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



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 Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|                  |     |                            
|----------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:             |     |                            
|February 16, 2010 | By: | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |     |                            
|                  |     | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |     | Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 53.4968-4 Applicability date.

The rules of §§ 53.4968-1 through 53.4968-3 apply to taxable years of an educational institution beginning after October 15, 2020.

[T.D 9917, 85 FR 65557, Oct. 15, 2020]
1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-4025

___________ Patricia Brooks, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Laboratory Corporation of America, * Western District of Missouri. * Appellee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Patrick Noland, Employee; Michelle * Warneke, Employee, * * Defendants. *

___________ Submitted: June 6, 2007 Filed: June 13, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Patricia Brooks appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment lawsuit. Following car eful review, we affirm for the reasons provided by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         382,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,093,084
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,918
<INVENTORY>                                  8,292,544
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,778,852
<PP&E>                                       5,560,321
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,735,737
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,316,036
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,548,856
<BONDS>                                      4,963,521
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        578
<COMMON>                                       862,612
<OTHER-SE>                                     940,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,316,036
<SALES>                                     24,691,916
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,691,916
<CGS>                                       19,426,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,363,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (802,714)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,549,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,844,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,844,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,844,556)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)


</TABLE>
•>'k^SPOR!7\TfON 

- - "^^sJLa^^w^ 

<iJOPFRAltt '^r¥^ I-J:I 

-H--fr-r-7 7U~7s" 

)fU<J £ ^ ^^C<**^-V4!#tt^ur ^-^^tAjC-^^jlZ.ypLC^ 4iJ<€f^^tti>ij2t^ 

a^Mui ? £iL^tf^4A£A;ti:^^^ ^ c^t ^ ^^-x^S ^ j^„^ ^ 

- ..^^ yi ^ si^uctc^' . -

-ftf 

^^l^Ju^tau^^^e^ ' ^ Ayp ^ .JA< ^ . G-TUU^ /d-o^t ^ ytc^l^^-£^ ^M'^^ ^ 

A-£ (Lc^^<^oi^'££y*i^ T^Ccdf a^-e^^^^^ia-^c^O-K^ 4Z^<i^ 'T^^d'O Z?-^^-^:-^ _ 

^^^t.<- ^ 

<i*<. 
^ ^ , Leonore Friez 

Qf\ 1132 Fairway Dr. 

Pierre, SD 57501-5732 £20113
#### Jorge Maldonado et al., Appellants, v Suffolk County, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 439]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated August 2, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b) to dismiss the action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and denied their cross motion to deem the proposed complaint timely served and to compel compliance with a notice for discovery and inspection.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To avoid dismissal for failure to timely serve a complaint af*354ter demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action *(see Tutora v Schirripa,*1 AD3d 349 [2003]; *Dunefsky v Petco Animal Supplies,*303 AD2d 620 [2003]; *Balgley v Cammarata,*299 AD2d 432 [2002]). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either of these criteria. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant a reversal. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by T.D. 9359, 72 FR 54544, Sept. 26, 2007.

§ 10.79 Effect of disbarment, suspension, or censure. ( a ) *Disbarment.* When the final decision in a case is against the respondent (or the respondent has offered his or her consent and such consent has been accepted by the Internal Revenue Service) and such decision is for disbarment, the respondent will not be permitted to practice before the Internal Revenue Service unless and until authorized to do so by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to § 10.81.
( b ) *Suspension.* When the final decision in a case is against the respondent (or the respondent has offered his or her consent and such consent has been accepted by the Internal Revenue Service) and such decision is for suspension, the respondent will not be permitted to practice before the Internal Revenue Service during the period of suspension. For periods after the suspension, the practitioner's future representations may be subject to conditions as authorized by paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) *Censure.* When the final decision in the case is against the respondent (or the Internal Revenue Service has accepted the respondent's offer to consent, if such offer was made) and such decision is for censure, the respondent will be permitted to practice before the Internal Revenue Service, but the respondent's future representations may be subject to conditions as authorized by paragraph (d) of this section.
( d ) *Conditions.* After being subject to the sanction of either suspension or censure, the future representations of a practitioner so sanctioned shall be subject to specified conditions designed to promote high standards of conduct. These conditions can be imposed for a reasonable period in light of the gravity of the practitioner's violations. For example, where a practitioner is censured because the practitioner failed to advise the practitioner's clients about a potential conflict of interest or failed to obtain the clients' written consents, the practitioner may be required to provide the Internal Revenue Service with a copy of all consents obtained by the practitioner for an appropriate period following censure, whether or not such consents are specifically requested.
( e ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning August 2, 2011.
[T.D. 9527, 76 FR 32310, June 3, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,589,005
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,119,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,524,894
<PP&E>                                       1,083,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                 434,160
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,746,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,036,382
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,756
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,698,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,746,688
<SALES>                                      2,239,607
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,239,607
<CGS>                                        1,854,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,854,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               787,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (402,380)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (136,694)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (265,686)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (265,686)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 98 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 98

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
              clarify the meaning of the second amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 1995

Mr. Owens introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
              clarify the meaning of the second amendment.
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --
    ``The right enumerated in the second article of amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States shall be construed as a right of 
States and not of individuals.''.
                                 <all>
```
www.gpo.gov

### §147. Priority primary routes

(a) High traffic sections of highways on the Federal-aid primary system which connect to the Interstate System shall be selected by each State highway department, in consultation with appropriate local officials, subject to approval by the Secretary, for priority of improvement to supplement the service provided by the Interstate System by furnishing needed adequate traffic collector and distributor facilities. For the purpose of this section such highways shall hereafter in this section be referred to as “priority primary routes”.

(b) The Federal share of any project on a priority primary route shall be that provided in section 120(a) of this title. All provisions of this title applicable to the Federal-aid primary system shall be applicable to the priority primary routes selected under this section.

(c) The initial selection of the priority primary routes and the estimated cost of completing such routes shall be reported to Congress on or before July 1, 1974.

(d) There is authorized to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund to carry out this section not to exceed $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, $200,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975, and $300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976.

(Added Pub. L. 93–87, title I, §126(a), Aug. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 263; amended Pub. L. 94–280, title I, §130, May 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 440.)

#### Amendments

1976—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94–280 amended subsec. (b) generally, striking out apportionment provisions.
### SERVED: MARCH 7, 2013

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### GRANT AVIATION, INC. FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. FAA-2012-1261 FDMS No. FAA-2010-1265 FDMS No. FAA-2012-1266 FDMS No. FAA-2012-1267 FDMS No. FAA-2012-1268 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0041



### ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDINGS On December 14, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed Complaints inthese cases. OnNovember 29, 2012, Grant Aviation, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested hearings. On February 28, 2013, Complainant withdrew its Complaints and moved to terminate the proceedings, citing settlement ofthe matters. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing withoutthe consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart withprejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofComplaints having beenread and considered, it is ORDERED that: 1. Complainant's Withdrawal ofComplaints and Motion to Terminate Proceedings is hereby GRANTED; and2
2. These proceedings be and are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Attachments

- Service List

# ft.~C-~az. Richard C. Goodwin Administrative LawJudge3

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Brent R. Cole, 

### Respondent's Counsel Law Office ofBrent R. Cole, 

### P.C. 821 N Street, Suite 208 Anchorage, AK 99501 TEL: 907-277-8001 FAX: 907-277-8002 ONE COPY

Glenn H. Brown, 

### Complainant's Counsel Senior Attorney, Office oftheRegional Counsel Alaskan Region Federal Aviation Administration 222 W. 7tlt Avenue #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5271 FAX: 907-271-2800 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX:
.202-366-7536 FDMS Nos. FAA-2012- 1261, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268 & 0041 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. Forservice inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-12-00144-CR

BENJAMIN SHANNON RHODES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17976

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

O R D E R

Don Biard, counsel for Benjamin Shannon Rhodes, has filed a motion to extend time to

file the appellant’s brief. The brief was due December 28, 2012.

In his motion, counsel does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the 

need for an extension of time, stating only that “Appellant’s counsel requires further time to 

adequately evaluate the record and prepare a professional brief.” This Court interprets Rule 

10.5(b)(2) as requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to justify the 

requested extension, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they were filed, 

the dates of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Generic statements do not 

provide the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the rule. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 10.5(b)(2).

All future motions to extend time must contain case-specific information adequate to 

justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant the motion for an extension, for a period of thirty days, making 

the brief now due January 28, 2013. Further requests for extensions will not be looked upon 

with favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: January 3, 2013
§ 58.6695-1 Other assessable penalties with respect to the preparation of tax returns or claims for refund for other persons. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of tax under chapter 37 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) may be subject to penalties for failure to furnish a copy to the taxpayer under section 6695(a) of the Code, failure to sign the return under section 6695(b), failure to furnish an identifying number under section 6695(c), failure to retain a copy or list under section 6695(d), failure to file a correct information return under section 6695(e), and endorsement or negotiation of a check under section 6695(f), in the manner stated in § 1.6695-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to returns and claims for refund filed after June 28, 2024, and during taxable years ending after June 28, 2024.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-23-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,233
<PP&E>                                       1,237,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 644,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,009,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,914
<BONDS>                                        445,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           438
<OTHER-SE>                                     362,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,009,989
<SALES>                                         19,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               245,171
<CGS>                                           11,328
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  168,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
IIA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1014

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 15, 1995

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued

hydroelectric license.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding the time limitation of section 13 of

4 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

5 Commission, upon the request of the licensee for FERC

6 Project No. 3701, is authorized, in accordance with the

7 good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements
2

HR 1014 RFS

1 of section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under such

2 section, to extend the time required for the licensee to

3 commence the construction of such project for up to a

4 maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section

5 shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the

6 extension (issued by the Commission under section 13) of

7 the period required for commencement of construction of

8 such project. If the license for FERC Project 3701 should

9 expire prior to the date of enactment of this Act, the Com10 mission is authorized and directed to reinstate effective

11 June 1, 1995, the license previously issued for such

12 project.

Passed the House of Representatives November 13,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.