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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Stanley, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended December 25, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Philip O. Nolan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Brian J. Clark, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                 The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                 The information contained inthe Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  PHILIP O. NOLAN                                             |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Philip  O. Nolan                                                 |   |
| Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
| January 28,  2010                                           |   |
|                                                             |   |
|                                                             |   |
| /s/  BRIAN J. CLARK                                              |   |
| Brian  J. Clark                                                  |   |
| Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
| January 28,  2010                                           |   |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration StatementNos. 333-34019, 333-01019, 333-52199, 333-133389, and 333-133391 on Form S-8 of Calgon Carbon Corporation of our report dated April 24, 2007, (with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Chemviron Carbon Limited as of December 31, 2004,and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows, for the year then ended not presented separately herein), which report appears in the December 31, 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Calgon CarbonCorporation. 

KPMG LLP 

Manchester, United Kingdom 

April 24, 2007
Case 2:10-cv-06424-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 128
Case 2:10-cv-06424-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 129
Case 2:10-cv-06424-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 130
Case 2:10-cv-06424-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 02/10/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 131
Case 2:10-cv-06424-FSH -PS Document 12 Filed 02/10/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 132
IC 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1196 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2019 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, as the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

S 1196 RFH

1 SECTION 1. FIRE CAPTAIN CORY BARR POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1715 Linnerud Drive in Sun 

5 Prairie, Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Fire Captain Cory Barr Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fire Captain Cory 

11 Barr Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the Senate July 30, 2019. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 35
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 36
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 37
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 38
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 39
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 40
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 41
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 42
Case 2:10-cv-03728-SRC Document 2 Filed 10/22/10 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 43
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

JOAN WEINER

:

Plaintiff (s)

: Civil No. 10-6296 (JHR-JS)

vs.

:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

:

TRUMP MARINA et al.

:

Defendant (s)

:

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

It appearing to the Court that the above case has been pending for more than 120

days without any proceeding having been taken therein, and no objection having been entered at

a call of the calendar,

IT IS on this 20th day of July, 2011

ORDERED that the above case be and the same hereby is dismissed in

accordance with General Rule 41.1(a) and/or Rule 4(m), F.R.C.P., without prejudice and without

cost to either party.

 s / Joseph H. Rodriguez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez

Hon. Joel Schneider

Case 1:10-cv-06296-JHR-JS Document 6 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 56
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 34 PageID: 535
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 2 of 34 PageID: 536
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 3 of 34 PageID: 537
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 4 of 34 PageID: 538
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 5 of 34 PageID: 539
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 6 of 34 PageID: 540
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 7 of 34 PageID: 541
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 8 of 34 PageID: 542
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 9 of 34 PageID: 543
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 10 of 34 PageID: 544
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 11 of 34 PageID: 545
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 12 of 34 PageID: 546
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 13 of 34 PageID: 547
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 14 of 34 PageID: 548
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 15 of 34 PageID: 549
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 16 of 34 PageID: 550
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 17 of 34 PageID: 551
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 18 of 34 PageID: 552
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 19 of 34 PageID: 553
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 20 of 34 PageID: 554
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 21 of 34 PageID: 555
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 22 of 34 PageID: 556
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 23 of 34 PageID: 557
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 24 of 34 PageID: 558
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 25 of 34 PageID: 559
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 26 of 34 PageID: 560
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 27 of 34 PageID: 561
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 28 of 34 PageID: 562
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 29 of 34 PageID: 563
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 30 of 34 PageID: 564
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 31 of 34 PageID: 565
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 32 of 34 PageID: 566
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 33 of 34 PageID: 567
Case 2:10-cv-06269-SRC-MAS Document 36 Filed 07/12/11 Page 34 of 34 PageID: 568
1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SXC Health Solutions Corp.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
 b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: November 4, 2010By:
    /s/ Mark ThiererMark ThiererChief Executive Officer
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-2-1998

United States v. Urban

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 97-7107

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"United States v. Urban" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 64.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/64
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 No. 97-7107 

 USA v. FREDERICK URBAN 

 The following modifications have been made to the Court's 

Opinion issued on March 20, 1998, in the above-entitled appeal 

and will appear as part of the final version of the opinion: 

 In first full sentence of the second full paragraph on page 

8, the word "either" is to be inserted between the words, "parts" 

and "designed." 

 In the same sentence the word, "destructive" is to be 

substituted for the word "constructive." 

 In the same sentence, "(2)" should be changed to read 

"(2)...." 

 Accordingly, the first sentence of the first full paragraph 

on page 8 of the slip opinion should read: 

 Section 5845(f)(3) limits its application to "any 

 combination of parts either designed or intended for 

 use in converting any device into a destructive device 

 as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2).... 

 

 Very truly yours, 

 /s/ P. Douglas Sisk, 

 Clerk 

Dated: April 2, 1998
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 378
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 379
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 380
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 381
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 382
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 383
Case 3:10-cv-06489-PGS -LHG Document 31 Filed 01/05/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 384
[894 NYS2d 810]

#### Alphonse Hotel Corp., Respondent, v Destiny Roseboom, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 18, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Destiny Roseboom,*appellant pro se. *Catabro & Associates, P.C.,*New York City, for respondent.

*68OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order, dated October 3, 2008, reversed, without costs, and landlord’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

The proper resolution of this nonpayment summary proceeding, and tenant’s rent overcharge counterclaim, rests upon whether the demised hotel unit is subject to rent stabilization coverage, a question which, in turn, hinges on whether the “rent charged” for the unit was $350 or less per month or $88 or less per week on May 31, 1968 (Rent Stabilization Law of 1969 [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-506 [a]; *see Towers Hotel Invs. Corp. v Davis,*54 AD2d 730 [1976], *affd*42 NY2d 923 [1977]). In moving for summary judgment, petitioner landlord failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish as a matter of law the deregulated status of the hotel unit. The sparse documentation relied upon by landlord, including the 1968 edition of the national “Hotel & Motel Red Book” indicating that single-occupancy rates for any of the 700 units in the subject hotel premises ranged from between $11 to $14 per day at that time, fell short of meeting landlord’s initial burden to establish prima facie that the rental value of tenant’s unit exceeded the applicable monetary floor on the statutory base date. Significantly, the $11 minimum daily rate referenced in the 1968 red book, projected over a weekly or monthly rental, serves to undermine landlord’s litigation position.

Nor should collateral estoppel effect be given to a jury finding of no stabilization coverage, made in connection with a prior eviction proceeding brought against another tenant of a different unit located on the same floor of the hotel premises. By virtue of her status as a nonparty in the earlier eviction proceeding, tenant was not afforded “a full and fair opportunity to contest the [determination] now said to be controlling” *(Schwartz v Public Adm’r of County of Bronx,*24 NY2d 65, 71 [1969]; *see Liss v Trans Auto Sys.,*68 NY2d 15 [1986]).

We note that upon the trial of this matter the landlord, not tenant, will bear the evidentiary burden to establish the 1968 rental value of the hotel unit *(see Alphonse Hotel Corp. v Fusco,*189 Misc 2d 219 [2001]).

McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-14796

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PETER CHRISTIAN BOULETTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 2:06-cr-00131-RDP-HNJ-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 20-14796 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14796-AA

Before JILL PRYOR, BRASHER, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

On October 21, 2020, the district court entered an order 

denying Peter Boulette’s motion for compassionate release under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Under criminal timeliness rules, Boulette had 14 days to file a notice of appeal, i.e., until November 4, 

2020. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1); see also United States v. Fair, 

326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003) (explaining that a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is criminal in nature). The deadline in 

Rule 4(b) for a defendant to file a notice of appeal in a criminal 

case is not jurisdictional. United States v. Lopez, 562 F.3d 1309, 

1313 (11th Cir. 2009). Instead, the filing deadline is considered a 

claims-processing rule, and the government can waive an objection to an untimely notice of appeal. Id. at 1312–13. Nevertheless, if the government raises the issue of timeliness, then we 

“must apply the time limits of Rule 4(b).” Id. at 1313–14.

In its brief, the government argues that this appeal should 

be dismissed as untimely. Indeed, Boulette’s signed notice of appeal is dated December 2, 2020. Absent evidence that Boulette 

provided his notice of appeal to prison authorities for mailing at 

an earlier date, the notice of appeal is deemed filed on December 

2 and is, therefore, untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). However, in criminal cases, we have customarily treated a late notice 

USCA11 Case: 20-14796 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 2 of 3
20-14018 Opinion of the Court 3

of appeal that is filed within the 30 days during which an extension is permissible as a motion for an extension of time and remanded to the district court for a finding of good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Ward, 

696 F.2d 1315, 1317-18 (11th Cir. 1983); United States v. Rothseiden, 680 F.2d 96, 98 (11th Cir. 1982). 

Because Boulette’s notice of appeal was filed after the 14-

day appeal period but within the next 30 days, we REMAND the 

case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the 

court to determine whether Boulette has shown excusable neglect 

or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. Following this limited remand, the record as supplemented will be 

returned to this Court for further consideration. We defer ruling 

on the government’s request to dismiss pending the limited remand.

USCA11 Case: 20-14796 Date Filed: 11/16/2021 Page: 3 of 3
Cherry 

J. 

after the expiration of the 30-day time to appeal. Because the notice of 

appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED 

"c

Parraguirre 24jtar 

. 1.°114 

Douglas 

J. 

J. 

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

The Law Firm of Nathan L. Gent, PLLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County District Attorney 

Nye County Clerk 

Jacob Dakota Varner 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
### FOR PUBLICATION


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  S YMANTEC C ORPORATION ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 07-56758 G LOBAL I MPACT , I NC ., a Florida Corporation doing business as D.C. No.



#  www.global-impact.com, Global CV-07-00126-DMS Impact, Global Impact, Inc. ORDER Distribution, and Global Impact Corporation; J OSEPH C RISTINA , an individual, Defendants-Appellants. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 4, 2009* Pasadena, California

Filed March 11, 2009

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, and

Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

3117COUNSEL

Lorne Adam Kaiser, Romanello Professional Association, Sunrise, Florida, for appellants Joseph Christina and Global Impact, Inc.

Mark D. Baute, Patrick M. Maloney, and Henry H. Gonzalez, Baute & Tidus LLP, Los Angeles, California, for appellee Symantec Corporation.

ORDER

Global Impact, Inc. ( “Global ”) appeals the district court’s orders denying its motions to set aside the entry of default and reconsider the same. The clerk entered default against Globalwhen it failed to plead or otherwise defend the adversary proceeding brought by Symantec Corporation. We dismiss because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte. See Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd.

, 487 F.3d 759,763 (9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Global’s assertions, the district court has not entered a default judgment against it; it has entered only a default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)-(b) (describing the two-step process of “Entering a Default ” and “Entering a Default Judgment ”). Whereas we have jurisdiction to review a district court’s order denying a motion to set aside the entry of a default judgment, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Jeff D. v. Kempthorne , 365 F.3d 844, 849-50 (9th Cir. 2004), we lack jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside the entry of default alone, see Haw. Carpenters’ Trust Funds v. Stone , 794 F.2d 508, 512 (9th Cir. 1986) (entry of default is not a final appealable order); Baker v. Limber

, 3118 S YMANTEC C ORP . v. G LOBAL I MPACT647 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1981) (same). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. **1**

DISMISSED.

**1** Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we express no opinion on the merits of the district court’s orders. 3119

S YMANTEC C ORP . v. G LOBAL I MPACTPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November 17,      2009 | By:    | /s/      Wu, Man-Shing                                  |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        |   | Wu,      Man-Shing                                           |   |
|                        |   | Chief      Executive OfficerPrincipal      Executive Officer |   |

----