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

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund IV L.P.(the “Fund”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of thegeneral partner of the Fund’s general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after dueinquiry:

 

(1)           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Fund.

 

 
| Date:               |   |                               |
|---------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
| July 14,  2010 |   | /s/ John P. Manning |
|                |   |                               |
|                |   | John P. Manning          |
|                |   | Principal  Executive Officer       |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fundand will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
### §1111. Acquisition workforce authorities

(a) Expedited Hiring Authority.—

(1) In general.—For the purposes of section 3304 of title 5, the Commandant may—

(A) designate any category of acquisition positions within the Coast Guard as shortage category positions; and

(B) use the authorities in such section to recruit and appoint highly qualified persons directly to positions so designated.

(2) Reports.—The Commandant shall include in reports under section 1102 information described in such section regarding positions designated under this subsection.

(b) Reemployment Authority.—

(1) In general.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), if an annuitant receiving an annuity from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund becomes employed in any category of acquisition positions designated by the Commandant under subsection (a), the annuity of the annuitant so employed shall continue. The annuitant so reemployed shall not be considered an employee for purposes of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5.

(2)(A) Election.—An annuitant retired under section 8336(d)(1) or 8414(b)(1)(A) of title 5, receiving an annuity from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, who becomes employed in any category of acquisition positions designated by the Commandant under subsection (a) after the date of the enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, may elect to be subject to section 8344 or 8468 of such title (as the case may be).

(i) Deadline.—An election for coverage under this subsection shall be filed not later than 90 days after the Commandant takes reasonable actions to notify an employee who may file an election.

(ii) Coverage.—If an employee files an election under this subsection, coverage shall be effective beginning on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after the date of the filing of the election.

(B) Application.—Paragraph (1) shall apply to an individual who is eligible to file an election under subparagraph (A) and does not file a timely election under clause (i) of such subparagraph.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXII [LXXXII], §8219(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4655.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of div. G of Pub. L. 116–283, which was approved Jan. 1, 2021.
#### STATE v. RIGGS

No. 30PA90

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 595

Motion by defendants to dismiss appeal by the Attorney General for lack of substantial constitutional question denied 10 May 1990. Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 10 May 1990.
128 STAT. 2988 PUBLIC LAW 113–275—DEC. 18, 2014 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1474: 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 113–260 (Comm. on Indian Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 11, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–275 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to repeal 

a special rule for the State of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF ALASKA. 

Section 910 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 

Act of 2013 (18 U.S.C. 2265 note; Public Law 113–4) is repealed. 

Approved December 18, 2014. 

Dec. 18, 2014 

[S. 1474] 


srobinson on DSKB307YQ1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 13363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5777]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Time and Date:  Wednesday, March 16, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

Place:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

Status:  Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered:
    Compliance Status Report
    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5777 Filed 3-9-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 284
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 284 appear at 65 FR 10222, Feb. 25, 2000.

§ 284.4 Reporting. ( a ) *Reports in MMBtu.* All reports filed pursuant to this part must indicate quantities of natural gas in MMBtu's. An MMBtu means a million British thermal units. A British thermal unit or Btu means the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound avoirdupois of pure water from 58.5 degrees to 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit, determined in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( b ) *Measurement.* The Btu content of one cubic foot of natural gas under the standard conditions specified in paragraph (c) of this section is the number of Btu's produced by the complete combustion of such cubic foot of gas, at constant pressure with air of the same temperature and pressure as the gas, when the products of combustion are cooled to the initial temperature of the gas and air and when the water formed by such combustion is condensed to a liquid state.
( c ) *Standard conditions.* The standard conditions for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section are as follows: The gas is saturated with water vapor at 60 degrees Fahrenheit under a pressure equivalent to that of 30.00 inches of mercury at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, under standard gravitational force (980.665 centimeters per second squared).
[Order 581, 60 FR 53072, Oct. 11, 1995]
# C_2012200EN.01001303.xml

| 7.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — JBF RAK v Council

(Case T-555/10) (1)

1

(Subsidies - Imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates - Definitive countervailing duty and definite collection of provisional duty - Articles 11(8), 15(1) and 30(5) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 - Principle of sound administration)

2012/C 200/26

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: JBF RAK LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: B. Servais, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, Agent, G. Berrisch, lawyer, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, M. França and G. Luengo, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (OJ 2010 L 254, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JBF RAK LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JBF RAK LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 1/7/97

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DERRICK LAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 96-1139

96-1155

96-1212

(D.C. Nos. 96-M-168, 96-M-631)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, BALDOCK, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Because the notice of appeal in No. 96-1212 was filed after the date of the

signing of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), defendant must obtain a certificate of

appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); cf. United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 113,

117 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that certificate of appealability is not required

where notice of appeal was filed before Act was signed). Defendant has

voluntarily withdrawn the sole issue in this appeal and, thus, the certificate of

appealability is denied.

In No. 96-1139, defendant appeals the district court’s denial of a motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, wherein the district court found no defect in

defendant’s conviction for carrying a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

in the aftermath of Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995). On de novo

review, see United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 338 (10th Cir. 1996), we conclude

that Bailey does not affect this case. “We see nothing in Bailey that conflicts

with our pre-Bailey ‘vehicular carrying’ line of cases.” United States v. Miller,

84 F.3d 1244, 1260 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 443 (1996). The district

court’s denial of the § 2255 motion in this case is affirmed.

Finally, in No. 96-1155, we find no error in the district court’s order

striking defendant’s Special Appearance Demand to Dismiss for Lack of Federal

Jurisdiction.
-3-

The certificate of appealability in No. 96-1212 is denied, and the appeal is

DISMISSED. The judgments of the United States District Court for the District

of Colorado in No. 96-1139 and No. 96-1155 are AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio 

Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7204
CHARLES EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALTON ANDERSON, Doctor, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-6-5-CT-F) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Evans v. Anderson , No. CA-95-6-5-CT-F (E.D.N.C. July 11, 1995). 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
```

[113th Congress Public Law 225]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2112]]

Public Law 113-225
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 13500 SW 250 Street in Princeton, Florida, as the ``Corporal Christian 
A. Guzman Rivera Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2014 -  [H.R. 
                                5030]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CORPORAL CHRISTIAN A. GUZMAN RIVERA POST OFFICE 
                              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13500 SW 250 Street in Princeton, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Corporal Christian A. Guzman Rivera Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any references in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Christian A. Guzman Rivera Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 16, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5030:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014):
            Sept. 8, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 8, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2012366EN.01002704.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/27

---

Order of the President of the Court of 11 July 2012 — European Commission v Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Hubei Xinshiji Foods Co. Ltd, Council of the European Union

(Case C-195/11 P) (1)

1

2012/C 366/51

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.

1

---
#### Opinion to the House of Representatives.

JUNE 12, 1953.

Present: Flynn, C. J., Capotosto, Baker, Condon and O’Connell, JJ.

*410June 12, 1953

To the Honorable, the House of Representatives of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations '

We have received from the honorable house of representatives a resolution requesting, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of article XII of amendments to the constitution of this state, our written opinion upon a certain question of law. This question is stated as follows:

> “May the milk control board by regulation, establish separate prices for milk sold to consumers in various localities or markets in the state?”

It appears that the substance of the question is covered in general laws 1938, chapter 215, as amended. Under section 4 of that statute certain powers were expressly granted to the board of milk control, among which was the authority to make pertinent regulations and to' establish, after investigation and public hearing, minimum wholesale and retail prices to be charged for milk distributed for sale within the state. That section further provides: “Upon fixing said minimum prices, which shall apply to the various grades and classes of milk and which may vary in the several markets and localities of the state, the board shall furnish all dealers registered in the state with a schedule of such prices * * *.”

According to such provisions the answer to the propounded question is in the affirmative.

Edmund W. Flynn

Antonio A. Capotosto

Hugh B. Baker

Francis B. Condon

Jeremiah E. O'Connell
# C_2013245EN.01000301.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

(Case C-350/11) (1)

1

(Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Deduction for risk capital - Notional interest - Reduction of the amount deductible by companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under double taxation conventions)

2013/C 245/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Deduction for risk capital (‘notional interest’) — Reduction of the amount deductible, for companies with establishments abroad the income from which is exempt under agreements to prevent double taxation conventions

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, for calculation of a deduction granted to a company subject to full tax liability in a Member State, the net value of the assets of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State is not taken into account when the profits of that permanent establishment are not taxable in the first Member State by virtue of a double taxation convention, whereas the assets attributed to a permanent establishment situated in the territory of the first Member State are taken into account for that purpose.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

December 01, 2015

Hon. Anne Lorentzen

District Clerk

901 Leopard, Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-15-00391-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-CR-2552-B

Style: The State of Texas v. Celestino Vivanco

The judgment of the trial court was DISMISSED by this Court on the 22nd day of 

October, 2015. The mandate is enclosed.

Tex R. App. P. 51.2(a)(1) provides that the clerk of the trial court shall send an 

acknowledgment to the clerk of the appellate court of the receipt of the mandate. Please review 

the requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(b) regarding the issuance of a capias in cases in which 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed and the defendant is not in custody.

Please sign the attached acknowledgment of receipt of the mandate and submit through 

the TAMES Records Submission Portal (RSP) as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Scott M. Ellison (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Hon. Mark Skurka (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

I hereby acknowledge receipt of the mandate in cause no. 13-15-00391-CR this 

________ day of _________________, 2015.

District/County Clerk, 

By :____________________________
```

[113th Congress Public Law 249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 128 STAT. 2885]]

Public Law 113-249
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
      To designate the building occupied by the Federal Bureau of 
   Investigation located at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, as the 
  ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center''. <<NOTE: Dec. 18, 
                         2014 -  [H.R. 3096]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation located 
at 801 Follin Lane, Vienna, Virginia, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Michael D. Resnick Terrorist Screening Center'' during the period 
in which the building is occupied by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    During the period in which the building referred to in section 1 is 
occupied by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, any reference in a law, 
map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States 
to that building shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Michael D. 
Resnick Terrorist Screening Center''.

    Approved December 18, 2014.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3096:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113-235 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 159 (2013):
                                    Sept. 27, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 160 (2014):
                                    Dec. 11, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### §2652. Asbestos Ombudsman

#### (a) Appointment

The Administrator shall appoint an Asbestos Ombudsman, who shall carry out the duties described in subsection (b).

#### (b) Duties

The duties of the Asbestos Ombudsman are—

(1) to receive complaints, grievances, and requests for information submitted by any person with respect to any aspect of this subchapter,

(2) to render assistance with respect to the complaints, grievances, and requests received, and

(3) to make such recommendations to the Administrator as the Ombudsman considers appropriate.

(Pub. L. 94–469, title II, §212, as added Pub. L. 99–519, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2987.)
#### GIBBS, Administratrix De Bonis Non With the Will Annexed of Sommers, Movant, v. CITY OF PADUCAH, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 16, 1939.

Albert Karnes for movant.

Eaton & Eaton, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; judgment affirmed.
#### § 156.4 Application for service.

Any person who is eligible to receive service under this part may apply therefor to the Administrator, upon an application form which will be furnished by the Administrator upon request. The application form shall require the applicant to state, among other things, the forms of certificates desired.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0008)

[23 FR 10111, Dec. 23, 1958, as amended at 48 FR 57473, Dec. 30, 1983; 57 FR 30899, July 13, 1992; 72 FR 70766, Dec. 13, 2007]