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 September 29, 2004 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. (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/  David Salzman
------------------------------------
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
November 15, 2004
#### Rovenia Fenton, Respondent, v Marse I. Austin et al., Appellants.

[806 NYS2d 666]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, *614Richmond County (Gigante, J.), dated December 17, 2004, which, in effect, granted the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, made at the close of the evidence, and directed that judgment on the issue of liability be entered in favor of the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contraiy to the defendants’ contention, evidence proffered at the trial clearly established as a matter of law that the defendant driver’s failure to yield the right of way after stopping at a stop sign was the sole proximate cause of the accident *(see Meretskaya v Logozzo,*2 AD3d 599 [2003]; *Szczotka v Adler,*291 AD2d 444 [2002]; *McClelland v Seery,*261 AD2d 451, 452 [1999]; *Bolta v Lohan,*242 AD2d 356 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 4401, on which it had reserved decision, for judgment as a matter of law *(see*CPLR 4401; *Dileo v Barreca,*16 AD3d 366, 368 [2005]). Crane, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000637

25-MAR-2014

08:51 AM
# :U-00&

NO. 15-0069

CLIFFORD FAIRFAX v. BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL. •1L£ COPY 

# ILEDuicbuRTOFAPPiALS '^h^CourtolAEoealsDisUict ) COURT OF TEXAS 

## 9 2015; 

# c.,thy ^LUS^CJ Anderson Count 12th District. U<

May 8, 2015 Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

•••••••••• I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk ofthe Supreme Court ofTexas, do hereby certify 

### that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders ofthe Supreme Court of Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear ofrecord in the minutes of said Court under the date shown. 

### WITNESS my hand and seal ofthe Supreme Court ofTexas, at the City ofAustin, this the 19th day ofJune, 2015.
Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
§ 1027.540 Voluntary information sharing among financial institutions. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.540 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 1022.400 General.

Money services businesses are subject to the recordkeeping requirements set forth and cross referenced in this subpart. Money services businesses should also refer to subpart D of Part 1010 of this chapter for recordkeeping requirements contained in that subpart which apply to money services businesses.
o r^lWrfMENT OF 

us.Departmen t o f > ' ^''A'SF''ORTATtON ) 200 New jersey Avenue, SE 

TraMfiOrtaHon •. KcT OPERATIONS Washington, DC 20590 

Office Of the Secretary 

ofTransportcrtion :r:ir, if 7 1 c \ i(v "jc 

October 14, 2010 

The Honorable Paul C. Broun, M.D. 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-1010 

Dear Congressman Broun: 

Thank you for your letter of September 8 regarding essential air service (EAS) at Athens, 

Georgia. 

As you know, the Department issued Order 2010-5-33, May 28, 2010, requesting proposals 

from carriers interested in providing replacement service at Athens, as well as Macon, for 

the two-year period beginning October 1, 2010. In response to our request, we received 

proposals from Pacific Wings, L.L.C. d/b/a Georgia Skies (the incumbent), Alaska Juneau 

Aeronautics, Inc. d/b/a SeaPort Airlines, Charter Air Transport, Inc., and Sovereign Air, 

Inc. 

We due pleased to inform you that the Department issued Order 2010-10-5, October 7, 

2010, selecting Pacific Wings to continue providing subsidized EAS at Athens for the twoyear period through September 30, 2012. 

As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy of your letter and this response in 

Docket DOT-OST-2002-11348 as a contact outside the record of this matter. 

Sincerely yours. 

Dennis J. DeVatty ^ 

Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of InPoint Commercial Real Estate Income, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2018, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Catherine L. Lynch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, 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 her knowledge:

 

| 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   |
|--------|
|   |   |
| By:    | /s/ Catherine L. Lynch |
| Name:  | Catherine L. Lynch |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
| Date:  | November 14, 2019 |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
www.gpo.gov

### §584. Apportionment of remaining funds; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation and the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation

The remainder of the award shall be apportioned between the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation and the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in accordance with an agreement entered into between the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in May 1965, approved by the Associate Commissioner of Indian Affairs in December 1965.

(Pub. L. 92–206, §4, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 737.)
#### Glenn I. Henricksen et al., Appellants, v Trails End Company et al., Respondents.

[806 NYS2d 64]

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the extent of an easement over the plaintiffs’ property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.H.O.), dated September 29, 2004, which, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion, in effect, to compel the plaintiffs to reimburse the defendants for their expert witness fees pursuant to an oral directive of the court dated November 27, 2000, directing them to pay to the defendants the principal sum of $2,655.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On November 27, 2000, the Supreme Court orally directed the plaintiffs to pay the defendants’ expenses for producing an expert witness at trial *(see*CPLR 3126). By motion dated February 20, 2004, the defendants moved, in effect, to compel the plaintiffs to reimburse the defendants for their expert witness fees pursuant to the oral directive. The Supreme Court, in effect, granted the defendants’ motion to the extent of directing the plaintiffs to pay the principal sum of $2,655 to the defendants for their expert witness fees.

The plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court improperly, in effect, granted the motion because the defendants failed to timely submit a written order for signature pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.48. The time limit for submission of a proposed order for signature contained in 22 NYCRR 202.48 is not applicable in this case since the parties were never directed to settle *349or submit an order on notice (see *Funk v Barry,*89 NY2d 364 [1996]; *People v Dame,*289 AD2d 997 [2001]; *Winckel v Atlantic Rentals & Sales,*195 AD2d 599 [1993]; *Donovan v DiPietro,*195 AD2d 589 [1993]). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion was properly, in effect, granted. Cozier, J.E, Santucci, Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Juliane M., Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Andrew M., Appellant; Theresa M., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Matthew M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Andrew M., Appellant; Theresa M., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[803 NYS2d 915]

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from an undated order of the Family Court, Queens County (Bogacz, J.), which, inter alia, awarded the mother visitation with the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court improperly delegated to the Law Guardian and the Administration for Children’s Services the authority to determine the visitation schedule *(see Matter of St. Pierre v Burrows,*14 AD3d 889, 892 [2005]; *Matter of Grisanti v Grisanti,*4 AD3d 471, 474-475 [2004]; *Johnson v Johnson,*303 AD2d 641, 642 [2003]; *Matter of Rueckert v Reilly,*282 AD2d 608, 609 [2001]). The determination of visitation is entrusted to the court based upon the best interests of the children *(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89 [1982]; *Matter of Kachelhofer v Wasiak,*10 AD3d 366 [2004]). However, we decline to disturb the determination made here, as the record supports the conclusion that the award of visitation to the mother was in the children’s best interests *(see Matter of Orner v Orner,*263 AD2d 544 [1999]; *Matter of Gerald D. v Lucille S.,*188 AD2d 650 [1992]). H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 2016, byand among CCRE COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, L.P., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,as Special Servicer, AEGON USA REALTY ADVISORS, LLC, as Potomac Mills SpecialServicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian,PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, CFCRE2016-C6 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 10.11 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from November 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreementduring such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go  far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Amended Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Blood Plasma



 Exhibit 10.1 
 DCI Management Group, LLC 
 1019 Fort Salonga Road, Suite 109, Northport,
NY 11768 
 Phone: 631-757-8401        Fax: 631-757-8364 

AMENDMENT No. 3 

May 1, 2012 
 ViroPharma Biologics, Inc.

 730 Stockton Drive 
 Exton, PA 19341

  

	 	Re:	Third Amendment to that certain Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of Blood Plasma (the “Purchase Agreement”) dated July 12, 2007, between
ViroPharma Biologics, Inc. (successor in interest to Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (“Purchaser”) and DCI Management Group LLC (“Seller”), as amended by that certain First Amendment dated July 9, 2009
and Second Amendment dated February 5, 2010 (as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”) 

 Any capitalized
terms used in this letter (this “Third Amendment”) that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Purchase Agreement. 
 Each of the parties to this Third Amendment (each, a “Party,” and, collectively, the “Parties”) hereby acknowledges, consents to, and ratifies the following
actions and amendments: 
  

	1.	 Extension of Initial Term; No Automatic Renewal. The Parties hereby agree to extend the expiration date of the Initial Term from
December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017. Any reference in the Purchase Agreement to “December 2015” or “2015” in connection with the Initial Term (for example, at the end of Section 2.1 concerning Seller’s
monthly production estimates) shall be deemed to be a reference to “December 2017” or “2017,” as the context requires. In 










	 	
addition, the Parties agree that any renewal of the Initial Term may only be accomplished by means of a written amendment to the Purchase Agreement signed by both Parties.


  

	2.	Payment Terms. Notwithstanding any provision in the Purchase Agreement to the contrary, the Parties hereby amend the payment terms for Blood Plasma such that
Purchaser shall be obligated to pay Seller net 30 days from the date of invoice, and each invoice shall bear a date that is no earlier than the date upon which Seller has delivered Blood Plasma to Purchaser corresponding to such invoice.


  

	3.	No Other Changes; Execution. Except as explicitly set forth in this Third Amendment, no amendment or modification to the Purchase Agreement is hereby made. This
Third Amendment may be executed in counterparts and delivered by facsimile or other electronic means. 

 Each Party has caused its
duly authorized representative to sign on its behalf below to indicate its agreement to this Third Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

									
	DCI Management Group, LLC	 		 	ViroPharma Biologics, Inc.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Ira London
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel B. Soland

		 	Ira London, CEO	 		 		 	Daniel B. Soland, President


  
 2
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2014

No. 04-14-00392-CR

Billy Bob OPPELT,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR5849

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due September 26, 2014; however, the court granted 

appellant an extension of time to file the brief until November 5. The brief was not filed. Instead, 

appellant filed a motion requesting an additional fifteen days to file the brief. 

We grant the motion. We order appellant’s attorney, Frank D. Sandoval, to file the brief 

by November 20, 2014. Counsel is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted 

absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) 

advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the 

court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of November, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
www.gpo.gov

### §286e–8. Treatment of creditors in debt rescheduling

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States executive director to seek to assure that no decision by the International Monetary Fund undermines or departs from United States policy regarding the comparability of treatment of public and private creditors in cases of debt rescheduling where official United States credits are involved.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §29, as added Pub. L. 95–435, §3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1052; amended Pub. L. 96–389, §5, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1554.)

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–389 struck out “on the use of the facility” after “Monetary Fund”.

#### Effective Date of 1980 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–389 effective Oct. 7, 1980, see section 12 of Pub. L. 96–389, set out as an Effective Date note under section 286s of this title.
# L_2019126DE.01007301.xml

| 15.5.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 126/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 126/73

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) 2019/478 der Kommission vom 14. Januar 2019 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) 2017/625 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates hinsichtlich der Kategorien von Sendungen, die amtlichen Kontrollen an den Grenzkontrollstellen zu unterziehen sind

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 82 vom 25. März 2019
  )

Seite 4, Erwägungsgrund 3:

Anstatt:

„verarbeitete Erzeugnisse tierischen Ursprungs“

muss es heißen:

„Verarbeitungserzeugnisse tierischen Ursprungs“.

Seite 4, Artikel 1 zur Änderung von Artikel 47 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b der Verordnung (EU) 2017/625:

Anstatt:

„verarbeitete Erzeugnisse tierischen Ursprungs“

muss es heißen:

„Verarbeitungserzeugnisse tierischen Ursprungs“.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Osvaldo Vasquez, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 3]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered May 26, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of eight years, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]). Were we to review these claims, we would find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. When an undercover officer voluntarily gave defendant money, this was for the sole purpose of purchasing cocaine, although no sale took place. When the undercover officer demanded the return of the money, defendant resisted, but returned some of the money. At the moment the undercover officer demanded the return of the last $20 bill in defendant’s possession, defendant used physical force against the officer and threatened to use a knife. By wrongfully withholding the last of the money despite a demand for its return, defendant committed larceny *(see*Penal Law § 155.05 [1]). By responding with violence immediately upon the detective’s demand, defendant evinced his intent to overcome the detective’s resistance to his *223wrongful retention of the money immediately after the taking, which satisfied the requirements of Penal Law § 160.00 (1).

The court properly denied defendant’s challenges for cause to three prospective jurors. Contrary to defendant’s assertions, these panelists unambiguously stated that they would decide the case impartially and based on the evidence, and none of them displayed any bias in favor of police officers *(see People v Arnold,*96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to grant defendant a midtrial adjournment for the purpose of preparing material witness orders for several uncooperative prospective defense witnesses *(see Matter of Anthony M.,*63 NY2d 270, 283-284 [1984]; *People v Foy,*32 NY2d 473, 476 [1973]; *People v Hunt,*235 AD2d 374 [1997]; *see also People v Reid,*156 AD2d 488 [1989], *Iv denied*75 NY2d 923 [1990]). Defendant’s constitutional argument is unpreserved *(see People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Gonzalez,*54 NY2d 729 [1981]; *see also Smith v Duncan,*411 F3d 340, 348-349 [2d Cir 2005]; *Brown v Miller,*2005 WL 1773683, *2-4, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 15026, *6-14 [SD NY, July 26, 2005]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
§ 1010.711 Submitting requests. ( a ) Each request for an administrative ruling must be in writing and contain the following information: ( 1 ) A complete description of the situation for which the ruling is requested,
( 2 ) A complete statement of all material facts related to the subject transaction,
( 3 ) A concise and unambiguous question to be answered,
( 4 ) A statement certifying, to the best of the requestor's knowledge and belief, that the question to be answered is not applicable to any ongoing state or Federal investigation, litigation, grand jury proceeding, or proceeding before any other governmental body involving either the requestor, any other party to the subject transaction, or any other party with whom the requestor has an agency relationship,
( 5 ) A statement identifying any information in the request that the requestor considers to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the reason therefor,
( 6 ) If the subject situation is hypothetical, a statement justifying why the particular situation described warrants the issuance of a ruling,
( 7 ) The signature of the person making the request, or
( 8 ) If an agent makes the request, the signature of the agent and a statement certifying the authority under which the request is made.
( b ) A request filed by a corporation shall be signed by a corporate officer and a request filed by a partnership shall be signed by a partner.
( c ) A request may advocate a particular proposed interpretation and may set forth the legal and factual basis for that interpretation.
( d ) Requests shall be addressed to: Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, P.O. Box 39, Vienna, VA 22183.
( e ) The requester shall advise the Director, FinCEN, immediately in writing of any subsequent change in any material fact or statement submitted with a ruling request in conformity with paragraph (a) of this section.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03530

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.