alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32



Certification Of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd.1 (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Donald J. Liebentritt, as President and Chief Executive Officer
of First Capital Financial, L.L.C., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership (the Managing General Partner), and Philip Tinkler, as Vice PresidentFinance and Treasurer of the Managing General Partner, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Partnership.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    DONALD J. LIEBENTRITTDONALD J. LIEBENTRITTPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 12, 2004




/s/    PHILIP TINKLERPHILIP TINKLERVice PresidentFinance and TreasurerNovember 12, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.1042 Correspondence respecting international design applications filed with the Office as an office of indirect filing.

The applicant may specify a correspondence address for correspondence sent by the Office as an office of indirect filing. Where no such address has been specified, the Office will use as the correspondence address the address of applicant's appointed representative (§ 1.1041) or, where no representative is appointed, the address as specified in Administrative Instruction 302.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.324 Correction of inventorship in patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256.

(a) Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256, may, on application of all the parties and assignees, or on order of a court before which such matter is called in question, issue a certificate naming only the actual inventor or inventors.

(b) Any request to correct inventorship of a patent pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must be accompanied by:

(1) A statement from each person who is being added as an inventor and each person who is currently named as an inventor either agreeing to the change of inventorship or stating that he or she has no disagreement in regard to the requested change;

(2) A statement from all assignees of the parties submitting a statement under paragraph (b)(1) of this section agreeing to the change of inventorship in the patent, which statement must comply with the requirements of § 3.73(c) of this chapter; and

(3) The fee set forth in § 1.20(b).

(c) For correction of inventorship in an application, *see* § 1.48.

(d) In an interference under part 41, subpart D, of this title, a request for correction of inventorship in a patent must be in the form of a motion under § 41.121(a)(2) of this title. In a contested case under part 42, subpart D, of this title, a request for correction of inventorship in a patent must be in the form of a motion under § 42.22 of this title. The motion under § 41.121(a)(2) or § 42.22 of this title must comply with the requirements of this section.

[77 FR 48822, Aug. 14, 2012]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
IN IT I AL REVI EW E NG I NEER I NG REPORT PMN : 15 - 0 1 77 Focu s Ready Draft 2/2/20 15CRSS ( 0 1 /20/20 1 5) :OCC UPAT I ONAL EX POS U RE RAT I NG : l B NOTES & KEY ASSUMP TI ONS :



# I

### IN I T I AL REVI E W E NG I NEER I NG REPORT PMN : 1 5 - 0177
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22691]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11880 and <greek-i>11881]


California Disaster <greek-i>CA-00142

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of California dated 09/14/2009.
    Incident: Station Fire.
    Incident Period: 08/26/2009 and continuing.

DATES: Effective Date: 09/14/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/13/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/14/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Los Angeles.
Contiguous Counties:
    California: Kern, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.500
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.750
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      6.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11880 5 
and for economic injury is 11881 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> is 
California.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: September 14, 2009.
Karen G. Mills,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-22691 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 1, 2013

s0325 

# Order

April 1, 2013

145878

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145878

COA: 308910

Oakland CC: 2010

- 233880

- FH

REBECCA MARIE HINZMAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 93.217 Office of Research Integrity or ORI.

*Office of Research Integrity* or *ORI* means the office to which the HHS Secretary has delegated responsibility for addressing research integrity and misconduct issues related to PHS supported activities.
§ 52c.5 Grant awards. ( a ) Within the limits of funds available, and upon such recommendation as may be required by law, the Secretary shall award grants to those applications with proposed biomedical research programs which will, in the Secretary's judgment, best promote the purposes of this part, taking into consideration among other pertinent factors: ( 1 ) The benefits that can be expected to accrue to the national effort in biomedical research and in increasing the pool of biomedical researchers;
( 2 ) The institution's capability, from a scientific and technical standpoint, to engage in biomedical research;
( 3 ) The benefits that can be expected to accrue to the institution and its students;
( 4 ) The administrative and managerial capability and competence of the applicant;
( 5 ) The availability of the facilities and resources (including where necessary collaborative arrangements with other institutions) to engage in biomedical research;
( 6 ) The applicant's relative need for funding; and
( 7 ) The overall significance of the proposal in terms of numbers of ethnic minority persons benefited thereby.
( b ) The notice of grant award specifies how long HHS intends to support the project without requiring the project to recompete for funds. This period, called the project period, will usually be for 1-5 years.
( c ) Generally the grant will initially be for one year and subsequent continuation awards will also be for one year at a time. A grantee must submit a separate application to have the support continued for each subsequent year. Decisions regarding continuation awards and the funding level of such awards will be made after consideration of such factors as the grantee's progress and management practices, and the availability of funds. In all cases, continuation awards require a determination by HHS that continued funding is in the best interest of the government.
( d ) Neither the approval of any application nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the United States in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
[45 FR 12246, Feb. 25, 1980; 45 FR 20096, Mar. 27, 1980; 58 FR 61030, Nov. 19, 1993]
Appendix E Incidence of Biomass Burning in Louisiana2
#### Robert Timpone, an Infant, by Joseph Timpone, His Guardian *ad Litem,*Respondent, *v.*The Dry Dock, East Broadway and Battery Railroad Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Hoadly, .Lauterbach & Johnson (Clifford Seasongood, of coun- ' sel), for appellant.

M. P. O’Connor, for respondent.

Conlan, J.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and! from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

This action was brought to recover for an injury received by the plaintiff while riding upon a wagon driven by one Joseph Rosenweig, whom the plaintiff was employed to assist in delivering candy.

An examination of the record discloses no errors of law calling forva reversal of the judgment. The issues of fact were fairly presented to the jury, and they have disposed of them in favor of the plaintiff. The damages awarded as compensation to plaintiff .are not so large as to show that the jury must have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption. Stephens v. Hudson Valley Knitting Mills Co., 20 N. Y. Supp. 916; Scott v. Sun-Printing & P. Association, 26 id. 619.

Upon the whole record we think the judgment should be- affirmed.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 47300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22194]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Thursday, 
September 17, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in the Multipurpose Room, Room L-006.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:

1. Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (``NRSROs'')

A. Final Rule Amendments and Proposed Rule Amendments under the Credit 
Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006

    The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules and propose 
other rules that impose additional disclosure and conflict of interest 
requirements on NRSROs in order to address concerns about the integrity 
of the credit rating procedures and methodologies.

B. References to Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization 
Ratings in Commission Rules and Forms

    The Commission will consider whether to eliminate references to 
credit ratings by NRSROs from certain rules and forms, and whether to 
re-open the comment period to solicit further comment on elimination of 
additional NRSRO references.

C. Credit Ratings and Rating Shopping Disclosure

    The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to 
Regulation S-K, and rules and forms under the Securities Act of 1933 
(``Securities Act''), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange 
Act'') and the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company 
Act'') to require disclosure regarding credit ratings that a registrant 
uses in connection with a registered offering.

D. Rule 436(g)

    The Commission will consider whether to issue a concept release and 
solicit comment on whether the Commission should propose to rescind 
Rule 436(g) under the Securities Act, in light of the disclosure 
regarding credit ratings being proposed in a companion release (see C 
above).

2. Flash Orders: Proposed Amendment to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS

    The Commission will consider a recommendation to propose an 
amendment to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act that 
would eliminate an exception for the use of flash orders, as well as 
other related issues. If adopted, the proposals would prohibit the 
practice of displaying marketable flash orders.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 10, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22194 Filed 9-11-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
§ 67.13 Eligible projects. Projects for research, evaluations, demonstrations, dissemination of information (including research on dissemination), and conferences, related to health care services and the delivery of such services, are eligible for grant support. These include, but are not limited to, projects in the following categories: ( a ) Effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of health care services;
( b ) Outcomes of health care services and procedures;
( c ) Clinical practice, including primary care and practice-oriented research;
( d ) Health care technologies, facilities, and equipment, including assessments of health care technologies and innovative approaches to such assessments, and technology diffusion;
( e ) Health care costs and financing, productivity, and market forces;
( f ) Health promotion and disease prevention;
( g ) Health statistics and epidemiology;
( h ) Medical liability;
( i ) AID/HIV infection, particularly with respect to issues of access and delivery of health care services;
( j ) Rural health services;
( k ) The health of low-income, minority, elderly, and other underserved populations, including women and children; and
( l ) Information dissemination and research on dissemination methodologies, directed to health care providers, practitioners, consumers, educators, review organizations, and others.
41622.

#### VEASEY v. THE STATE.

Pannell, Judge.

1. “An indictment must allege a certain time within the statute of limitations, but on the trial' thé date may be established by circumstantial evidence. Ordinarily when a month is referred to, it will be understood to be of the current year, unless from the connection it appear that another is intended. *Tipton v. State,*119 Ga. 304 (46 SE 436).” *Goldberg v. State,*22 Ga. App. 122 (1) (95 SE 541).

2. The accusation alleged that the offense was committed on June 26, 1965. The case was tried on July 29, 1965. , There was testimony that the defendant committed the offense on June 26th, on a Saturday. This court will take judicial cognizance that June 26, 1965,. was on a Saturday, and this same date in 1964 was-on a Friday; and in 1963 on a Wednesday; and in 1962 on a Tuesday. There is evidence, therefore, that all parties understood that the proof went to establish the commission of the offense on the day. charged in the accusation, and a new trial will not be granted on the ground that the evidence left uncertain the time when the offense was committed. *Goldberg v. State,*22 Ga. App. 122, supra. *Plair v. State,*23 Ga. App. 574 (1) (99 SE 61). In *Rivers v. State,*55 Ga. App. 290 (189 SE 923), relied upon by the. appellant, the evidence disclosed no date whatsoever. That case, therefore, is not controlling here.

3. “The defense of entrapment is not successful when the conduct of investigating officers toward the accused would not likely have enticed into -crime an unwary innocent who would otherwise have struggled with himself .and resisted ordinary temptations, but would be likely to induce only those ready and- willing to commit a crime.” *Merritt v. State,*110 Ga. App. 150 (137 SE2d 917). It follows, therefore, that upon application of the above quoted principle *652to the facts of the present case (which for the purposes of this decision are almost identical with the facts in *Merritt v. State,*110 Ga. App. 150, supra), it must-be held that the defense of entrapment was not proven.

Submitted November 2, 1965

Decided November 16, 1965.

*Casey Thigpen,*for appellant.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*for appellee.

4. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict finding the defendant guilty of selling nontax-paid whiskey.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*'Nichols, P. J., and Eberhardl, J., concur.*
#### § 211.7 Reconsideration procedure for refusals to register.

The requirements prescribed in § 202.5 of this chapter for reconsideration of refusals to register copyright claims are applicable to requests to reconsider refusals to register mask works under 17 U.S.C. chapter 9, unless otherwise required by this part.

[69 FR 77637, Dec. 28, 2004]
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Staff Sergeant JEREMY M. BRAINARD

United States Air Force

ACM S32332

6 April 2016

Sentence adjudged 24 June 2015 by SP CM convened at McConnell Air

Force Base, Kansas . Military Judge: Vance H. Spath (sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 90 day s

, and

reduction to E

- 1

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Joy L. Primoli

.

Appellate Counsel for the United Stat es: Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire

.

Before

ALLRED, TELLER , and ZIMMERMAN

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court