alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      32.1





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 American Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
      statutory business trust Series I (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended June 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Salzman, Chief Executive Officer of Richman
      American Credit Corp., manager of the Registrant, 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
                Registrant.




/s/David
                SalzmanDavid
                SalzmanChief
                Executive Officer of Richman AmericanCredit
                Corp., Manager of the RegistrantAugust
                13, 2008
### §192c. Rules and regulations governing issuance of certain leases; disposition of receipts

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized under general rules and regulations to be prescribed by him to issue leases or permits for the exploration, development, and utilization of the mineral deposits, other than those subject to the provisions of chapter 7 of this title, in those lands added to the Shasta National Forest by the Act of March 19, 1948 (Public Law 449, Eightieth Congress), which were acquired with funds of the United States or lands received in exchange therefor: Provided, That any permit or lease of such deposits in lands administered by the Secretary of Agriculture shall be issued only with his consent and subject to such conditions as he may prescribe to insure the adequate utilization of the lands for the purposes set forth in the Act of March 19, 1948: And provided further, That all receipts derived from leases or permits issued under the authority of sections 192a to 192c of this title shall be paid into the same funds or accounts in the Treasury and shall be distributed in the same manner as prescribed for other receipts from the lands affected by the lease or permit, the intention of this provision being that sections 192a to 192c of this title shall not affect the distribution of receipts pursuant to legislation applicable to such lands.

(Sept. 1, 1949, ch. 529, §3, 63 Stat. 683.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of March 19, 1948 (Public Law 449, Eightieth Congress), referred to in text, is act Mar. 19, 1948, ch. 139, 62 Stat. 83. See Shasta National Forest codification note set out under sections 486a to 486w of Title 16, Conservation.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of act Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 437, known as the Mineral Leasing Act, which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Secretary of the Interior under this section, with respect to use and disposal from lands under jurisdiction of Secretary of Agriculture of those mineral materials which Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to dispose of from other lands under his jurisdiction under sections 601 to 604 and 611 to 615 of this title, see Pub. L. 86–509, June 11, 1960, 74 Stat. 205, set out as a Transfer of Functions from Secretary of the Interior to Secretary of Agriculture note under section 2201 of Title 7, Agriculture.
§ 430.311 Performance Review Boards (PRBs). Each agency must establish one or more PRBs to make recommendations to the appointing authority on the performance of its senior executives. ( a ) *Membership.* ( 1 ) Each PRB must have three or more members who are appointed by the agency head, or by another official or group acting on behalf of the agency head. Agency heads are encouraged to consider diversity and inclusion in establishing their PRBs.
( 2 ) PRB members must be appointed in a way that assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in SES performance appraisal.
( 3 ) When appraising a career appointee's performance or recommending a career appointee for a performance-based pay adjustment or performance award, more than one-half of the PRB's members must be SES career appointees.
( 4 ) The agency must publish notice of PRB appointments in the Federal Register before service begins.
( b ) *Functions.* ( 1 ) Each PRB must consider agency performance as communicated by the oversight official through the performance appraisal guidelines when reviewing and evaluating the initial summary rating, any senior executive's response, and any higher-level official's findings and recommendations on the initial summary rating or the results of an alternative review. The PRB may conduct any further review needed to make its recommendations. The PRB may not review an initial summary rating to which the executive has not been given the opportunity to respond in writing, including through the use of automated systems.
( 2 ) The PRB must make a written recommendation, including through the use of automated systems, to the appointing authority about each senior executive's annual summary rating, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance award.
( 3 ) PRB members may not take part in any PRB deliberations involving their own appraisals, performance-based pay adjustments, and performance awards.
### §702i. Certain sections applicable to property and rights acquired or constructed

The provisions of sections 407, 408, 411, 412, and 413 of this title are made applicable to all lands, waters, easements, and other property and rights acquired or constructed under the provisions of sections 702a, 702b to 702d, 702e to 702g, 702h, 702i, 702j, 702k, 702l, 702m, and 704 of this title.

(May 15, 1928, ch. 569, §9, 45 Stat. 537.)
§ 332.401 Order on registers. Subject to apportionment, residence, and other requirements of law and this chapter, OPM shall enter the names of eligibles on the appropriate register in accordance with their numerical ratings, except that the names of: ( a ) Preference eligibles shall be entered in accordance with their augmented ratings and ahead of others having the same rating; and
( b ) Preference eligibles who have a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more shall be entered at the top of the register in the order of their ratings unless the register is for professional or scientific positions in GS-9 and above and in comparable pay levels under other pay-fixing authorities.
Order entered February 8, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01318-CR

ALFREDO ALMANZA ROMERO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80084-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Antoinette Varela’s February 6, 2019 first request for 

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the 

reporter’s record filed within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 08
- 00351
- CR No. 10
- 08
- 00352
- CR
REGINALD DARREL TAYL OR , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 82nd District Court Falls County, Texas Trial Court No s . 8418 and 8441

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Regin ald Darrel Taylor pled guilty to possession with the intent to deliver a
controlled substance. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN . § 481.112(c) (Vernon 2003); (10

- 08

- 00351

- CR). Taylor also pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 22.02(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008); (10

- 08

- 00352

- CR). He was sentenced to 7 years in prison for each offense. Taylor appealed both of his convictions. The notice of appeal, which included both trial court case numbers, was filed almost 7 months after the date the sentences were imposed. Further, the trial court signedTaylor v. State Page 2

certifications of defendant’s right of appeal which indicated Taylor had no right to appeal his convictions and waived his right to appeal. In a letter dated October 20, 20 08, the Clerk of this Court notified Taylor that his appeals were subject to dismissal because it appeared that the notice of appeal was untimely and that the certifications of defendant’s right of appeal indicated that Taylor had no right of appeal and wa ived his right to appeal. The Clerk also warned Taylor that his appeals could be dismissed unless, within 21 days of the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeals. More than 21 days have passed, and Taylor has no t filed a response. Accordingly, his appeals are dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.3, 25.2(d).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Vance, and Justice Reyna Dismissed Opinion delivered and filed December 2 3 , 2008 Do not publish [CR25]
Khmel'nyts'kyi Khmel'nyts'kyi Khmel'nyts'kyi

Vinnytsya Vinnytsya Vinnytsya

Mykolaiv Mykolaiv Mykolaiv

Odesa Odesa Odesa

Dnipropetrovsk Dnipropetrovsk Dnipropetrovsk

Cherkasy Cherkasy Cherkasy

Kirovograd Kirovograd Kirovograd

Zaporizhzhya Zaporizhzhya Zaporizhzhya

Zhytomyr Zhytomyr Zhytomyr

Ternopil Ternopil Ternopil Kharkiv Kharkiv Kharkiv

Ivano-Frankivsk Ivano-Frankivsk Ivano-Frankivsk

Chernivtsi Chernivtsi Chernivtsi

Lviv Lviv Lviv

Simferepol Simferepol Simferepol

DonDonDon

Kyiv Kyiv

Lutsk Lutsk Lutsk Rivne Rivne Rivne

Uzhgorod Uzhgorod Uzhgorod

Sumy Sumy Sumy

Chernihiv Chernihiv Chernihiv

Khrystynivka

Bila Tserkva

Skadovsk

Nova Kahovka

Kherson Kherson Kherson

Snegirevka

Kahovka

Zuryupinsk

Gola Prystan Ovidiopol Illichivs'k

Belgorod-Dnestrovskiy

Dymytrov

Dobropillia

Zvenigorodka

Rodnykivka

Vatutino

Uman

Voznesensk

Bashtanka

Komsomols'k

Kamyanka-Buzka

Yalta

Sevastopol

Saki

Avd

S

Brovary

Feodisia

Poltava Poltava Poltava

Kerch

USAID PROJECTS TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN UKUSAID PROJECTS TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN UKUSAID PROJECTS TO COMBAT HIV/AIDS IN UK

Scaling up National Response to HIV/AIDS through Information anPrevention of Abandonment of Children Born to HIV+ Mothers MAFamilies for ChildrenHealth Policy Initiative HPIReducing the Stigma and Discrimination Associated with HIV/AIDMother and Infant HealthTB Control PartnershipPreventing Mother to Child Transmission of HIV/AIDS

HIV Prevalence by Regionsper 100 000 person

200 to 370 (6)100 to 199 (6)

51 to 99 (8)

0 to 50 (7)

VCT Centers
SCWC

- 16

- 0000883

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

STATE OF HAWAI  I, Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

S T A CIE L. MENDEZ, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP

- 16

- 0000883; CASE NO. 1DTC

- 16

- 018453)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/ Defendant

- Appellant Stacie L. Mendez’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on December 3 , 2018, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, January 14 , 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Pa ula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-16-0000883

14-JAN-2019

11:03 AM
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

October 11, 2016 

v No. 325730 

Wayne Circuit Court 

CARL RENE BRUNER II, LC No. 14-008324-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v No. 326542 

Wayne Circuit Court 

MICHAEL DEMOND LAWSON, LC No. 14-005613-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: METER, P.J., and SHAPIRO and O’BRIEN, JJ. 

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring). 

 I concur with the majority in full as to defendant Lawson. I also concur as to defendant 

Bruner, but write separately in order to more fully address the hearsay issue. As the majority 

observes, the challenged statements were non-testimonial, and so no Confrontation Clause issue 

arises. The question then is whether the statement was admissible pursuant to MRE 804(3), 

which allows for admission of a hearsay statement if the statement is against the declarant’s 

penal interest. I do not agree with the majority’s view that the trial court’s instruction to the jury 

to consider the evidence only against defendant Lawson was curative. Some limiting 

instructions are effective and some are not. In this case I think it would be erroneous to conclude 

that the jury could ignore the significance of the statement as to Bruner because it was the only 

evidence that put a gun in his hand at the time of the shooting. Expecting jurors to 

compartmentalize the relevancy of this very significant evidence so as to apply it only to one 

defendant is simply unrealistic. And given that Webb’s testimony had been the subject of pretrial discussion, the trial court would, in my view, have been wise to empanel two juries, as was 

requested, rather than risk a retrial. 
-2- 

 Nevertheless, I believe I am bound to affirm. Although the federal rule of evidence 

concerning hearsay statements against interest has been limited to allow admission only of those 

portions of the statements that are inculpatory as to the declarant, Williamson v United States

512 US 594, 600-601; 114 S Ct 2431; 129 L Ed 2d 476 (1994), the same is not true concerning 

the Michigan rule of evidence. In People v Taylor, 482 Mich 368, 379 n 6; 759 NW2d 361 

(2008), the Michigan Supreme Court appears to have rejected the Williamson analysis and 

adopted a broader view of the exception allowing admission of an entire statement even if only 

part of the statement is against the declarant’s penal interest. Moreover, even if Williamson

controlled, the hearsay reference to the gun might have been admissible as to Bruner because 

even that portion of the statement could be construed as against Lawson’s penal interest because 

Lawson’s awareness that his passenger was carrying a gun was important to proving that he 

knowingly aided and abetted the murder. 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
§ 536.201 Mandatory grade retention. ( a ) Subject to the requirements in this section and in §§ 536.102 and 536.203, an agency must provide grade retention to an employee who moves from a position under a covered pay system to a lower-graded position under a covered pay system as a result of— ( 1 ) Reduction in force procedures, or
( 2 ) A reclassification process.
( b ) An agency must apply § 536.105 in determining whether a position under a different covered pay system is a lower-graded position.
( c ) An employee's movement to a lower-graded position is considered to be the result of reduction in force procedures when the employee has received a specific reduction in force notice and— ( 1 ) The employee is placed in the position offered in the notice; or
( 2 ) The employee is placed in a position other than that offered in the notice but in the same agency, if the position was offered in writing and at the initiative of management.
( d ) An employee's movement to a lower-graded position is considered to be the result of a reclassification process when— ( 1 ) The employee remains in his or her position after it is reclassified; or
( 2 ) The employee is placed in a different position in the same agency before the effective date of the reclassification action, if the position was offered in writing and at the initiative of management after the employee received a specific written notice that the position would be reclassified to a lower grade.
[70 FR 31305, May 31, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 66155, Nov. 7, 2008]
### §1253. Interstate cooperation and uniform laws

(a) The Administrator shall encourage cooperative activities by the States for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State laws relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prevention and control of pollution.

(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by the Congress.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title I, §103, as added Pub. L. 92–500, §2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 818.)
# L_2015202EN.01004201.xml

| 30.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 202/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 202/42

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 190/2014

of 25 September 2014

amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement [2015/1258]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU of 11 December 2013 amending Decision 2006/771/EC on harmonisation of the radio spectrum for use by short-range devices and repealing Decision 2005/928/EC (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU of 11 December 2013 amending Decision 2006/771/EC on harmonisation of the radio spectrum for use by short-range devices and repealing Decision 2005/928/EC (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU repeals Commission Decision 2005/928/EC (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU repeals Commission Decision 2005/928/EC (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex XI to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

| (1) | the following indent is added in point 5cz (Commission Decision 2006/771/EC):






  ‘— | 32013 D 0752: Commission Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU of 11 December 2013 (OJ L 334, 13.12.2013, p. 17).’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

the following indent is added in point 5cz (Commission Decision 2006/771/EC):

‘—

32013 D 0752: Commission Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU of 11 December 2013 (OJ L 334, 13.12.2013, p. 17).’;

| (2) | the text of point 5ct (Commission Decision 2005/928/EC) is deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the text of point 5ct (Commission Decision 2005/928/EC) is deleted.

Article 2

The text of Implementing Decision 2013/752/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 September 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 334, 13.12.2013, p. 17.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 47.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### In the Matter of New York Title and Mortgage Company (302-318 East 79th St., New York City—Series N-99). Marcel Levy, Appellant; Duff & Conger, Inc., et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no park
#### § 2421.14 Appropriate unit.

*Appropriate unit* means that grouping of employees found to be appropriate for purposes of exclusive recognition under 5 U.S.C. 7111, and for purposes of allotments to representatives under 5 U.S.C. 7115(c), and consistent with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7112. In determining an appropriate unit in a proceeding under part 2422 of this Chapter, for the eight offices listed in 3 U.S.C. 431(d)(2), employees shall be excluded from the unit if it is determined that such exclusion is required because of a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest or because of the President's or Vice President's constitutional responsibilities, in addition to the standards set out in 5 U.S.C. 7112.

[63 FR 46158, Aug. 31, 1998]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 03, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 03, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0259. THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY v. DALE ADAMS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

16EV005072