alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### EXCELLO CORPORATION v. CONNOR et al.

Civ. No. 881-49.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

March 31, 1950.

*289Anthony P. Kearns, Newark, N. J., for plaintiff.

William P. Elliott, Plainfield, N. J., for defendants.

SMITH, District Judge.

This action is before the Court at this time on the motion of the defendants to dismiss the complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The complaint meets the requirements of Rule 8(a) (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and is therefore sufficient. The ground urged by the defendants in their brief is without merit.

The case of Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corporation, 3 Cir., 169 F. 2d 580, is dispositive of the only question raised by the motion. It was therein held, 169 F.2d at page 581, that on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim “the complaint must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and that the complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim; further, no matter how likely it may seem that the pleader [may] be unable to prove his case, he is entitled, upon averring a claim, to an opportunity to try to prove it.” See, also, Continental Collieries v. Shober, 3 Cir., 130 F.2d 631, 635; Manosky v. Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, 1 Cir., 177 F.2d 529, 531; Asher v. Ruppa, 7 Cir., 173 F.2d 10, 12; Mullen v. Fitz Simons & Connell Dredge & Dock Co., 7 Cir., 172 F.2d 601, 603; Carroll v. Morrison Hotel Corporation, 7 Cir., 149 F.2d 404, 407; Cool v. International Shoe Co., 8 Cir., 142 F.2d 318, 320; Garbutt v. Blanding Mines Co., 10 Cir., 141 F.2d 679; Musteen v. Johnson, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 106, 108; Leimer v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 8 Cir., 108 F.2d 302, 305, 306. There can be no doubt that the law is now well settled.

There are three additional grounds stated in the defendants’ Notice of Motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person; and (3) improper venue. These grounds have apparently been abandoned by the defendants, but notwithstanding this abandonment, we have considered them and find them to be without merit.

An examination of the complaint discloses that the jurisdictional allegations are defective in that there is an averment of a “diversity of residence,” as distinguished from a “diversity of citizenship.” This defect is not fatal if “diversity of citizenship” actually exists. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1653. The plaintiff will be granted leave to amend the jurisdictional allegations.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied.
75

Table 34. Multiple jobholders and multiple jobholding rates by sex and race, May of selected years, 1970-2005,

not seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thousands)

Multiple jobholders

Number

Percent of 

all multiple 

jobholders

1970......... 78,358 4,048 636 15.7 3,412 5.2 2.2 7.0 5.3 4.4

1971......... 78,708 4,035 765 19.0 3,270 5.1 2.6 6.7 5.3 3.8

1972......... 81,224 3,770 735 19.5 3,035 4.6 2.4 6.0 4.8 3.7

1973......... 83,758 4,262 869 20.4 3,393 5.1 2.7 6.6 5.1 4.7

1974......... 85,786 3,889 867 22.3 3,022 4.5 2.6 5.8 4.6 3.8

1975......... 84,146 3,918 956 24.4 2,962 4.7 2.9 5.8 4.8 3.7

1976......... 87,278 3,948 911 23.1 3,037 4.5 2.6 5.8 4.7 2.8

1977......... 90,482 4,558 1,241 27.2 3,317 5.0 3.4 6.2 5.3 2.6

1978......... 93,904 4,493 1,281 28.5 3,212 4.8 3.3 5.8 5.0 3.1

1979......... 96,327 4,724 1,407 29.8 3,317 4.9 3.5 5.9 5.1 3.0

1980......... 96,809 4,759 1,549 32.5 3,210 4.9 3.8 5.8 5.1 3.2

1985......... 106,878 5,730 2,192 38.3 3,537 5.4 4.7 5.9 5.7 3.2

1989......... 117,084 7,225 3,109 43.0 4,115 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.5 4.3

1991........... 116,626 7,183 3,129 43.6 4,054 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.4 4.9

1994......... 122,946 7,316 3,343 45.7 3,973 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.1 4.9

1995.......... 124,554 7,952 3,727 46.9 4,225 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.6 5.2

1996......... 126,391 7,846 3,494 44.5 4,352 6.2 6.0 6.4 6.4 5.1

1997......... 129,565 8,197 3,800 46.4 4,398 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.5 5.7

1998......... 131,476 8,126 3,688 45.4 4,438 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.3 5.5

1999......... 133,411 7,895 3,778 47.9 4,117 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.0 5.5

2000......... 136,685 7,751 3,667 47.3 4,084 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.9 4.9

2001......... 137,121 7,540 3,626 48.1 3,914 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.3

2002......... 136,559 7,247 3,511 48.4 3,736 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.5 4.7

2003......... 137,567 7,338 3,498 47.7 3,841 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.5 4.3

2004......... 138,867 7,258 3,605 49.7 3,653 5.2 5.6 4.9 5.3 5.1

2005......... 141,730 6,895 3,402 49.3 3,493 4.9 5.2 4.6 5.4 4.4

Men White

Black or 

African 

American2

Year Total 

employed

Multiple jobholding rate1

Total

Women

Men Total Women

1 Multiple jobholders as a percent of all employed persons in

specified group.

2 Data for years prior to 1977 refer to the black-and-other population group.

NOTE: Data from 1994-2004 are not strictly comparable with

data for prior years. For an explanation, see "Historical Comparability" under the Household Data section of the Explanatory Notes

and Estimates of Error in Employment and Earnings. Comprehensive surveys of multiple jobholders were not conducted in 1981-84,

1986-88, 1990, and 1992-93.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of

Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 20, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40227 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE MIRANDA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-02-CR-589-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Miranda-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Miranda-Lopez complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Miranda-Lopez thus contends that his sentence should not exceedNo. 03-40227 -2- the maximum terms of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Miranda-Lopez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-101174 and 333-64228 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-69552, 333-55886
and 333-55884) pertaining to the Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement, the Post
Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-3 to Form S-2, the AtheroGenics, Inc. 2001
Equity Ownership Plan, the AtheroGenics, Inc Equity Ownership Plan and the
AtheroGenics, Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, respectively, of our report dated
February 5, 2003, with respect to the financial statements of AtheroGenics,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2002.


Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 2003
ex101.htm


Exhibit 10.1







FORM OF DEBT PURCHASE AND ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT




 


This Debt Purchase and Assignment Agreement (“Debt Purchase Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of March 5, 2013 by and between Richard Brock (“Brock”) and _____________ (“Purchaser”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, Vidaroo Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada (“VIDA”) and is indebted to Brock in the amount of $40,019.00 under a Promissory Note (the “Debt”) dated May 16, 2012; and


 


WHEREAS, Brock warrants and represents that VIDA is indebted to him in the amount of $40,019.00; and


 


WHEREAS, Purchaser desires to purchase $________ of the Debt owed by VIDA to Brock; and


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Transfer and Assignment. As permitted by VIDA, Brock hereby irrevocably sells, assigns, and transfers his rights, title, and ownership in and conversion rights of $________ of the Debt to Purchaser. The remaining rights and interests in the balance of the Debt shall remain with Brock.


 


2. Consideration. Consideration to be paid to Brock shall be a total of $500.00, which payment shall be due at such time as the shares underlying the Debt have been fully issued and cleared.


 


3. Consent to Assignment and Agreement to be Bound. VIDA hereby consents to the assignment of debt by Brock to Purchaser and agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions and obligations imposed upon it under the Debt.


 


4. Entire Agreement. This Debt Purchase Agreement embodies the entire agreement between Brock and Purchaser and supersedes any prior agreements, whether written or oral with respect to the subject matter thereof.


 


5. Successors. This Debt Purchase Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each of the parties to this Debt Purchase Agreement and each of their respective successors and assigns.


 


6. Counterparts. This Debt Purchase Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.







7. Non-Affiliate Status. Brock hereby represents and warrants that neither he nor any of his affiliates is a control person or an affiliate of VIDA and that neither he nor any of his affiliates has been an affiliate of VIDA at time during the past 90 days.


 




  





1











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Debt Purchase and Assignment Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first written above.


 


 



	"Brock": 	"Purchaser":





 


                    








Richard Brock



 



	 	By: 	 








	
  

	
Name:









	 	Title:







 




ACCEPTED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED:







VIDAROO COROPRATION

















By: 







       Thomas Moreland


   Chief Executive Officer


 


 


 


 


2
ACCEPTED

01-14-00999-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/4/2015 3:38:31 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/4/2015 3:38:31 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 6
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 7
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 8
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 9
Case 2:11-cv-03375-JLL-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/18/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 10
Table 17. Median usual weekly earnings of employed full-time 

wage and salary workers 25 years and over by educational 

attainment and sex, 2007 annual averages

Total, both sexes

Total................................................. 96,089 $738

 Less than a high school diploma ............ 8,746 428

 High school graduate or more1

............. 87,344 773

 High school graduates, no college1

...... 27,997 604

 Some college or associate degree......... 26,190 704

 Some college, no degree................... 16,486 683

 Associate degree............................ 9,704 740

 Occupational program..................... 4,812 732

 Academic program......................... 4,891 749

 College graduates, total..................... 33,157 1,072

 Bachelor's degree............................ 21,673 987

 Master's degree.............................. 8,367 1,165

 Professional degree......................... 1,646 1,427

 Doctoral degree.............................. 1,471 1,497

Women

Total.................................................. 42,249 646

 Less than a high school diploma............ 2,756 369

 High school graduate or more1............. 39,493 673

 High school graduates, no college1

...... 11,744 512

 Some college or associate degree......... 12,475 609

 Some college, no degree................... 7,625 592

 Associate degree............................ 4,850 640

 Occupational program..................... 2,296 620

 Academic program......................... 2,554 661

 College graduates, total..................... 15,274 932

 Bachelor's degree........................... 9,974 860

 Master's degree.............................. 4,193 1,034

 Professional degree......................... 621 1,177

 Doctoral degree................................ 487 1,279

 Educational attainment and sex Total employed 

(in thousands)

Median weekly 

earnings

53
Table 17. Median usual weekly earnings of employed full-time 

wage and salary workers 25 years and over by educational 

attainment and sex, 2007 annual averages—Continued

Men

Total................................................. 53,840 $823

 Less than a high school diploma............ 5,990 481

 High school graduate or more1............. 47,851 883

 High school graduates, no college1

...... 16,253 689

 Some college or associate degree......... 13,715 810

 Some college, no degree................... 8,861 784

 Associate degree............................ 4,854 857

 Occupational program..................... 2,516 852

 Academic program......................... 2,338 862

 College graduates, total..................... 17,883 1,243

 Bachelor's degree............................ 11,699 1,147

 Master's degree.............................. 4,174 1,375

 Professional degree........................... 1,025 1,612

 Doctoral degree............................... 984 1,606

Educational attainment and sex Total employed 

(in thousands)

Median weekly 

earnings

 1 Includes persons with a high school diploma or equivalent.

 SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

54
V.

CONTINUANCE ORDER LANCE POWELL

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for theDistrict of New Jersey (by Shirley U. Emehelu, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, appearing), and defendant Lance Powell (by PaulCasteleiro, Esq., appearing) for an order granting a continuance

of the proceedings in the above—captioned matter for a period of

sixty (60) days, and the defendant being aware that he has a

right to have the matter brought to trial within seventy (70)

days from the filing date of the indictment, or from the date of

his appearance before a judicial officer of this court, whichever

date last occurs, pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code,

Section 3161(c) (1), and as the defendant has consented to such a

continuance, and for good and sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

1. The arraignment in this matter was adjourned to

July 6, 2011 due to defense counsel’s inability to attend the

originally scheduled arraignment, due to illness;

2, Defense counsel will require adequate time to
permitted a reasonable amount of additional time for effective

preparation in this matter;

4. Defendant has consented to the aforementioned

continuance; and

5. Pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code,

Section 3161(h) (7), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

WHEREFORE, on this *t day of June, 2011,

IT IS ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is,

continued for a period of sixty (60) days from June 29, 2011

through and including August 28, 2011; and it is further

ORDERED that the period from June 29, 2011 through and

including August 28, 2011 shall be excludable in computing time

under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, pursuant to Title 18, United

States Code, Section 3161(h) (7).

f_H.,‘fEY .CHESLER

United States District Judge
Paul Castelejro, Esq.

Counsel for defendant Lance Powell
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 34 PageID: 172
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 2 of 34 PageID: 173
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 3 of 34 PageID: 174
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 4 of 34 PageID: 175
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 5 of 34 PageID: 176
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 6 of 34 PageID: 177
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 7 of 34 PageID: 178
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 8 of 34 PageID: 179
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 9 of 34 PageID: 180
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 10 of 34 PageID: 181
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 11 of 34 PageID: 182
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 12 of 34 PageID: 183
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 13 of 34 PageID: 184
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 14 of 34 PageID: 185
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 15 of 34 PageID: 186
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 16 of 34 PageID: 187
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 17 of 34 PageID: 188
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 18 of 34 PageID: 189
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 19 of 34 PageID: 190
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 20 of 34 PageID: 191
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 21 of 34 PageID: 192
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 22 of 34 PageID: 193
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 23 of 34 PageID: 194
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 24 of 34 PageID: 195
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 25 of 34 PageID: 196
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 26 of 34 PageID: 197
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 27 of 34 PageID: 198
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 28 of 34 PageID: 199
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 29 of 34 PageID: 200
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 30 of 34 PageID: 201
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 31 of 34 PageID: 202
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 32 of 34 PageID: 203
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 33 of 34 PageID: 204
Case 3:11-cv-04275-JAP-DEA Document 24 Filed 09/26/11 Page 34 of 34 PageID: 205
#### The Venner.1

*(District Court, E. D. New York.*

December 15, 1885.)

1. Carrier—Off Goods by Ship—Damage to Cargo — Odor off Petroleum— Proof.

On the evidence, *held,*that the damage to canaryrseed, claimed by libelants to have occurred from tlie odor of petroleum, while on the hark Venner, had not been proved, and that the action must therefore fail.

2. Same—Delivery off Cargo—Shortage—Bill off Lading—“Weight and Contents Unknown ”—Evidence.

There can he no recovery for short delivery whore the hill of lading says “weight and contents unknown,” and no testimony is offered to show how much cargo was shipped, while the testimony from tho ship is that all taken on board was delivered.

In Admiralty.

*Scudder & Carter,*for libelants, D. V. Arguimbau and others.

*Wilcox, Adams & Macklin,*for claimant.

1

 Reported by R. D. *&*Wyllys Benedict, Esqs., of tho New York bar.

Benedict, J.

If the canary-seed while on board tho vessel was damaged by petroleum, the liability of the vessel for such damage cannot be disputed, whether the damage arose from actual contact with petroleum, or from the fumes of petroleum caused by the heat of the hold. The decisive question of the case is whether the seed was so damaged while on board the vessel. Upon this question of fact the testimony is conflicting, and I am unable to say that Ihe existence of such damage to this seed at the time of its discharge from the ship has been proved. Furthermore, there is uncontradicted testimony that no odor of petroleum could be detected on the seed claimed to have been damaged, when carefully examined some time subsequent to its discharge; that a sample taken from this part of tho seed was actually fed to a canary, and eaten by the bird without objection or injury; and a sample is produced in court in which no odor of petroleum is discovered. This testimony seems to prove that, if the seed had been tainted with the odor of petroleum while on the vessel, that odor disappeared in time, and left the seed as valuable as before. Such being the fact, the action must fail because no damage is proved. In this connection it is to be remarked that there is no evidence that the seed was sold as damaged, and if the sample produced in court is a fair sample, as is testified, no reason is seen for selling it as damaged.

There is also a claim for short delivery; but the bill of lading says: “Weight and contents unknown.” No testimony is offered to show how much the bags contained when shipped, and that they were all full, and the testimony from the ship is that all taken on hoard was delivered.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**RULE
      13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
      AND**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report of Eugene Science, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Seung Kwon Noh, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





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





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





Date:
                October 26, 2007
            
            /s/
                Seung Kwon NohSeung
                Kwon NohPresident
                & Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)
      under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall
      not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.