2006, the Corporate General Partner reserved approximately $229,000 to fund capital improvements and repairs at the Partnerships investment properties.  Distributions made from reserves no longer considered necessary by the Corporate General Partner are considered to be additional cash from operations for allocation purposes.



Other



In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 21,668.50 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 78.79% of the outstanding Units at September 30, 2007. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional Units in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unitholders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the Corporate General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 78.79% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the Corporate General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the Corporate General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the Corporate General Partner, as corporate general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the Corporate General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder.



Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates



The financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity.



Impairment of Long-Lived Assets



Investment properties are recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless the carrying amount of the asset is not recoverable.  If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of a property may not be recoverable, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by comparing the carrying amount to the Partnerships estimate of the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property.   If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate undiscounted future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the estimated fair value of the property.



Real property investment is subject to varying degrees of risk.  Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnerships investment properties.  These factors include, but are not limited to, general economic climate; competition from other apartment communities and other housing options; local conditions, such as loss of jobs or an increase in the supply of apartments that might adversely affect apartment occupancy or rental rates; changes in governmental regulations and the related cost of compliance; increases in operating costs (including real estate taxes) due to inflation and other factors, which may not be offset by increased rents; and changes in tax laws and housing laws, including the enactment of rent control laws or other laws regulating multi-family housing.  Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnerships assets.



Capitalized Costs Related to Redevelopment & Construction Projects



The Partnership capitalizes costs incurred in connection with capital expenditure activities, including redevelopment and construction projects. Costs including interest, property taxes and operating costs associated with redevelopment and construction projects are capitalized during periods in which redevelopment and construction projects are in progress in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 34, Capitalization of Interest Costs and SFAS No. 67, Accounting for Costs and the Initial Rental Operations of Real Estate Properties. Included in these capitalized costs are payroll costs associated with time spent by site employees in connection with the planning, execution and control of all capital expenditure activities at the property level.



Revenue Recognition



The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less.  The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area.  Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.  The Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than 30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.













ITEM 3.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES



(a)

Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Partnerships management, with the participation of the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Corporate General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnerships principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnerships disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Corporate General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnerships principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Partnerships disclosure controls and procedures are effective.



(b)

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes in the Partnerships internal control over financial reporting (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnerships internal control over financial reporting.













PART II - OTHER INFORMATION



ITEM 1.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS



In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its Corporate General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain Corporate General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities that were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, during the third quarter of 2001, a complaint captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The Heller action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution. On January 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint.  Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order.



On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. On June 13, 2003, the court granted final approval of the settlement and entered judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector ("Objector") filed an appeal (the Appeal) seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the courts use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees.



On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals.  With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial courts order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.  The matter was transferred back to the trial court on June 21, 2005.  With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts order striking the first amended complaint.



On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for cause on October 17, 2005, both of which were ultimately denied and/or struck by the trial court.  On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.  On November 14, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Motion For Further Findings pursuant to the remand ordered by the Court of Appeals. Defendants joined in that motion.  On February 3, 2006, the Court held a hearing on the various matters pending before it and ordered additional briefing from the parties and Objector. On June 30, 2006, the trial court entered an order confirming its approval of the class action settlement and entering judgment thereto after the Court of Appeals had remanded the matter for further findings.  The substantive terms of the settlement agreement remain unchanged.  The trial court also entered supplemental orders on July 1, 2006, denying Objectors Motion to File a Complaint in Intervention, Objectors Motion for Leave of Discovery and Objectors Motion to Dissolve the Anti-Suit Injunction.  Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on July 10, 2006.  On August 31, 2006, the Objector filed a Notice of Appeal to the Courts June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 orders. On December 14, 2006, Objector filed his Appellants Brief.  The Partnership and its affiliates, as well as counsel for the Settlement Class, both filed Respondents Briefs on May 17, 2007.  Objector filed his response on August 3, 2007.  No hearing date has yet been scheduled.



The Corporate General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnerships overall operations.



ITEM 5.

OTHER INFORMATION



On September 7, 2007, the Partnership filed an information statement notifying holders of limited partnership units that AIMCO and its affiliates, owning 21,668.50 limited partnership units, or approximately 78.79% of total outstanding limited partnership units, agreed to amend the Partnership Agreement. The amendment would explicitly permit the Corporate General Partner and its affiliates to provide services to the Partnership in connection with the redevelopment of Signal Pointe Apartments, and to receive fees or other compensation for such services, provided that any such compensation shall not exceed an amount which is competitive in price and terms with non-affiliated parties rendering comparable services. An affiliate of the Corporate General Partner is to receive a $25,000 redevelopment planning fee and a redevelopment supervision fee of 4% of the total actual redevelopment costs, or approximately $312,000 based on current estimated redevelopment costs.



On September 27, 2007, the written consent expired pursuant to its terms.  The amendment to the Partnership Agreement was executed on September 27, 2007 and the redevelopment planning and supervision fees will be paid.



ITEM 6.

EXHIBITS



See Exhibit Index.













SIGNATURES







In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.







|                       |                                    
|---------------------- | -----------------------------------
|                       | SHELTER PROPERTIES II              
|                       |                                    
|                       | By:   Shelter Realty II Corporation
|                       | Corporate General Partner          
|                       |                                    
|Date: November 8, 2007 | By:   /s/Martha L. Long            
|                       | Martha L. Long                     
|                       | Senior Vice President              
|                       |                                    
|Date: November 8, 2007 | By:   /s/Stephen B. Waters         
|                       | Stephen B. Waters                  
|                       | Vice President                     













SHELTER PROPERTIES II



EXHIBIT INDEX





Exhibit

Description of Exhibit



3

See Exhibit 4(a)



4

(a)

Amended and Restated Certificate and Agreement of Limited Partnership [included as Exhibit A to the Prospectus of Registrant dated February 2, 1981 contained in Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 2-69507 of Registrant filed February 2, 1981 (the "Prospectus") and incorporated herein by reference].



(b)

Subscription Agreements and Signature Pages [Filed with Amendment No. 1 of Registration Statement No. 2-69507, of Registrant and incorporated herein by reference].



(c)

Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Certificate and Agreement of Limited Partnership, dated September 27, 2007.



10(i)

Contracts related to acquisition or disposition of properties.



(a)

Purchase Agreement dated December 31, 1980, between Hubris, Inc. and U.S. Shelter Corporation to purchase Parktown Townhouse.*



*Filed as Exhibit 12(a) to Amendment No. 1 of Registration Statement No. 2-69507 of Registrant filed February 2, 1981 and incorporated herein by reference.



(iii)

Contracts related to refinancing of debt:



(g)

Multifamily note dated December 15, 2000 , by and between Registrant and Reilly Mortgage Group, Inc., for Parktown Townhouses Apartments.**



(i)

Multifamily note dated December 15, 2000 , by and between Registrant and Reilly Mortgage Group, Inc., for Signal Pointe Apartments.**



**Filed as Exhibit 10(iii) (g) and (i), respectively, to Form 10-KSB of Registrant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 and incorporated herein by reference.



31.1

Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



31.2

Certification of equivalent of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



32.1

Certification of the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.