alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 22, 2005 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §§1171, 1172. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Section 1171, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §202(d), 42 Stat. 1462, related to corporate powers in general, directors and officers.

Section 1172, acts Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §203(a), 42 Stat. 1462; Feb. 8, 1927, ch. 74, 44 Stat. 1059, related to additional powers under regulation of Comptroller.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF - Micronesia		 

Home : Media : Photos

slide show module

Lt. Rachel Lee Performs Preflight Checks

84th Engineer Battalion builds warehouse in Itbayat

Tiger Strike 24: Amphibious Assault

MRF-D 24.3 U.S. Marines, Sailors embark HMAS Adelaide for Wet and Dry Exercise Rehearsal

USS Louisiana Depart Naval Base Guam

USS Ralph Johnson Conducts Replenishment at Sea with USS Ronald Reagan

Tiger Strike 24: Fast-Rope and PZ Operations

BTF flies farther with 909th ARS support

Tiger Strike 24: Amphibious Operations in the South China Sea

JPMRC-X - Air Assault to Jungle Base
# C_2007069EN.01002401.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/24

---

Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen v OHIM (α)

(Case T-23/07)

(2007/C 69/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Borco-Marken-Import Matthiesen GbmH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by M. Wolter, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 November 2006 in Case R 0808/2006-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 November 2006 in Case R 0808/2006-4;

| — | Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 do not preclude publication of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 33 (‘alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), wines, sparkling wines and beverages containing wine’); |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 do not preclude publication of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 33 (‘alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), wines, sparkling wines and beverages containing wine’);

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘α ’for goods in Class 33 (Application No 4 634 663).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that it is wrongly held that absolute grounds for refusal exist. Furthermore, the scope and meaning of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 are misconstrued.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).

1

---
§ 162.423 When are monetary compensation payments due under a business lease? ( a ) A business lease must specify the dates on which all payments are due.
( b ) Unless the lease provides otherwise, payments may not be made or accepted more than one year in advance of the due date.
( c ) Payments are due at the time specified in the lease, regardless of whether the lessee receives an advance billing or other notice that a payment is due.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4538

MICHAEL SHANNON MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.

Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CR-99-58)

Submitted: December 21, 2000

Decided: January 11, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Rick A. Mountcastle, Assistant

United States Attorney, Andrew Russell, Third-Year Law Student,

Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Michael Shannon Moore appeals his seventy-eight-month sentence

imposed after he pled guilty to five counts of mailing threatening

communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West 2000). He

contends that the district court should have grouped the offenses

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3D1.2(c) (1998). Finding

no reversible error, we affirm. 

When considering the district court’s application of the guidelines,

we review factual findings for clear error and legal interpretations de

novo. United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890, 911 (4th Cir. 2000);

United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting

that application of grouping principles in USSG § 3D1.2 moves closer

to de novo review). The plain language of the commentary to USSG

§ 2A6.1 provides that "multiple counts involving making a threatening . . . communication to the same victim are grouped together under

§ 3D1.2[,] . . . [but] [m]ultiple counts involving different victims are

not to be grouped under § 3D1.2." USSG § 2A6.1, comment. (n.2).

Because we "accept the Application Notes as authoritative unless they

are inconsistent with the Constitution, a federal statute, or a plain

reading of the Guidelines," United States v. Harris, 128 F.3d 850, 852

(4th Cir. 1997) (citing Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 45

(1993)), and because each of the counts to which Moore pled guilty

involved a separate victim, we find that the district court properly

declined to group the offenses. See United States v. Achiekwelu, 112

F.3d 747, 755 (4th Cir. 1997) ("We must follow the clear, unambiguous language of a particular guideline unless there is a manifestation

of contrary intent."). 

Accordingly, we affirm Moore’s sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. MOORE
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 456

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to acknowledge and

highlight the efforts of the Arapahoe Rescue Patrol of Littleton, Colorado.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 2000

Mr. TANCREDO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to

acknowledge and highlight the efforts of the Arapahoe

Rescue Patrol of Littleton, Colorado.

Whereas in 1957 the Arapahoe Rescue Patrol, a non-profit

organization that assists law enforcement agencies, fire

departments and search and rescue missions, was established;

Whereas Stan Bush founded this program in 1957 to gather

volunteers for community service to meet in the basement

of Fire Station 12 in Littleton, Colorado;

Whereas this group has participated in 43 years of public

service to the Denver metro area including: conducting

search and rescue efforts, assisting in emergencies, and

aiding in automobile accidents and fires;
2

HRES 456 IH

Whereas over a thousand students have participated in the

program and been involved in 2,226 rescue missions and

contributed countless thousands of hours of community

service; and

Whereas the commitment of these youths must be recognized

to promote positive after school activities for today’s

young people: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Congress recognizes the Arapahoe

3 Rescue Patrol of Littleton, Colorado for its 43 years of

4 service to the local community, strong commitment from

5 young adults, and selfless acts of community service to

6 encourage positive outlets for young adults, teaching them

7 a sense of commitment, responsibility, and belonging, all

8 qualities essential to provide youth with the tools they

9 need to succeed in the future.

Æ
#### § 13.25 Fees.

The party requesting a subpoena will pay the cost of the fees and mileage of any witness subpoenaed in the amounts that would be payable to a witness in a proceeding in United States District Court. A check for witness fees and mileage will accompany the subpoena when served, except that when a subpoena is issued on behalf of the Authority, a check for witness fees and mileage need not accompany the subpoena.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the ”Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, John P. Crowley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.      The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ JOHN P. CROWLEY        |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | John P. Crowley            |   |
|   | *Chief  Financial Officer* |   |
|   | November 10, 2005     |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
### SCOT-21-0000072
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ROBERT K.R. QUARTERO, Petitioner,

vs. KEHAULANI A. QUARTERO, on behalf of minor child, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Case No. 1DA201002043)
ORDER DISMISSING ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C
. J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , W i l s o n , a n d E d d i n s , J J . )



### On February 16, 2021, the appellate clerks’ office received a document from Robert K.R. Quartero (“Quartero”) entitled, “Respondent’s Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii Against the January 15, 2021 Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration Filed October 22, 2020” (“Notice of Appeal”). The document was subsequently filed in this original proceeding on February 17, 2021. In addition, on February 17, 2021, Quartero filed a document seeking to proceed on appeal without paying the required filing fees. Upon consideration of the documents and the record herein, it appears that Quartero seeks to assert an appeal from the family court’s Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCOT-21-0000072 23-FEB-2021 08:50 AM Dkt. 6 ORD

### January 15, 2021 “Order Denying Respondent’s Motion for

Reconsideration Filed October 22, 2020” in Case No. 1DA201002043. A notice of appeal filed in the Intermediate Court of Appeals is the appropriate means to seek such appellate review. See HRS § 571-54 (an interested party aggrieved by a family court order, including an order on a motion for reconsideration, may appeal to the intermediate appellate court upon the same terms and conditions as in other cases in the circuit court, and review shall be governed by chapter 602); HRS § 602-57(a) (the ICA has jurisdiction “[t]o hear and determine appeals from any court or agency when appeals are allowed by law”). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this original proceeding is dismissed. The clerk of the appellate court shall file the documents in this original proceeding in the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The date of receipt of the document shall be deemed the filing date.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 23, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
J-A03040-19

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

THREE RIVERS ROYALTY, LLC A 

TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 

AND MAPLETON MINERALS, LLC A 

PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY 

Appellants

v.

LORRAINE CANESTRALE TRUST-C, 

AND RANGE RESOURCESAPPALACHIA, LLC A DELAWARE 

LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 

 No. 1302 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered August 10, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Civil Division at 

No(s): Case No. 2017-2788

BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.:

FILED: June 21, 2019

While the learned Majority sets forth a cogent analysis of the deeds in 

question, I am not convinced. As the Majority recognizes, in construing the 

language of a deed, “[w]e seek to ascertain not what the parties may have 

intended by the language but what is the meaning of the words they used.” 

Majority at 7 (citing Consolidation Coal Co. v. White, 875 A.2d 318, 326 

(Pa. Super. 2005)). Examining the parties’ intent is important, but so are

the words they choose. When the plain language of the deed is clear and 

not ambiguous, we need not look any further to determine the parties’ 

intent. Murphy v. Karnek, 160 A.3d 850, 860 (Pa. Super. 2017). In the 
J-A03040-19

- 2 -

instant case, the parties chose to describe the property conveyed as “surface 

tracts” and “surface parcels.” Amended Complaint, 9/26/17, at Exhibit A. 

In my view, surface means surface. Use of such a word indicates that the 

parties did not intend to convey the mineral estate or the right to subjacent 

support. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
### §3908. Foreign loan evaluations

#### (a) Projects requiring an economic feasibility evaluation; content of evaluation

(1) In any case in which one or more banking institutions extend credit, whether by loan, lease, guarantee, or otherwise, which individually or in the aggregate exceeds $20,000,000, to finance any project which has as a major objective the construction or operation of any mining operation, any metal or mineral primary processing operation, any fabricating facility or operation, or any metal-making operations (semi and finished) located outside the United States or its territories and possessions, a written economic feasibility evaluation of such foreign project shall be prepared and approved in writing by a senior official of the banking institution, or, if more than one banking institution is involved, the lead banking institution, prior to the extension of such credit.

(2) Such evaluation shall—

(A) take into account the profit potential of the project, the impact of the project on world markets, the inherent competitive advantages and disadvantages of the project over the entire life of the project, and the likely effect of the project upon the overall long-term economic development of the country in which the project is located; and

(B) consider whether the extension of credit can reasonably be expected to be repaid from revenues generated by such foreign project without regard to any subsidy, as defined in international agreements, provided by the government involved or any instrumentality of any country.

#### (b) Review of evaluation by Federal banking agencies

Such economic feasibility evaluations shall be reviewed by representatives of the appropriate Federal banking agencies whenever an examination by such appropriate Federal banking agency is conducted.

#### (c) Other statutory authorities applicable

(1) The authorities of the Federal banking agencies contained in section 1818 of this title and in section 3909 of this title, except those contained in section 3909(d) of this title, shall be applicable to this section.

(2) No private right of action or claim for relief may be predicated upon this section.

(Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IX, §909], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1281.)
COLLECTED BY
web_gov
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  Registration Overview 
                      -  Registration Information 
                      -  Registration Online 
                      -  Registration by Mail 
                      -  Registration International 

# Registration FAQ - Mergers Acquisitions and Legal Status Changes

faq-mergers-acquisitions-and-legal-status-changes-final.pdf (441.68 KB)

What to do when there is a change in the case of merger or acquisition with Hazmat registration.

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
MEMORANDUM

TO: Air and Radiation Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2015

-0293 FROM: EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality SUBJECT: Calls and Meetings with Global Clean Energy Holdings and Emerald Biofuels, LLC This memorandum provides a record of conversations that EPA staff had with representatives of Global Clean Energy Holdings (GCEH) and /or Emerald Biofuels, LLC (Emerald) regarding their petition submitted pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 requesting that EPA evalu ate the lifecycle GHG emissions for the use of neat jatropha oil as a transportation fuel

. **Date of Conversation Topics Discussed**  January 22, 2013 Status of petition review, including literature review February 20, 2013 Status of petition review April 4, 2013 Status of petition review June 24, 2013 Status of petition review September 12, 2013 Status of petition review March 13, 2014 Status of petition review November 6, 2014 Land used for Mexico plantation April 6, 2015 Status of petition review S eptember 18, 2015 CBI claims associated with petition
### §2291. Preparation of obligations

In order to furnish obligations for delivery by the Bank, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prepare such obligations in such form as the Bank may approve, such obligations when prepared to be held in the Treasury subject to delivery upon order by the Bank. The engraved plates, dies, bed pieces, and other material executed in connection therewith, shall remain in the custody of the Secretary of the Treasury. The Bank shall reimburse the Secretary of the Treasury for any expenditures made in preparation, custody, and delivery of such obligations.

(Pub. L. 93–224, §12, Dec. 29, 1973, 87 Stat. 941.)
### §1715j. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–117, title XI, §1108(aa), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 507

Section, act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title II, §219, as added June 30, 1953, ch. 170, §8, 67 Stat. 123; amended Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title I, §122, 68 Stat. 596; July 12, 1957, Pub. L. 85–104, title I, §113, 71 Stat. 298; June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87–70, title VI, §612(f), 75 Stat. 181, authorized the Commissioner to transfer funds from one or more to one or more of the following funds and accounts as he deems necessary to carry out programs for which such funds and accounts were established: Title I Insurance Account, Title I Housing Insurance Fund, Section 203 Home Improvement Account, Housing Insurance Fund, War Housing Insurance Fund, Housing Investment Insurance Fund, Armed Services Housing Mortgage Insurance Fund, National Defense Housing Insurance Fund, Section 220 Housing Insurance Fund, Section 220 Home Improvement Account, Section 221 Housing Insurance Fund, Experimental Housing Insurance Fund, Apartment Unit Insurance Fund, and the Servicemen's Mortgage Insurance Fund.

For establishment of the General Insurance Fund, see section 1735c of this title.