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



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                           
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:           |  |                        
|August 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|                |  |                        
|                |  | Marc N. Teal           
|                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                |  |                        
|                |  |                        



*  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered June 3, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00494-CR

DEREK A. NELSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-80609-2014

ORDER

We GRANT court reporter LaTresta Ginyard’s May 27, 2016 request for an extension of 

time to file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record shall be due on July 15, 2016.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01533**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01533\01533_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01533\01533_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01533\01533_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01533\01533_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01533\01533_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01533\01533_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01533\01533_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01533\01533_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01533\Certification Statement_01533.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BC Cobb_SEEG ICR Transmittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BCC_Part A_Section 5_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BCC_Part D_Section 3.1_D3-POND-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01533\Supporting Documentation\01533_BCC_Part D_Section 3.1_D3-RET-POND-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01533\Supporting Documentation\BCC_Part A_Section 5_A5-3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
MARCUS C. JIMENEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1210

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed November 10, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Michael C. Overstreet , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pa mela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
output_FacilityList

FacilityID met_stationrural_urbanmax_dist model_distradials circles overlap_dist acute hours elev

01033NEI8522 3000 30 N Y

01033NEI8522b 3000 30 N Y

01115NEIALT$4622 3000 30 N Y

05059NEIART$10783 3000 30 N Y

05115NEI3AR05115JW 3000 30 N Y

13077NEI8066 3000 30 N Y

13133NEI8093 3000 30 N Y

17031NEI3IL17031Ale 3000 30 N Y

18003NEIIN00286 3000 30 N Y

18089NEI3IN18089Jup 3000 30 N Y

18093NEI3IN18093Rec 3000 30 N Y

18113NEIIN567 3000 30 N Y

18169NEI3IN18169Ale 3000 30 N Y

18173NEI32661 3500 30 N Y

19163NEI12240 3000 30 N Y

19163NEI2IA01-089 3000 30 N Y

21009NEIKY0090065 3000 30 N Y

21031NEIKY2103100 3000 30 N Y

21091NEI11360 3000 30 N Y

21091NEI11362 3000 30 N Y

21101NEI11365 3000 30 N Y

21141NEIKY2114100 3000 30 N Y

21151NEI3KY21151Nov 3000 30 N Y

21227NEIKY22700135 3000 30 N Y

26023NEI3MI26023Ale 3000 30 N Y

26023NEIMIN5957 3000 30 N Y

29009NEI18317 3000 30 N Y

29143NEI34464 5000 30 N Y

29510NEI3MO29510JW 3000 30 N Y

34007NEI3NJ34007Alu 3000 30 N Y

36075NEI3NY36075Nov 3000 30 N Y

36089NEI39458 3000 30 N Y

36103NEI3AL01123Cre 3000 30 N Y

39157NEI3OH39157Ale 3000 30 N Y

39157NEIOHT$6308 3000 30 N Y

42071NEI3PA42071Alu 3000 30 N Y

42107NEIPA23-2083 3000 30 N Y

45015NEI3SC45015JW 3000 30 N Y

45015NEI41217 3000 30 N Y

46135NEI790 3000 30 N Y

47009NEI10933 3000 30 N Y

47009NEI10933b 3000 30 N Y

47159NEI3TN47159Wil 3000 30 N Y

48029NEI7212 3000 30 N Y

48037NEI3TX48067Alu 3000 30 N Y

48331NEI6464 6000 30 N Y

53007NEI42328 3000 30 N Y

53073NEIWA19906 3000 30 N Y

54035NEIWV0043 3000 30 N Y

55039NEI43018 3000 30 N Y

55117NEI3WI55001JL 3000 30 N Y

Page 1
output_FacilityList

55117NEIWI4600412 3000 30 N Y

Page 2
output_FacilityList

multiplier ring1 depdeplphase pdeppdepl vdepvdeplAll_rcpts user_rcpt bldg_dw urban_pop fastall

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

750 Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

500 Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

800 Y

Y

Y Y

Y

Y

Y

Page 3
output_FacilityList

Y

Page 4
#### D. S. Weeks, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Glades County, v. State, *ex rel.*J. P. Moore, Individually and as Tax Collector of Glades County.

182 So. 280.

Opinion Filed June 15, 1938.

/. *M. Couse,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Strayhorn & Strayhorn,*for Defendant in Error.

*826Buford, J.

Writ of error brings for review judgment denying peremptory writ of mandamus, but ordering as follows:

“It is further ordered, however, that the respondent immediately pay over to the relator all sums received from the sale of all State-owned certificates, above the actual costs of sale, and up to the *5fó*commission therein belonging to the relator, in all cases where sale has been consummated by delivery of the said certificates.

This judgment did not conform to the requirements set forth in the alternative writ and was, therefore, not a proper judgment in mandamus proceedings.

In mandamus the peremptory writ must follow the alternative writ and the judgment should be to award peremptory writ or to quash the alternative writ with or without leave to amend. See State v. Tucker, 106 Fla. 905, 143 Sou. 754; State v. Thursby, 104 Fla. 103, 139 Sou. 372; Tampa Water Works Co. v. State, 77 Fla. 705, 82 Sou. 230.

The law as stated by this Court in the opinion filed March 30th in the case of State, *ex rel.*Hughes, v. Caruthers, reported in 180 Sou. page 27, is applicable by analogy to the instant case. In both cases the controlling question is whether or not the tax collector is entitled to commissions included in tax sale certificates when the certificates are sold under the provisions of Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937.

We held in the Hughes case, *supra,*that “Chapter 18296, Acts of 1937, contemplates the collection of the commission claimed in this case, it being a part of the costs.”

It follows that as a part of the costs the commissions due the tax collector should be collected from the purchaser of the certificates and paid over to the tax collector to whom same are due. We do not here attempt to say what pro*827cedure should be followed where the certificates have, been sold and delivered and this item of cost not collected.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

So ordered.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rockwood SpecialtiesGroup, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Seifi Ghasemi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.            The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.            The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: August 11, 2008                |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
| /s/ SEIFI GHASEMI               |   |
| Seifi Ghasemi                        |   |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companyfor purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 or other document authenticating, acknowledging orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGG MICHAEL REITAN, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2746 FCD GGH P

vs.

D. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested an extension of time to file objections to the April 19,

2005 findings and recommendations. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s June 2, 2005 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Petitioner is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file

objections to the April 19, 2005 findings and recommendations.

DATED: 6/10/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

reit2746.111

Case 2:04-cv-02746-FCD-GGH Document 13 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.2

                           MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY

                             AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
                   MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY STOCK OPTION AND
                          RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN OF 1997

     This Amendment No. 1 to the Miller Exploration Company Stock Option and
Restricted Stock Plan of 1997 (this "Amendment") is made and adopted by Miller
Exploration Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), effective as of May
26, 2000.

                                    RECITALS

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and Shareholders of the Company have duly
approved this Amendment to amend the terms and provisions of the Miller
Exploration Company Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan of 1997 (the "Plan");
and

     WHEREAS, any capitalized term used and not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meaning set forth in the Plan.

                                    AMENDMENT

          1. The Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 4.1 thereof in its
     entirety and substituting in lieu thereof the following:

               4.1 NUMBER OF SHARES. Subject to adjustment as provided in
          Section 4.3 of the Plan, a maximum of 1,900,000 shares of Common Stock
          shall be available for Incentive Awards under the Plan. Such Shares
          may be authorized but unissued shares.

          2. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full
     force and effect without further amendment or modification.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, acting by and through its officer hereunto
duly authorized, has executed this Amendment effective as of the date first
written above.

                                          MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY

                                          By: /s/ Deanna L. Cannon
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name:  Deanna L. Cannon
                                              Title: Vice President - Finance
                                                     and Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25584; Directorate Identifier 2000-NE-62-AD; 
Amendment 39-14733; AD 2006-17-12]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211 Series Turbofan 
Engines; Correction.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes corrections to Airworthiness Directive 
(AD) 2006-17-12. That AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 series 
turbofan engines. We published AD 2006-17-12 in the Federal Register on 
August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49339). An incorrect engine model number exists 
in the applicability paragraph and in the title of Table 5. Also, an 
incorrect serial number appears in Table 1. This document corrects 
these numbers. In all other respects, the original document remains the 
same.

DATES: Effective Date: Effective January 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New 
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA, 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7178; fax (781) 238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule AD, FR Doc. E6-13910, that 
applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211 series turbofan engines was published 
in the Federal Register on August 23, 2006 (71 FR 49339). The following 
corrections are needed:


Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 49340, in the third column, in applicability paragraph (c), in 
the fourth line, ``RB211-535E4-C'' is corrected to read ``RB211-535E4-
C-37''. Also, on page 49341, in Table 1, in the fourth column, in the 
last line, ``WGQDY90005'' is corrected to read ``WGQDY0005''. Also, on 
page 49342, in the first column, in the Table 5 title, ``RB211-02'' is 
corrected to read ``RB211-22B-02''.

    Issued in Burlington, MA, on January 10, 2007.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-497 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SIMON HARRIS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Richard T. O’Connor*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Vmcent P. Eeuper, Mr. Thomas L. Taccarino*and *Mr. Ronald B. Rosen*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Denied.
No. 42957.

#### Protests 899164-G, etc., of F. W. Woolworth Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of novelty brushes similar to those the subject of Abstract 34593. They were therefore held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 as claimed.
#### William R. Kirkland, *Appellant and*Respondent, *v.*Samuel K. Kille, *Appellant and Respondent, Impleaded, etc.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Daniels, J.
#### Michael Clarke, Respondent, v Sound Advice Live, Inc., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 490]

—Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, (Barry Salman, J.), entered March 4, 1994, which, *inter alia,*denied defendant-appellant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action brought pursuant to Labor Law § 240, unanimously reversed to the extent appealed from, on the law, and the motion granted, without costs or disbursements.

Defendant Sound Advice Live, Inc. (Sound Advice) was the producer, director and coordinator of a European tour by the rock music star David Bowie. As such, it entered into contracts with various entities including the former third-party defendant Vari-Lite Concerts, Inc., which was in charge of the construction of the stage sets for Mr. Bowie’s performances. Plaintiff was employed by Vari-Lite and while constructing a set in Florence, Italy, plaintiff fell from a scaffolding 45 to 60 feet above the ground, sustaining serious injuries.

This action was commenced against Sound Advice and other defendants. Defendant Sound Advice’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 was denied by the IAS Court. This was error.

"While plaintiff is a New York resident, and defendant Sound Advice maintains an office in the City of New York, the accident occurred in Italy. Accordingly, Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 are inapplicable inasmuch as they are primarily conduct-regulating rules *(see, Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp.,*84 NY2d 519). As the Court of Appeals has noted: "a distinction must be made between a choice-of-law analysis involving *standards of conduct*and one involving the allocation of losses *(Schultz v Boy Scouts,*65 NY2d 189, 198, *supra).*In the former * * * the law of the place of the tort governs.” *(Supra,*at 521-522 [emphasis added].) Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5252]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5728]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 
meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 5, 2007, in Room 6103 of the 
United States Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100 Second Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is 
to prepare for the 11th session of the International Maritime 
Organization's Sub-Committee on Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) to be held 
at the Royal Horticultural Halls and Conference Centre, 80 Vincent 
Square, London, England from April 16th to April 20th, 2007.
    The primary matters to be considered include:

--Evaluation of safety and pollution hazards of chemicals and 
preparation of consequential amendments
--Development of guidelines for uniform implementation of the 2004 
Ballast Water Management Convention
--Review of MARPOL Annex VI and the NO<INF>X</INF> Technical Code
--Development of provisions for gas-fuelled ships
--Amendments to MARPOL Annex I for the prevention of marine pollution 
during oil transfer operations between ships at sea
--Oil tagging systems
--Guidelines on other technological methods verifiable or enforceable 
to limit SO<INF>x</INF> emissions
--Application of requirements for the carriage of bio-fuels and bio-
fuel blends
--Consideration of IACS unified interpretations
--Casualty analysis
--Work program and agenda for BLG 12

    Hard copies of documents associated with the 11th session of BLG 
will be available at this meeting. To request further copies of 
documents please write to the address provided below.
    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. Interested persons may seek information by 
writing to Mr. Thomas Felleisen, Commandant (CG-3PSO-3), U.S. Coast 
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Room 1214, Washington, DC 
20593-0001 or by calling (202) 372-1424.

    Dated: 16 March 2007.
Michael E. Tousley,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E7-5252 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6007

JAMES MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEO CARE JUSTCARE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:11-cv-02396-CMC)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Muhammad appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Muhammad has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED