alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership;
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)) for the registrant and have:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. 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
2. 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:  February 23, 2007 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                         
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------
|                         | Marc N. Teal,
Principal Financial Officer
#### § 351.12 Circuit supervisor to be informed when plant operates.

The operator of each certified plant shall inform the circuit supervisor, in advance, when the plant's work schedule will include preparing technical animal fats for certification and identify the approximate days and hours when operations will begin and end.
<PAGE>

               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                     WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549





                            FORM 8-K

                         CURRENT REPORT




             Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934




Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  June 4, 1997.



                     MESABA HOLDINGS, INC.
     (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

     Minnesota              0-17895               41-1616499
 (State or other        (Commission File       (I.R.S. Employer
 Jurisdiction of            Number)             Identification
  incorporation)                                     No.)
                                
                     7501 26th Avenue South
                  Minneapolis, Minnesota 55450
            (Address of principal executive offices)


Registrant's telephone no., including area code:  (612) 726-5151

                         Not Applicable
 (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)

 <PAGE>

 ITEM 5.  Other Events.

      On June 4, 1997, Mesaba Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary,  Mesaba  Aviation,  Inc.  (together,  the  "Company")
announced  that  the  Company had reached an  understanding  with
Northwest  Airlines  to  enter into a  10-year  Airline  Services
Agreement  to be executed on or before June 30, 1997.  Under  the
agreement, the Company will provide all Northwest Airlink service
in   Minneapolis/St.   Paul  effective  August   1,   1997.    As
consideration for the expansion of the Company's operations,  the
Company  will  issue  to  Northwest Airlines  (or  an  affiliate)
options  to  purchase  880,000 shares of  Mesaba  Holdings,  Inc.
common  stock  at an exercise price of $14.125  per  share.   For
additional information, see the press release dated June 4, 1997,
which  is  attached to this Report as an exhibit and incorporated
herein by reference.


ITEM 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.

     The following are exhibits to this Current Report:

          99.1 Press release of the Company dated June 4, 1997

<PAGE>
                           SIGNATURE

      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act
of  1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused this  report
to  be  signed  on its behalf by the undersigned  thereunto  duly
authorized.



Date:  June 5, 1997

MESABA HOLDINGS, INC.



By: /s/ John S. Fredericksen
    ------------------------
    John S. Fredericksen
    Vice President and General Counsel

<PAGE>
                         EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit
Number    Description

99.1           Press release of the Company dated June 4, 1997.
### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §108(c)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4210, inserted subchapter I designation and heading.
EXHIBIT 23




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-11299, No. 333-35287, No. 333-85575, No. 333-34320, No. 333-52804, No. 333-59158, No. 333-59160, No. 333-123452, No. 333-129269 and No. 333-151771) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Plan, the 1996 Nonemployee Directors Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, the GMS/Affymetrix 1998 Stock Plan, the Affymetrix/Neomorphic, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Amended and Restated 2000 Equity Incentive Plan of Affymetrix, Inc. and the ParAllele BioScience, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan of Affymetrix, Inc. of our reports dated March 1, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Affymetrix, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Affymetrix, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.




/s/ ERNST AND YOUNG LLPSan Jose, California

March 1, 2010
<PAGE>

For Immediate Release:


MESABA AIRLINES AND NORTHWEST AIRLINES ANNOUNCE NEW AIRLINK
AGREEMENT

     Minneapolis/St.Paul, June 4, 1997-- Mesaba Airlines and
its marketing partner Northwest Airlines,  announced today
that they have reached agreement on a long-term contract
for Mesaba to continue operating as Northwest Airlink. The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) includes the incorporation
of all Airlink flying out of Northwest's Minneapolis/St.Paul
hub under Mesaba effective August 1, 1997. Express Airlines
I, Inc. (Express) will continue to operate as Northwest
Airlink out of Northwest's Memphis hub, allowing Express to
focus on product improvements and growth plans for the hub.
With the additional flying, Mesaba will offer over 130 daily
departures to 42 cities out of  Minneapolis/St. Paul, a
significant increase from its present level of operations.

    To ensure a seamless transition and smooth operations
for Northwest Airlink customers in Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Mesaba will lease aircraft and crews from Express for
approximately six months. In addition, the airline will
offer employment to all Express personnel based in Minnesota
in accordance with Mesaba's hiring criteria.

     The MOU continues the existing revenue methodology
whereby Northwest will purchase all of Mesaba's available
seat miles at a pre-determined rate.  The agreement also
provides Mesaba with additional revenue based upon the
number of revenue passengers enplaned. As consideration for
the additional flying, Mesaba will issue Northwest a warrant
to purchase 880,000 shares of Mesaba Holdings, Inc. common
stock at an exercise price of  $14.125 per share. Both
Mesaba and Northwest anticipate that the terms of the MOU
will be incorporated into the final, ten year ASA, which is
expected to be executed on or before June 30, 1997.

     Mesaba Holdings, Inc., the parent company of Mesaba
Airlines, operates as a Northwest Airlink affiliate under a
code-sharing agreement with Northwest Airlines. Currently,
Mesaba Airlines serves 67 cities in 16 states and Canada
from its two hubs at Minneapolis/St. Paul and Detroit Metro
International Airports. The carrier operates a fleet of 60
prop-jet aircraft. The company is planning to place its
first two of twelve Avro RJ85 jets into service on June
6,1997. Mesaba Holdings, Inc. is traded under the symbol
MAIR on the NASDAQ National Market.

For more information please contact: Warren R. Wilkinson,
Mesaba Airlines  612-725-4915 or Northwest Airlines Media
Relations at 612-726-2331.  Or visit Mesaba's website at:
www.mesaba.com or Northwest Airlines Website: www.nwa.com
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

Green Named Acting Administrator of USDA’s Rural Housing Service

WASHINGTON, July 28, 2020 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Deputy Under 

Secretary Bette Brand today named Elizabeth “Beth” Green Acting Administrator of the Rural Housing Service 

following the retirement of former Administrator Bruce Lammers.

Before being appointed to this role, Green served as USDA Rural Development’s State Director for Virginia. 

During her tenure, she led a team of 61 to invest in rural communities across the state. These investments have 

resulted in thousands of rural Virginia residents, farms, businesses and households being able to connect to 

high-speed broadband internet for the first time, hundreds of new essential community facilities being built 

across the state, and tens of thousands of families being helped to buy their own homes.

Green has lived in Virginia and worked in federal and state politics for 33 years. During that time, she has 

cultivated relations with many of rural America’s political and industry leaders. She graduated from Florida 

State University with a degree in communications and political science.

Green will begin her new role on August 3. USDA Rural Development encourages partners and stakeholder 

groups to reach out to her to build on existing partnerships and create new ones.

#
Exhibit 32.1

                    PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection  with this Amended Annual Report of Frontline Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the annual  period ended  December 31, 2003,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, John Fredriksen,  the Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date: October 8, 2004

/s/ John Fredriksen
Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1345 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1345

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate 
                  conduct relating to exotic animals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 1999

Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. 
 Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
  Kohl, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate 
                  conduct relating to exotic animals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act 
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF 
              KILLING OR INJURING THEM.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 48. Exotic animals
    ``(a) Prohibition.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign 
commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined 
exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of 
that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall 
be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
    ``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
            ``(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a 
        species not historically indigenous to the United States, that 
        has been held in captivity for the shorter of--
                    ``(A) the greater part of the life of the animal; 
                or
                    ``(B) a period of 1 year;
        whether or not the defendant knew the length of the captivity; 
        and
            ``(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period 
        during which an animal--
                    ``(A) lives as it would in the wild, surviving 
                primarily by foraging for naturally occurring food, 
                roaming at will over an open area of not less than 
                1,000 acres; and
                    ``(B) has the opportunity to avoid hunters.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 3 of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``48. Exotic animals.''.
                                 <all>
```
### §635s. Implementation

(a)(1) The National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies shall coordinate the implementation of the tied aid credit programs authorized by sections 635q and 635r of this title.

(2) No financing may be approved under the tied aid credit programs authorized by section 635q or 635r of this title without the unanimous consent of the members of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies.

(b) The Trade and Development Agency shall be represented at any meetings of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies for discussion of tied aid credit matters, and the representative of the Trade and Development Agency at any such meeting shall have the right to vote on any decisions of the Advisory Council relating to tied aid credit matters.

(Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title VI, §646], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1265; Pub. L. 100–418, title II, §2204(c)(2), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1331; Pub. L. 102–549, title II, §202(c)(1), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3658.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–549 substituted "Development Agency" for "Development Program" in two places.

1988—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–418 added subsec. (b).
# C_2010179EN.01002003.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2010 — Cassina SpA v Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl

(Case C-198/10)

(2010/C 179/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cassina SpA

Defendant: Alivar Srl and Galliani Host Arredamenti Srl

Question referred

| 1. | Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the design copyright holder– had already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question — those designs being in the public domain — before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the design copyright holder– had already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question — those designs being in the public domain — before the date on which the national implementing legislation entered into force?

| 2. | Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the design copyright holder — has already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question, where protection is precluded within the limits of prior use? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Articles 17 and 19 of Directive 98/71/EC be interpreted as meaning that the discretion accorded to the Member State to establish independently the extent to which, and the conditions under which, protection is conferred may include discretion to preclude such protection where a third party — without authorisation from the design copyright holder — has already produced and marketed in that State products based on the designs in question, where protection is precluded within the limits of prior use?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Matos, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 148]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered November 21, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

All of defendant’s present arguments concerning admissibility of evidence, including his constitutional claims, are unpreserved *(see e.g. People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947, 948 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. The record fails to support his assertion that these arguments should be considered preserved. Were we to review defendant’s hearsay and Confrontation Clause challenges to a detective’s testimony regarding certain investigatory steps he took, we would find that the testimony was not received for its truth, but for the legitimate nonhearsay purpose of completing the narrative and explaining police actions *(see People v Guerrero,*22 AD3d 266 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 882 [2005]). Were we to review defendant’s claim that an eyewitness gave irrelevant and inflammatory testimony, we would find that the testimony was relevant to explain the witness’s unusual behavior in the courtroom which, if left unexplained, may have unfairly prejudiced the People’s case *(cf. People v Meeks,*134 AD2d 290 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 958 [1988]), that the testimony was not inflammatory, and that the court’s instruction was sufficient to prevent any prejudice to defendant.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P, Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
# C_2011030EN.01001702.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain) lodged on 2 November 2010 — María Luisa Gómez Cueto v Administración del Estado

(Case C-517/10)

()

2011/C 30/28

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: María Luisa Gómez Cueto

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 applicable to staff of the public authorities who, by their administrative-law relationship with those authorities, have the status of civil servants? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 applicable to staff of the public authorities who, by their administrative-law relationship with those authorities, have the status of civil servants?

1

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is a national law which does not provide for a rule implementing Directive 1999/70/EC to have retroactive effect from the date by which the Directive was to be transposed into domestic law contrary to Community law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is a national law which does not provide for a rule implementing Directive 1999/70/EC to have retroactive effect from the date by which the Directive was to be transposed into domestic law contrary to Community law?

---

(1)  concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p.43).

1

---