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

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 6 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarters  ended
December  31,  2004,  September  30,  2004 and June 30,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  and
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Thomas J. Riha, Senior  Vice-President and Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:

1.        The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that  such  provisions  require  the  audit  report  of Local  Limited
          Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of
          the Public Company  Accounting  Oversight Board for the  Partnership's
          annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative
          report  covering each of the quarters ended December 31,  September 30
          and June 30, 2004; 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/Thomas J. Riha
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 15, 2008
From: jim@seymourheights.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:34:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jim Knowles

Knoxville, TN 37920
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 29, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-490

Lower Tribunal Nos. 11-641 K & 11-642 K

________________

Eli M. Friedman,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the

Circuit Court for Monroe County, Wayne M. Miller, Judge.

Eli M. Friedman, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee. 

Before LAGOA, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

LAGOA, J.
The Defendant, Eli M. Friedman (“Friedman”), appeals from the trial court’s

February 3, 2015 order denying his Motion to Correct Award of Prior Prison

Credit.

Friedman argues that he is entitled to an additional 20 days of credit for time

served,1from September 13, 2012 through October 3, 2012. This time period,

however, concerns the dates he spent in jail awaiting to be transported to prison

after being sentenced on September 13, 2012. The State is correct that Friedman

must first raise this issue with the Department of Corrections and “may only

request judicial relief after exhausting administrative remedies.” Hidalgo v. State,

729 So. 2d 984, 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“The Department of Corrections is

responsible for computing [an inmate's] credit for time spent in county jail after

sentencing, while awaiting transfers to a drug program or a state prison. If the

postsentence credit is incorrect, [the inmate] should pursue his administrative

remedies, and then seek a writ of mandamus against the department in the circuit

court, if dissatisfied with the outcome.” (quoting Washington v. State, 662 So. 2d

1027, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citation omitted))).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. Our affirmance in this case is

without prejudice to pursue such an administrative remedy.

1 Previously, Friedman filed a motion to correct sentence. On August 4, 2014, the

trial court granted the motion and ordered that Friedman be granted an additional

225 days credit for time served to the 504 days credit already appearing on his

judgment and sentence. 

2
AFFIRMED.

3
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 65691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20648]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Initial Review Group, Mentored 
Patient-Oriented Research Study Section, October 26, 2023, 10:00 a.m. 
to October 27, 2023, 6 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 
1, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the 
Federal Register on September 14, 2023, FR Doc 2023-19907, 88 FRN 
63115.
    The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Initial Review Group, 
Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Study Section meeting is being 
amended due to a change of the meeting time formats. The meeting will 
be held on October 26, 2023, from 9:00 a.m. to October 27, 6:00 p.m. 
This meeting will be a video assisted meeting, and closed to the 
public.

    Dated: September 18, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-20648 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
No. 487, Misc.

#### Riddle *v.*Dickson, Warden.

Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

   I,  A.  Cameron  Richardson,  President and Chief Financial Officer of Aurora
   Gold  Corporation  (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
   Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  my  knowledge:

1.   The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
     September 30, 2005 which this certification accompanies 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 Company.


Date: October 24, 2005                BY: /s/ A. Cameron Richardson
      ----------------                    -------------------------
                                          A. Cameron Richardson
                                          President and Chief Financial Officer
From: annkurz@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:12:43 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Kurz

Katy, TX 77449
From: pierceclarkart@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:52:10 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be

covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you

to expand conscience protections for any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and

have moral or religious objections. I strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on

Americans especially for drugs and devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion

(such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Donna Clark

Springfield, OH 45502
No. P66/148. —

#### Dumont Handkerchief, Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 65/23017, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of silk handkerchiefs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ashear Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2582), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
From: codythecpa@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:22:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cody Winchell

Lanesville, IN 47136
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1362 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 24, 2008.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5501) to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to 
combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and for other purposes, with the 
Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of 
any point of order except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion 
offered by the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee that 
the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion 
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of the motion to concur pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the motion to such time as may be 
designated by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: deb@riterags.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:15:51 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Deborah Parks

Sapphire, NC 28774
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of AGY Holding Corp.



|                                  |  |                                             
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Name                              |  | State or other jurisdiction of incorporation
|                                  | 
|AGY Aiken LLC                     |  | Delaware                                    
|                                  | 
|AGY Huntington LLC                |  | Delaware                                    
|                                  | 
|AGY Europe SARL French, LLC       |  | France                                      
|                                  | 
|AGY Cayman LLC                    |  | Cayman Islands                              
|                                  | 
|AGY Hong Kong Ltd.                |  | Peoples Republic of China                  
|                                  | 
|AGY Shanghai Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Peoples Republic of China
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
TVTRAVEL.COM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES FORM 10-QSB FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,496
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,161
<PP&E>                                       1,304,511
<DEPRECIATION>                               (202,752)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,378,010
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,824,712
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     496,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,378,010
<SALES>                                        685,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               685,518
<CGS>                                           46,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,031,682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (392,661)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (462,128)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (462,128)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (462,128)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)




</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.2


 


 


 


 


 


August
1, 2012


 


This
Allonge is to be attached
to and made a part of that certain Note dated
July 22,2011,
2011 in the original
principal amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00)
executed by Kenergy
Scientific,
Inc., a
New Jersey
corporation, to the
order
of Charles M. Basner (the
"Note").


 


Transfer
to the order of Southridge Partners II LP, a Delaware
limited partnership, $35,000.00
principal portion of the Note without representation or warranty except
as set forth in that certain
Securities
Transfer Agreement
dated of even date herewith
from Charles M. Basner in favor
of Southridge
Partners II LP.


 





	Date: August 1,
     2012	
	 	By: /s/ Charles M. Basner
	 	Charles M. Basner
Before the Third Division,

March 30, 1964

No. 68388.

protest 63/8984 (New York).

#### A. Newberg & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bubble gum or chewing gum similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fred L. Strauss*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 136, C.D. 2117), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.