alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(Reap. Dec. 10363)

Entry No. 1364, etc.

#### Brown, Alcantar & Brown, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided November 7, 1962)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph D. Ghiilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*438Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “B,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for tbe parties hereto that the merchandise which is the subject of the appeals for .reappraisement listed in Schedule B, hereto attached and made a part hereof, consists of phonograph records exported from Mexico after October 1, 1960. ■

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that phonograph records are not on the list of articles published in T.D. 54521 and are subject to appraisement under the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (Public Law 927 — 84th Congress 2nd Session).

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing reappraisement, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the prices shown on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeals for re-appraisement listed in Schedule B are hereby submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the phonograph records in question is statutory export value and hold that such value therefor is the prices shown in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, for each of the items enumerated therein with or without qualifying words and with or without additional symbols.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

May 14, 2015 

Via Electronic Filing and E-mail 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Jonathan Parker v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, DOT -OST -2015-0093 and 

Tasha Grant v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, DOT-OST-2015-0094 

Dear Mr. Cashen and Mr. Lovitky: 

On April 28, 20 15, Jonathan Parker and Tasha Grant (Complainants), through counsel, fi led thirdparty complaints against Saudi Arabian Airlines (Respondent) pursuant to 14 CFR 302.404 in 

dockets DOT-OST-2015-0093 and DOT-OST-20 15-0094. On May 3, 20 15, Complainants filed 

amended complaints in the respecti ve dockets. Pursuant to 14 CFR 302.5(b), the time prescribed 

for the filing of an answer or any further responsive document directed towards the amended 

document shall be computed from the date of the filing of the amendment. Therefore, the due 

date for an answer or any responsive document directed towards the amended complaint is 

May 18, 2015. 

On May 7, 2015, Saudi Arabian Airlines sent a letter to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and 

Proceedings (Enforcement Office) requesting a 60-day extension to answer both amended 

complaints. Saudi Arabian Airlines stated that the extension was necessary to "allow time to 

investigate the facts surrounding the allegations in the Amended Complaints through the home office 

in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia" and asserted that "communications with the home office take a substantial 

amount of time." 

Complainants sent a letter to the Enfo rcement Office that same day, opposing Respondent's request 

for a 60-day extension on grounds that both complaints directly involve the personal safety of 

individuals traveling on Saudi Arabian Airlines. 
Page 2 

Upon giving Respondent's motion due consideration, the Department finds that Respondent's request 

fo r a 60-day extension is not warranted. However, the Department finds good cause shown to grant a 

30-day extension. Accordingly, answers or other responsive documents in the above-captioned 

proceedings will be due on or before June 17, 201 5. 

Sincerely, 

,£fL__Bi ne:o:~ /- - Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement 

and Proceedings
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 1 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 2 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 3 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 4 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 5 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 6 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 7 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 8 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 9 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 10 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 11 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 12 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 13 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 14 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 15 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 16 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 17 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 18 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 19 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 20 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 21 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 22 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 23 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 24 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 25 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 26 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 27 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 28 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 29 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 30 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 31 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 32 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 33 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 34 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 35 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 36 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 37 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 38 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 39 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 40 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 41 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 42 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 43 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 44 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 45 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 46 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 47 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 48 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 49 of 50
Case 2:02-cv-04376-ER Document 1 Filed 07/02/2002 Page 50 of 50
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

- against -

DAVID FORREST and T. BEAUCLERC ROGERS IV,

Defendants.

Civil Action

No. 02-CV-4435

DECLARATIONS SUBMITTED WITH

PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR STAY

Edward P. Krugman

Ira J. Dembrow

Scott M. Mory

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL

Eighty Pine Street

New York, New York 10005

(212) 701-3000

Jeffrey R. Lerman

Glenn F. Rosenblum

MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER &

RHOADS, LLP

123 South Broad Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19109

(215) 772-1500

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 17 Filed 12/24/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CANDACE RAY, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 02-4382

:

v. :

:

ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, CHIEF OF :

POLICE WILLIAM KELLY, POLICE :

OFFICER NISBET, POLICE OFFICER :

J. KING, POLICE OFFICER BRUCE :

HASLAM, POLICE OFFICER MATZ, :

POLICE OFFICER RAWTZ, POLICE :

OFFICER SCHOLL, POLICE OFFICER :

MANN, ABINGTON MEMORIAL :

HOSPITAL AND MARK SHNEA, :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, upon consideration of Defendants

Abington Township’s, Chief of Police William Kelly’s, Officer Nisbet’s, Officer King’s, Officer

Haslam’s, Officer Matz’s, Officer Rawtz’s, Officer Scholl’s, Officer Mann’s, Abington

Memorial Hospital’s and Mark Shnea’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Candace Ray’s Amended

Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Docket No. 15) and Plaintiff’s

Response thereto (Docket No. 17), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is

DENIED. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint could be more artfully plead, and while it is possible

that some counts will not survive at the summary judgment stage, the Amended Complaint is

sufficient to withstand this Motion to Dismiss. 

Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 18 Filed 06/27/2003 Page 1 of 2
It is hereby noted that Count IV of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint against the

Township of Abington and the individual police officers for excessive force is amended as

requested by plaintiff so that it is made pursuant to the Fourth Amendment rather than the

Fourteenth Amendment.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04382-RB Document 18 Filed 06/27/2003 Page 2 of 2
NO. 07-10-00380-CR; 07-10-00381-CR; 07-10-00382-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 8, 2010

DAVID MATTHEW LAYTON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 34,435-C, 34,436-C, 34,437-C; HONORABLE ANA ESTEVEZ, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Appellant, David Matthew Layton, seeks to appeal orders in each of the above-identified causes denying his requests for post-conviction DNA testing and appointment of counsel.  See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 64.01, .03, .05 (Vernon Supp. 2010).  The orders denying appellant’s requests were signed on July 12, 2010.  The deadline for perfecting the present appeals was, therefore, August 11, 2010.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1).[footnoteRef:1]  Appellant filed his notices of appeal on September 27, 2010.  Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeals in any manner other than by dismissing them for want of jurisdiction.  In re Suhre, No. 03-03-00066-CR, 2003 Tex.App. LEXIS 1343, at *1 (Tex.App.—Austin Feb. 13, 2003, pet. ref’d). [1:  We are aware, as appellant notes in his notice of appeal, that appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court relating to the trial court’s rulings in these orders on August 9, 2010.  However, the filing of a petition for writ of mandamus within the time in which a direct appeal may be perfected does not extend the time in which the direct appeal must be perfected.  See id. at 26.2(b).] 

	Consequently, the appeals are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

								Mackey K. Hancock

									Justice

Do not publish.

2
SERVED: April3, 2014 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

· (Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0040 

AMENDED HEARING NOTICE 

-- 3 ;:J 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on June 18, 

10 and 20, 2014, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 591, Federal Building, 207 S. Houston 

Street, Dallas, TX 75202. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. 

The parties shall vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day. 

The parties are advised another judge has the courtroom reserved for June 16 and 17. If that case 

carries over this case may be delayed. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Richard C, Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0040 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
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 Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended March 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: May 11, 2007
_____________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN MITCHELL : CIVIL ACTION

vs. :

TRANS UNION, LLC : NO. 02-4439

ANB/BPAMOCO c/o CITIGROUP

FIRST USA BANK

SOUTHTRUST BANK

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2003, it having been

reported that the issues between PLAINTIFF KEVIN MITCHELL and

DEFENDANTS TRANS UNION, LLC; ANB/BPAMOCO c/o CITIGROUP; FIRST USA

BANK; AND SOUTHTRUST BANK have been settled and upon Order of the

Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules

of Civil Procedure of this Court (effective January 1, 1970), it is

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice,

pursuant to agreement of counsel, without costs, as to the above

named parties only.

ATTEST: or BY THE COURT:

BY: 

 Rosalind Burton-Hoop JOHN P. FULLAM, Sr. J.

 Deputy Clerk

COPIES BY MAIL ON 7/30/03 TO: Mark D. Mailman, Esquire

 Jeffrey P. Bates, Esquire

 John C. Farrell, Esquire

 John Keim Semler, Esquire

 Jonathan D. Weiss, Esquire

 Richard A. Kraemer, Esquire

 Timothy P. Creech, Esquire

 

Civ 12 (7/95)

Case 2:02-cv-04439-JF Document 23 Filed 07/30/2003 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:02-cv-04439-JF Document 23 Filed 07/30/2003 Page 2 of 2
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 228 -CR

M ar io S alo m on , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MI LAM COUNTY , 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2109 9 , HO NORAB LE EDWARD P . MAGRE , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n Mar c h 2 0 0 5 , a

p p e ll an t M ar io Sa lo mo nw a s p la c e d o nd e f e r r e d a d ju d ic a tion supervision afte r he pleade d g uilty to ag g ravated assault with a deadly wea pon. SeeTex. P enal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2 0 0 6 ). On e y ear later, a fter a

ppellant pleade d true to the violations alleg ed in the State’s motion to adjudicate , the court adjudg ed him g uilty and sentenc ed him to ten y ear s’ imprisonment. This appeal f ollowed. Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that the a

pp e a l is frivolous and without merit. The brief mee ts the require ments of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord de m o n s t ra t ing why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o P e n s o n v . O hio , 488 U .S. 75 (1 98 8) ; Hi gh v . S tate , 57 3 S. W.2 d 8 07 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); G a i n o u s v . S tat e , 4 36 S.W .2d 1372

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s br ief a nd the appe llate re cord a

nd filed a pr o se brief

. We have r eviewe d the re cord, c ounsel’s brief , and the pr o se brief. We find nothing in the rec ord that mig ht arguably support the appe al. Se e Bl e ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion t o withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and He nson Affir med Filed: January

22, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0001051829
<NAME>                           MERRILL LYNCH PERFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-27-1998
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                773,196,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                11,134,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            784,330,031
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              784,330,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        11,134,031
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                 750,000,000
<COMMON>                                     23,196,000
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                784,330,031
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             11,134,031
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              11,134,031
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          11,134,031
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 11,134,031
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        


</TABLE>
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 Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended September 26, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary Carlin, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ GARY CARLIN
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Gary Carlin*
                              Title:   Vice President, Controller and
                                       Chief Accounting Officer,
                                       Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: November 7, 2008
-----------------------

*  Gary Carlin functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

September 4, 2012

s0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145125

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145125

COA: 300757

Saginaw CC: 09-032749-FH

JAMES STEPHAN ZIMMERMANN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 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.