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 Properties III
      L.P.
      (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 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. 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 RichmanHousing
                Credits Inc., general partnerof
                Richman Tax Credit Properties IIIL.P.,
                General Partner of the RegistrantAugust
                13, 2008
##### 



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 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of ACG Holdings, Inc.
and American Color Graphics, Inc., (collectively the Company) that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m) and that the information
contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Date: February 14, 2005
    /s/  Stephen M. DyottStephen M. DyottChief Executive Officer Date: February 14, 2005
    /s/   Patrick W. KellickPatrick W. KellickChief Financial Officer 45
Exhibit 34.15



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Managers of C-III Capital Partners LLC, the

Sole Member of C-III Asset Management LLC:

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, that C-III Asset Management LLC (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for
all transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i)
 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting managements assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2016 is fairly stated, in all material aspects.



LOGO

Asheville, North Carolina

February 6, 2017
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 156 (Friday, August 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 41157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19244]



[[Page 41157]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5280-N-31]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: August 14, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: August 6, 2009.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. E9-19244 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
(logo) Rialto          CAPITAL  **2015 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123)**  Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of December 1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor , Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Ce1tificate Administrator , as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, and Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-NXS4, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-NXS4 **(WFCM 2015-NXS4)** The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies to the following: 1. All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer. 2. A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of December 9, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision. 3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer                        Date: March 1, 2016Adam Singer, Managing Director
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 39

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 15, 1995

Received and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding Federal

disaster relief.

Whereas catastrophic natural disasters are occurring with

greater frequency, a trend that is likely to continue for

several decades according to prominent scientists;

Whereas the Federal Government has responded to disasters

by appropriating relief funds, which provide only shortterm assistance to victims but long-term burdens to taxpayers; and

Whereas the increasing reliance on Federal disaster relief has

overshadowed the need to perform more comprehensive

disaster planning and rely on private insurance for protection against disaster risks: Now, therefore, be it
2

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) persons who live in areas at high risk to

4 natural disasters should assume more responsibility

5 for their actions by insuring against such risks in

6 order to minimize the rising cost of Federal disaster

7 relief;

8 (2) sensible, cost-effective disaster mitigation

9 programs should be encouraged and enhanced at the

10 State and local level;

11 (3) insurers should create a privately funded

12 pooling mechanism for the spreading of disaster risk

13 in order to encourage the continued availability and

14 affordability of private insurance in all parts of the

15 Nation; and

16 (4) a fundamental overhaul of Federal disaster

17 policies should be undertaken to reduce costs to tax18 payers and encourage more effective partnerships

19 between the private sector and government at all lev20 els in anticipation of future catastrophes.

Passed the House of Representatives March 14,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 ending June 29, 2003 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
August 13, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6932

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SEAN ANTHONY ROBINSON, a/k/a Black,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00204-HEH-1)

Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Anthony Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, 

II, Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sean Anthony Robinson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Robinson 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
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.13


    
      

    


    EXHIBIT
      10.13

    


    


    SUMMARY
      OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS AS OF FEBRUARY 28,
      2007

    


    


    The
      following summarizes the current compensation and benefits received by the
      Company’s non-employee directors as of February 28, 2007. This document is
      intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no
      way
      is intended to provide any additional rights to any non-employee
      director.

    


    Retainer

    


    Non-employee
      directors each receive an annual retainer fee of $20,000. The Chairman of the
      Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $14,000, the Chairman of the
      Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $8,000 and the Chairman
      of
      each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee
      receives an annual retainer of $5,000. A director that chairs more than one
      committee receives a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs. All
      of
      the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.

    


    Meeting
      Fees

    


    Per
      meeting fees for non-employee directors are as follows:

    


    
      	
              -

            	
              For
                meetings of the Board of Directors, Compensation Committee, Corporate
                Governance/Nominating Committee and Diversity Committee,
                $1,250.

            


    

    


    
      	
              -

            	
              For
                meetings of the Audit Committee, $2,250. In addition, the Chairman
                gets an
                additional $1,250 for preparing to conduct each quarterly
                meeting.

            


    

    


    Equity
      Compensation

    


    Under
      the
      terms of the Company’s 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to
      receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based
      compensation awards. However, the Company does not make any such awards to
      non-employee directors under its current compensation practices.

    


    All
      non-employee directors are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all
      services as a director, including committee participation or special
      assignments.
§ 31.7701-1 Tax return preparer. ( a ) *In general.* For the definition of a tax return preparer, see § 301.7701-15 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78454, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### § 48.4062(a) [Reserved]
7/31/12 IPM Analysis of the Proposed GHG New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units (...

www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/proposedEGU_GHG_NSPS.html 1/2

You will need Adobe

Acrobat Reader to

view some of the

files on this page.

See EPA's About

PDF page to learn

more about PDF,

and a link to the

free Adobe Acrobat

Reader.

You are here: EPA Home Air & Radiation Clean Air Markets Programs and Regulations

Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Portal Proposed GHG New Source Performance Standards for

Electric Generating Units (EGU GHG NSPS)

IPM Analysis of the Proposed GHG New Source

Performance Standards for Electric Generating

Units (EGU GHG NSPS)

On March 27, 2012, EPA proposed the GHG New Source Performance

Standards for Electric Generating Units (EGU GHG NSPS). EPA analyzed the

proposal using the same version of IPM that was used to analyze the Final

Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (MATS). From the MATS page, one can

download documentation for IPM v4.10_MATS and the "NEEDS" database

of electric generation unit records used in the modeling.

IPM Results: IPM Run Files

Download IPM run files for the GHG EGU NSPS analysis using the links in the table below. Click on

the IPM run name in the first column of the table below to download a file. The files are posted in

one of two formats, a zipped archive or an excel spreadsheet, and contain the following:

Detailed IPM input and output files (i.e., .DAT, System Summary Report, .RPE, .CAR, and

TAC files) for the listed runs. (Guide to content of IPM input and output files)

IPM Run Files

IPM Run

Name

IPM Run Description

EPA Base

Case

(NSPS)

Base case model run, including the national Title IV SO2 capand-trade program; NOX SIP Call regional ozone season capand-trade program; Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (MATS) as

Finalized in December 2011; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

(CSAPR) as finalized in July 2011; and settlements and state

rules through December 2010 impacting SO2, NOX, directly

emitted PM and CO2. This scenario represents conditions with or

without the proposed NSPS. (Zip 7.58 MB)

High

Electric

Demand

Sensitivity

The high electricity demand scenario assumes electricity

demand grows at an annual average rate of 1.1 percent

(compared to about 0.8 percent in the EPA baseline).(Zip 7.38

MB)

Clean Air Markets

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/proposedEGU_GHG_NSPS.html

Last updated on Tuesday, June 05, 2012
7/31/12 IPM Analysis of the Proposed GHG New Source Performance Standards for Electric Generating Units (...

www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/proposedEGU_GHG_NSPS.html 2/2

Low Shale

Recovery

Sensitivity

The lower shale recovery scenario assumes that 50 percent less

natural gas is recovered from each shale play relative to the

base case (effectively lowering shale reserves by 50

percent).(Zip 7.42 MB)

High

Electric

Demand

and Low

Shale

Recovery

Sensitivity

A combination of the two assumptions listed above..(Zip 7.42 MB)

Return to main IPM page
**MA TERI**  **AL S NOT INCLUDED IN**  **AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

FAA - 2012 - 1128 Docket Number

2012 - SW - 064 -AD Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM Eurocop ter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 63A011, Revision 0, dated August 1, 2012,

**MA Y BE VIEWED A** 

**T:** Federal Aviation Administration Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **D URING THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Zapata, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 448]

Appeal from a judg*756ment of the County Court of Chenango County (Dowd, J.), rendered August 7, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a seven-count indictment, defendant executed a waiver of the right to appeal and pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was innocent and that the plea was the result of coercion. County Court denied the motion and defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to 5 to 15 years in prison. On appeal defense counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment as counsel for defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. A review of the record and defense counsel’s brief reveals the existence of various issues that cannot be characterized as wholly frivolous. Without expressing any opinion as to the ultimate merit of any issues, defense counsel’s application to be relieved of his assignment is granted and new counsel will be assigned to address any issues that the record may disclose *(see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633, 636 [2001]; *People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
§ 31.3221-2 Rates and computation of employer tax. ( a ) *Rates* — ( 1 ) ( i ) *Tier 1 tax.* The Tier 1 employer tax rate equals the sum of the tax rates in effect under section 3111(a), relating to old-age, survivors, and disability insurance, and section 3111(b), relating to hospital insurance. The Tier 1 employer tax rate is applied to compensation up to the contribution base described in section 3231(e)(2)(B)(i). The contribution base is determined under section 230 of the Social Security Act and is identical to the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance wage base and the hospital insurance wage base, respectively, under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
( ii ) *Example.* The rule in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section is illustrated by the following example. Example. R's employee, *A,* received compensation of $60,000 in 1992. The section 3111(a) rate of 6.2 percent would be applied to *A*'s compensation up to $55,500, the applicable contribution base for 1992. The section 3111(b) rate of 1.45 percent would be applied to the entire $60,000 of *A*'s compensation because the applicable contribution base for 1992 is $130,200.
( 2 ) ( i ) *Tier 2 tax.* The Tier 2 employer tax rate equals the percentage set forth in section 3221(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. This rate is applied up to the contribution base described in section 3231(e)(2)(B)(ii).
( ii ) *Example.* The rule in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section is illustrated by the following example. Example. R's employee, *A,* received compensation of $60,000 in 1992. The section 3221(b) rate of 16.10 percent would be applied to *A*'s compensation up to $41,400, the applicable contribution base for 1992.
( 3 ) *Supplemental Annuity Tax.* The supplemental annuity tax for each work-hour for which compensation is paid by an employer for services rendered during any calendar quarter by employees is imposed at the tax rate determined each calendar quarter by the Railroad Retirement Board. See also § 31.3221-3.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Computation.* The employer tax is computed by multiplying the amount of the compensation with respect to which the employer tax is imposed by the rate applicable to such compensation, as determined under paragraph (a) of this section. The applicable rate is the rate in effect at the time the compensation is paid. For rules relating to the time of payment, see § 31.3121(a)-2(a) and (b).
( 2 ) *Example.* The rule in paragraph (b)(1) of this section is illustrated by the following example.
Example. In 1990, *R*'s employee *A* received $1,000 as remuneration for services performed for *R* in 1989. The employer tax is payable at the rate of 23.75 percent (7.65 percent plus 16.10 percent) in effect for 1990 (the year the compensation was received) and not the 23.61 percent rate (7.51 percent plus 16.10 percent) in effect for 1989 (the year the services were performed).
[T.D. 8582, 59 FR 66190, Dec. 23, 1994]