alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000835095
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,556,929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,556,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,579
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,043,661)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,039,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2011204EN.01002202.xml

| 9.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Space Beach Club v OHIM — Flores Gómez (SpS space of sound)

(Case T-144/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ‘SpS space of sound’ - Earlier national and Community figurative marks ‘space ibiza’, ‘space DANCE BARCELONA’, ‘space DANCE MADRID’, ‘space DANCE VALENCIA’, ‘space DANCE MALLORCA’, ‘space DANCE EIVISSA’, ‘space SPACE IBIZA WORLD’, ‘space DANCE’ and earlier national word mark ‘SPACE VIVA’ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Lack of similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2011/C 204/39

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Space Beach Club, SA (San Jorge, Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: A. I. Alejos Cutili, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. F. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. J. Vela Ballesteros and B. C. Lamas Begué, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2010 (Case R 766/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Space Beach Club, SA and Miguel Ángel Flores Gómez.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Space Beach Club, SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Space Beach Club, SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.

1

---
### §641. Transfer to Administration of other functions, powers, and duties

The President may transfer to the Administration any functions, powers, and duties of any department or agency which relate primarily to small-business problems. In connection with any such transfer, the President may provide for appropriate transfers of records, property, necessary personnel, and unexpended balances of appropriations and other funds available to the department or agency from which the transfer is made.

(Pub. L. 85–536, §2[12], July 18, 1958, 72 Stat. 394.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior similar provisions were contained in section 218 of act July 30, 1953, ch. 282, title II, 67 Stat. 239, as amended by act Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 628, §12, 69 Stat. 551, which was previously classified to section 647 of this title. The provisions of section 212 of act July 30, 1953, formerly classified to this section, were transferred to section 2[8] of Pub. L. 85–536, and are classified to section 637(b) of this title. See Codification note set out under section 631 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 10504

Ex. Ord. No. 10504, Dec. 1, 1953, 18 F.R. 7667, which provided for the transfer of functions of the Small Defense Plants Administration to the Small Business Administrator, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12553, Feb. 25, 1986, 51 F.R. 7237.

#### Executive Order No. 11871

Ex. Ord. No. 11871, July 18, 1975, 40 F.R. 30915, which transferred the functions of ACTION Agency relating to the Service Corps of Retired Executives and Active Corps of Executives to the Small Business Administration, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12553, Feb. 25, 1986, 51 F.R. 7237.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE 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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30,2008 (the "Report"), I, Samuel S. Lee, Chief 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:



August 12, 2008

/s/SAMUEL S. LEE Samuel S. Lee
Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-41029

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

ELIPDIO JORDAN-MALDONADO,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

No. 4:14-CR-91-12

Before JONES, SMITH, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Elipdio Jordan-Maldonado has 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 

5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 23, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-41029 Document: 00514566627 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2018
No. 17-41029

2

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Jordan-Maldonado has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed for us to make a fair evaluation of Jordan-Maldonado’s claims

of ineffective assistance of counsel, so we decline to consider them without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th 

Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record, and 

Jordan-Maldonado’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. 

Our review does, however, reveal a clerical error in the judgment, which

states that Jordan-Maldonado pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to manufacture and distribute cocaine. Instead, the record reflects that 

Jordan-Maldonado pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; therefore, the word “manufacture” must be deleted from the 

description of the offense.

The remaining question is whether we should remand. Although we 

could do so, courts of appellate jurisdiction are permitted to “affirm, modify, 

vacate, set aside or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully 

brought before it for review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2106. See, e.g., United States v. 

Godoy, 890 F.3d 531, 542 (5th Cir. 2018); No. 15-41034, United States v. 

Cabrera, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18470, at *3 (5th Cir. July 6, 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED as MODIFIED 

to reflect that Jordan-Maldonado was convicted of, and sentenced for, conspireacy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

 Case: 17-41029 Document: 00514566627 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2018
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

I, Harrie L.J. Noy, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual report onForm 20-F of ARCADIS N.V.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.             The company’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe company and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theperiod covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The company’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: June 13, 2005 | /s/ Harrie L.J. Noy              |   |
|---------------------|----------------------------------|--------|
|                | Harrie L.J. Noy                  |
|                | Chairman of the Executive  Board |
|                | (Principal Executive  Officer)   |

 

----
### subpart 1—designation and purposes
# C_2011179EN.01000802.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik v HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG

(Case C-134/11)

2011/C 179/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik

Applicant:

Defendant: HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 7 of Directive 90/314/EEC (1) of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours also apply when the travel operator becomes insolvent because from the beginning with fraudulent intent it used all the money collected from the travellers for an improper purpose and it was never intended that the trip would be organised?

1

---

(1)  Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).

1

---
Exhibit 99.1
                              C.E.O. Certification




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



In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Crescent  Moon,  Inc.  (Formerly
Cherokee  Investments,  Inc.) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2002,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Robert Denome,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss 1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of operations of
          the Company.



  /s/ Robert Denome
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Denome
Chief Executive Officer
September 3, 2002
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of MK Gold Company (the Company) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John C. Farmer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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 to 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John C. Farmer                   
|John C. Farmer                       
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|June 14, 2004
### §4902. Interagency Trade Data Advisory Committee

#### (a) Establishment

There is established the Interagency Trade Data Advisory Committee.

#### (b) Membership

The Committee shall consist of—

(1) the United States Trade Representative;

(2) the Secretary of Agriculture;

(3) the Secretary of Defense;

(4) the Secretary of Commerce;

(5) the Secretary of Labor;

(6) the Secretary of the Treasury;

(7) the Secretary of State;

(8) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(9) the Director of Central Intelligence;

(10) the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board;

(11) the Chairman of the International Trade Commission;

(12) the President of the Export-Import Bank;

(13) the Chief Executive Officer of the United States International Development Finance Corporation; and

(14) such other members as may be appointed by the President from full-time officers or employees of the Federal Government.

#### (c) Chairman

The Secretary of Commerce shall be Chairman of the Committee.

#### (d) Designees

Any member of the Committee may appoint a designee to serve in place of such member on the Committee.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5402, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1463; Pub. L. 115–254, div. F, title VI, §1470(f), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3516.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b)(13). Pub. L. 115–254 substituted "the Chief Executive Officer of the United States International Development Finance Corporation" for "the President of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Reference to the Director of Central Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Director's capacity as the head of the intelligence community deemed to be a reference to the Director of National Intelligence. Reference to the Director of Central Intelligence or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Director's capacity as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency deemed to be a reference to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. See section 1081(a), (b) of Pub. L. 108–458, set out as a note under section 3001 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–254 effective at the end of the transition period, as defined in section 9681 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, see section 1470(w) of Pub. L. 115–254, set out as a note under section 905 of Title 2, The Congress.

#### Termination of Advisory Committees

Advisory committees established after Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of their establishment, unless, in the case of a committee established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such committee is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a committee established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided by law. See section 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
OSD Response to Public Comment on DOD-2014-OS-0002-0001

Comment: 1974 is a long time ago. I hope you are treating personnel records with more 

up to date standards. Electronic records are fairly easy to get despite physical barriers. 

And the correlation of the data is easy to do. And there is a risk that the data will be used 

to discriminate in insurance rates, mortgage rates and hiring. Please be careful. Perhaps 

it’s better to keep as much on paper as possible, despite the advantages that technology 

offers. Sometimes it’s better to be inefficient, where human lives are concerned. I’m a 

technology consultant...and I have a vested interest in people using more and more 

technology. But it’s not always the best thing for communities...

Response: A single comment was received providing comments on a number of issues 

but nothing specific to the subject of this Privacy Act System of Records Notice. The 

subject System of Records Notice pertains to the submission of post-secondary education 

complaints for military members and their spouses. The information is not used to 

determine insurance or mortgage rates nor is it used in hiring. Executive Order 13607, 

Establishing Principles of Excellence for Educational Institutions Serving Service 

Members, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members required the Department of 

Defense to establish a mechanism for military members and their spouses to submit postsecondary education complaints on-line, any submissions received by mail will be added 

to the system. The DoD has ensured that appropriate safeguards are used to protect the 

integrity of the data stored in this system.
### §3755. Appointment of a former Navy or Coast Guard officer

A former officer of the Regular Navy or Coast Guard who applies for a Reserve commission within one year of resigning the officer's Regular commission, and who is appointed in the same grade previously held in the Regular Navy or Coast Guard, shall be given the same date of rank in that grade as that previously assigned to the officer while a member of the Regular Navy or Coast Guard.

(Added Pub. L. 96–322, §1, Aug. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1015, §744; renumbered §3755, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §118(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4233.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 792 of this title prior to the complete revision of former chapter 21 of this title by Pub. L. 96–322.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 744 of this title as this section.
### §7601. Availability of contact lens prescriptions to patients

#### (a) In general

When a prescriber completes a contact lens fitting, the prescriber—

(1) whether or not requested by the patient, shall provide to the patient a copy of the contact lens prescription; and

(2) shall, as directed by any person designated to act on behalf of the patient, provide or verify the contact lens prescription by electronic or other means.

#### (b) Limitations

A prescriber may not—

(1) require purchase of contact lenses from the prescriber or from another person as a condition of providing a copy of a prescription under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) or verification of a prescription under subsection (a)(2);

(2) require payment in addition to, or as part of, the fee for an eye examination, fitting, and evaluation as a condition of providing a copy of a prescription under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) or verification of a prescription under subsection (a)(2); or

(3) require the patient to sign a waiver or release as a condition of verifying or releasing a prescription.

(Pub. L. 108–164, §2, Dec. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 2024.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 108–164, §12, Dec. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 2028, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note below] shall take effect 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 6, 2003]."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 108–164, §1, Dec. 6, 2003, 117 Stat. 2024, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and provisions set out as a note above] may be cited as the 'Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act'."
#### James Godette et al., Appellants, v Orin W. Strowe, Jr., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[824 NYS2d 540]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), entered March 14, 2006. The order granted the motion of defendants Orin W. Strowe, Jr. and Strowe Agency, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion in part and reinstating the third cause of action against defendants Orin W Strowe, Jr. and Strowe Agency, Inc. and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting the motion of Orin W Strowe, Jr. and Strowe Agency, Inc. (collectively, Strowe defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the motion with respect to the third cause of action, asserting negligence. We agree. Plaintiffs alleged that the Strowe defendants were negligent in failing to invest plaintiffs’ retirement funds in accordance with plaintiffs’ directives and investment profile, and in failing to preserve capital once plaintiffs reached their retirement goal. Assuming, arguendo, that the Strowe defendants met their initial burden, we conclude that plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact *(see Talansky v Schulman, 2*AD3d 355, 357-360 [2003]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Kehoe, Gorski and Centra, JJ.