alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Properties III
L.P. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Housing Credits
Inc., general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., general partner
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant
to (S) 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/  Neal Ludeke
------------------------------------
Neal Ludeke
Chief Financial Officer of Richman
Housing Credits Inc., general partner
of Richman Tax Credit Properties III
L.P., General Partner of the Registrant
November 15, 2004
October 16, 2015

Mr. Thomas N. Jacob

22718 Bayside Way

California, MD 20619

Dear Mr. Jacob :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21 and § § 61.23(a)(c), 61.101(e)(4) (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121,

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)(2), and 91.417(a) (b) of Title 14, Code of

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 18 , 2015

, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3127

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Gene WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6618.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

*670Samuel Gene Woods, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Gene Woods appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Woods,*Nos. CR-91-1; CA-97-100-V (W.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2002). 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 Woods’ appeal of the February 1, 2002, denial of his motion for reconsideration, filed on April 12, 2002, is considered timely because judgment was not entered in a separate document requirement. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 58; *Fiore v. Washington Co. Community Mental Health Ctr., 960*F.2d 229, 234 (1st Cir.1992); *Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria,*886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.1989) (Rule 59 motion); *Hughes v. Halifax County School Bd.,*823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir.1987) (holding a document that attempts to combine the court's reasoning and its final disposition is not likely to be considered a separate document under Rule 58).
2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

3-19-2013

Neal Crispin v. Commissioner of Internal Reven

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 12-2275

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Neal Crispin v. Commissioner of Internal Reven" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1046.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1046
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 12-2275

_____________

NEAL CRISPIN,

 Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

_______________

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court

(No. 28980-07)

Judge: Hon. Diane L. Kroupa

_______________

Argued

January 8, 2013

Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit 

Judges.

(Filed: March 19, 2013)

_______________
2

George W. Connelly [ARGUED]

Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Johnson & Williams

1200 Smith Street

1400 Citicorp

Houston, TX 77002

 Counsel for Appellant

Gary R. Allen

Tamara W. Ashford

Richard Farber

Judith A. Hagley [ARGUED]

Gilbert S. Rothenberg

United States Department of Justice

Tax Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

P.O. Box 502

Washington, DC 20044

_______________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_______________

JORDAN, Circuit Judge.

IT IS NOW ORDERED that the above-captioned 

opinion be amended as follows: 

Footnote 3 shall now read:

The Commissioner contends that that step in the 

CARDS transaction “is predicated on an invalid 

application of the ... basis provisions of the 

Internal Revenue Code.” (Appellee’s Br. at 4.) 
3

Specifically, I.R.C. § 1012 provides that a 

taxpayer’s basis in property is generally equal 

to the purchase price paid by the taxpayer. That 

purchase price includes the amount of the 

seller’s liabilities assumed by the taxpayer as 

part of the purchase, on the assumption that the 

taxpayer will eventually repay those liabilities. 

See Comm’r v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300, 308-09 

(1983). But in a CARDS transaction, the 

Commissioner argues, the taxpayer and the 

foreign borrower agree that the taxpayer will 

repay only the portion of the loan equal to the 

amount of currency the taxpayer actually 

purchases.

 /s/ Kent A. Jordan 

Circuit Judge

DATED: March 19, 2013
Exhibit 32.2
                            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 Milestone Scientific Inc on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leonard Osser Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Thomas M. Stuckey
                                        ---------------------
                                        Thomas M. Stuckey
                                        Chief Financial Officer

November 11, 2003


                                       40
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18712]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-9477; AK-962-1410-HY-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the conveyance of surface and 
subsurface estates for certain lands pursuant to the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act will be issued to Calista Corporation for 2.83 
acres located northwesterly of the Native village of Goodnews Bay, 
Alaska. Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until September 4, 2009 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements 
of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their 
rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#27464c09454b4a0944484951425e4649444267464c09454b4a09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d0c06430f0100430e02031b08140c030e082d0c06430f0100430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Dina L. Torres,
Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Resolution Branch.
[FR Doc. E9-18712 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AIR-08-093-E 

CORRECTED COPY 

In our letter dated December 26, 2007, the FAA erroneously assigned Exemption No. 49131 

to the exemption, instead of Exemption No. 4913I. This document corrects the error and the 

exemption will still expire on January 31, 2012. 

December 26, 2007 

 Exemption No. 4913I 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-11375 

Dr. Michael Romanowski 

Assistant Vice President, Civil Aviation 

Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 

1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1700 

Arlington, VA 22209-3901 

Dear Dr. Romanowski: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 4913, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated November 2, 2007, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (AIA), for an extension of 

Exemption No. 4913, as amended. That exemption provides certain aircraft manufactures 

with relief from §§ 21.182(a) and 45.11(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

It allows AIA-member aircraft manufacturers to manufacture aircraft intended for either 

export, use in air carrier operations conducted under 14 CFR part 121, or commuter 

operations conducted under 14 CFR part 135 (as defined in 14 CFR part 119) without 

installing an identification plate during the production phase of the exterior of those aircraft. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 
 2

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to AIA. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 4913, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 4913, as amended, to 

January 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. All conditions and limitations of 

Exemption No. 4913, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a 

part of, Exemption No. 4913. 

Sincerely, 

 /s/ 

John J. Hickey 

Director, Aircraft Certification Service
DuPo nt Chemicals and Fluoroproducts Chambers Works Deepwater, NJ 08023

March 9 , 2010 Document Control Office US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East Room 6428 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue , NW Washington, D C 20460 Re: EPA

– HQ

– OPPT

– 2003 - 0012 DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 PFOA Data Submittal

– Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples November and December 200 9 Sample Data Dear Document Control Office : As per Part IV, Section G.5.a of the NJPDES permit, we are submi tting a summary of PFOA anal yt ical results for the weekl y grab samp les taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for samples taken during November and December 2009 . We will continue to send you the reports each month. If you have any questions, please do not hesit ate to call me at (856) 540
- 3015
. Sincerel y,

Karen L. Pinder SHE Consultant

– Environmental DuPont Chambers W orks EnclosuresCopies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East Room 4146 1201 Constitution Avenue , NW Washington, D C 20004 Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter on ly) Principal Environmental Engineer NJDEP Division of Water Quality Bureau of Point Source Permitting

– Region 2 401 E. State Street P.O. Box 029 Trenton, NJ 08625
- 0029
----

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-102/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

(2006/C 326/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have adopted, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 96, 22.04.2006.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7036

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DUANE CURTIS CHASE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.

(CR-03-483-BEL; CA-05-1315-BEL)

Submitted: November 18, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane Curtis Chase, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Duane Curtis Chase, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Chase has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         362,796
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       4,255,187
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 57,575,855
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,012,467
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,012,467
<LOANS>                                    165,003,140
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,869,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             238,936,665
<DEPOSITS>                                 163,419,415
<SHORT-TERM>                                35,344,861
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,607,782
<LONG-TERM>                                 16,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,833
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,156,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             238,936,665
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             10,247,145
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,138,972
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                74,045
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            13,460,162
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,589,295
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,218,693
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,652,174
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  270,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,751,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,532,793
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,532,793
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,677,793
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.86
<LOANS-NON>                                    138,714
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,653,290
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   59,177
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,153
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,869,266
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,869,266
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
----

Order of the President of the Court of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-113/06) (1)

(2006/C 294/75)

Language of the case: French

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

----

(1)OJ C 86, 08.04.2006.

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40744 Summary Calendar

DOUGLAS ALAN BURDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MITCH G. WOODS, Sheriff; U.P. CASSIDY, Captain; M. HEBERT, Deputy; U.P. MORGAN, Sergeant; U.P. VEGA, Deputy, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CV-339

-------------------- Before SMITH, DeMOSS, PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Douglas Alan Burden, Texas prisoner # 1160832, appeals the dismissal without prejudice as repetitious of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. Given that the access-to-the-courts claim Burden raised therein is currently pending in Burden v. Jefferson County , No. 1:03-CV-233, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit without prejudice. See FED . R. C IV . P. 41(a)(2); Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc. , 279 F.3dNo. 05-40744 -2- 314, 319-20 (5th Cir. 2002). The dismissal is therefore affirmed. The district court, however, did not address the issue Burden raised regarding whether his inmate trust fund should be credited in the amount of the filing fee withdrawn for the instant case, which fee was apparently erroneously docketed as a new cause of action distinct from cause number 1:03-CV-233. The case is therefore remanded to the district court to address Burden’s entitlement, if any, to reimbursement for the filing fee in cause number 1:03-CV-339. DISMISSAL AFFIRMED; REMANDED.
Order issued December 2, 2013 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________ No. 05-13-00256-CR

________________________________________ RICHARD GONZALES, JR., Appellant 

### V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



### O R D E R Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis Based on the Court’s opin ion of this date, we GRANT the July 22, 2013 motion of Christopher A. Routt for leav e to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove Christopher A. Routt as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Richard Gonzales, Jr., TDCJ #1835502, Hutchins State Jail, 1500 East Langdon Road, Dallas, Texas, 75241. /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE