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 Annual Report of American Tax Credit Properties III L.P.
(the “Registrant”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
James Hussey, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Housing Credits Inc., general
partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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
      Registrant.




/s/James HusseyJames
      HusseyChief
      Financial Officer of RichmanHousing
      Credits Inc., general partnerof
      Richman Tax Credit Properties IIIL.P.,
      General Partner of the RegistrantJune
      29, 2009
# C_2008197EN.01003606.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/36

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Quest Diagnostics v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (DIAQUEST)

(Case T-22/08) (1)

1

(2008/C 197/70)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.

1

---
#### State v. Hayashida

19874

5/27/98

Affirmed
#### STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. W. P. KEEN, Judge of District Court in and for the Second Judicial District of the State of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. 39135.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 19, 1960.

As Amended Aug. 5 and 8, 1960.

*400Roland A. Walters, Jr., Max Cook, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Wise & Ivester, Sayre, for respondent.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

The present original action has been treated as a companion case, State of Oklahoma ex rel. Department of Highways v. Keen, 354 P.2d 396.

In both cases, the same petitioner seeks the same relief against the same respondent Judge, and the issues are the same, though there are immaterial differences in their facts.

The case, which petitioner seeks by the present action to prevent being tried, is Beckham County District Court’s Cause No. 13,446, entitled:. “Thurman Howard, Plaintiff, vs. State of Oklahoma, ex rel Department of Highways of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant”. It involves damages to Howard’s land from the same cause as the Blackmons’ farm injuries in the .companion case; and his alleged cause of action- is described as arising' from a “taking” of his land by the river’s .flooding as the Blackmons’ cause of action was there described, though Howard’s land does not abut on the new U.S. Highway No. 66 right-of-way, nor has the State, through its highway department, taken or acquired any land from him for the construction of said road. In the situation presented herein, however, we think the fact that the State has never given its consent to being sued by Howard, has identical import and effect as such absence of consent had in the companion case. Accordingly, for the same reason enunciated in that case, we grant petitioner’s application and petition in the present case, and issue the writ of prohibition herein sought.

DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and JOHNSON, JACKSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-06-00323- CV Eliz abe th S. Sc hle ut e r , A ppe lla nt

v. J. Hud son S chleuter , Sr., Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 353RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT, NO. FM 5040 32, H ONO RAB LE SUZANNE COVINGTO N, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N A pp ellant Elizabeth S . S chleu ter filed her no tice of appe al on Ju ne 8, 200 6. O n J uly 21, 2006, thi s Court r ece ive d noti ce f rom the offi ci al court

reporte r that

Schle ute r had not

pai d or m ade arrangements t o pay for th e re p o rt er’ s rec ord. The T ravi s County Distri ct Cle rk’s off

ic e inf orm ed this Court

on Augus t 4, 2006, that Schle ute r had not pai d or m ade arr angements t o pay forthe clerk ’s r ecor d. Th e clerk’ s re cord has no t been filed. O n A ug us t 4, 2 00 6, the C lerk o f this Court se nt not ic e t o Schle ute r that thi s appea l would be dismissed for want of pr osecut ion i f she did not subm it a st at us report t o thi s Co u rt by Augus t 14, 2006. T o dat e, Schl eut er ha s not responde d to t

his Court ’s not ic e. Accordi ngly, we di sm iss the appe al for want o f prose cut ion. Tex. R. App. P . 37.3(b).

_______________ ___________________________ Bob Pem bert on, Justi ce Before Justi ces B. A. Sm it h, Pem bert on and W al drop Dism isse d for W ant

of Prosec uti on Fil ed: Septe m ber 13, 2006
Exhibit 10.2


 


January 11, 2017


 


Timothy M. Janke


5625 Patrician Way


Winnemucca, NV 89445


 


Re: Amendment to Offer
of Employment


 


Dear Tim:


 


This letter serves to document the agreed
terms of the amendment and extension of the term of the Severance and Change in Control Compensation provision between you and
Pershing Gold Corporation outlined in your Offer of Employment letter dated as of August 27, 2014.


 


Severance and Change in Control:
The Severance and Change in Control paragraph of the Offer of Employment letter dated August 27, 2014 is hereby amended as follows:


 


Severance and Change in Control:
The first paragraph of this section shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language:


 


Amended and Extended Severance and
Change in Control benefits, shall be effective as of January 11, 2017 and shall expire on December 31, 2017; provided, however,
that the expiration of this agreement shall not affect the Employee’s rights to receive any payments or benefits otherwise
due as a result of a Separation from Service occurring prior to the expiration of this agreement. The terms offered in this letter
may only be extended upon mutual, written agreement among the parties to this letter. In the event you remain employed beyond August
27, 2017, your employment with the Company will continue to on an at-will basis.


 


Please acknowledge your acceptance by signing
in the space provided.


  





	PERSHING GOLD CORPORATION	Accepted and agreed this 11th day of January 2017.







  





	By:	 /s/ Stephen D. Alfers	 	/s/  Timothy M. Janke
	 	Stephen D. Alfers	 	Timothy M. Janke	 
	 	President and CEO	 	COO
410.2-1 RULE 410.2 Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents - Adopted 4/18/72, Amended 1/9/79,
Renumbered 5/89

I. A person shall not during any one day dispose of a total of more than 1 1/2 gallons of any photochemically reactive solvent as defined in Rule 410.X., or of any material containing more than 1 1/2 gallons of any such photochemica lly reactive solvent into the atmosphere.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Moye, Also Known as Kalvin Moye, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered on or about January 12, 1988, convicting defendant of attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of from 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

*15Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 42 

To authorize the Directors of Veterans Integrated Service Networks of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts with appropriate 

civilian accreditation entities or appropriate health care evaluation entities to investigate medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. MULLIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Directors of Veterans Integrated Service 

Networks of the Department of Veterans Affairs to enter 

into contracts with appropriate civilian accreditation entities or appropriate health care evaluation entities to investigate medical centers of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 42 IH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY OF DIRECTORS OF VETERANS IN2 TEGRATED SERVICE NETWORKS TO INVES3 TIGATE MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DEPART4 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of a Veterans Inte6 grated Service Network of the Department of Veterans Af7 fairs may contract with an appropriate entity specializing 

8 in civilian accreditation or health care evaluation to inves9 tigate any medical center within such Network to assess 

10 and report deficiencies of the facilities at such medical 

11 center. 

12 (b) COORDINATION.—Before entering into any con13 tract under subsection (a), the Director of a Veterans In14 tegrated Service Network shall notify the Secretary of Vet15 erans Affairs, the Inspector General of the Department 

16 of Veterans Affairs, and the Comptroller General of the 

17 United States for purposes of coordinating any investiga18 tion conducted pursuant to such contract with any other 

19 investigations or accreditations that may be ongoing. 

20 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec21 tion may be construed— 

22 (1) to prevent the Office of the Inspector Gen23 eral of the Department of Veterans Affairs from 

24 conducting any review, audit, evaluation, or inspec25 tion regarding a topic for which a review is con26 ducted under subsection (a); or 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 42 IH

1 (2) to modify the requirement that employees of 

2 the Department assist with any review, audit, eval3 uation, or inspection conducted by the Office of the 

4 Inspector General of the Department. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2013101EN.01001502.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 February 2013 — Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council

(Case T-235/08) (1)

1

(Dumping - Imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia - Request for a partial interim review - Normal value - Export price - Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

2013/C 101/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Acron OAO (Moscow, Russia); and Dorogobuzh OAO (Moscow) (represented: initially by P. Vander Schueren and subsequently by B. Evtimov, lawyers, and by D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and initially by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K Talabér Ritz, Agents); and Fertilizers Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 concerning terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, p.1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and by Fertilizers Europe;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004, dated the date of
this Certification (the Report), I, Craig F. Fortin, the Senior Vice President and 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:



1. The Report 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: March 15, 2005 |  | /s/ Craig F. Fortin                                              
|                     |  | Craig F. Fortin Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



62
# C_2008079EN.01001403.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2008 — Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze Agenzia delle Entrate v Olimpiclub Srl

(Case C-2/08)

(2008/C 79/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Appellants:

Respondent: Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl

Respondent:

Question referred

‘Does Community law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 2909 of the [Italian] Civil Code, laying down the principle of res judicata, where the application of that provision would lead to a result incompatible with Community law, thereby thwarting its application, even in areas other than State aid (in relation to which, see Case C-119/05 Lucchini SpA [2007] ECR I-0000) and, in particular, in matters relating to VAT and with respect to the misuse of rights in order to obtain undue tax savings, in particular in the light also of the rules of national law — as interpreted in the case-law of this Court — according to which, in tax disputes, where a giudicato esterno [a final judgment drawn up by another court in a case on the same subject] contains a finding on a fundamental issue common to other cases, it has binding authority as regards that issue, even if it was drawn up in relation to a different tax period?’

res judicata

Lucchini SpA

giudicato esterno

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Donald EUCKER et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 309, 313 and 315, Dockets 75-1246, 75-1280 and 75-1303.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 22, 1975.

Decided July 2, 1976.

Stanley S. Arkin, New York City (Stanley S. Arkin, P. C., Mark S. Arisohn, New York City, of counsel), for appellant Eucker.

Audrey Strauss, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City (Robert B. Fiske, Jr., U. S. Atty., S. D. N. Y., Lawrence B. Pedowitz, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MOORE, FEINBERG and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Eucker pleaded guilty to a single count of the indictment which charged that he:

> unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly, did, directly and indirectly, hypothecate and arrange for and permit the continued hypothecation of fully paid for securities carried for the account of customers of Orvis under circumstances that permitted such securities to be hypothecated and subjected to liens and claims of pledges in amounts up to $7,000,000.00. (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 78h and 78ff and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.8c-l; Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.)

On appeal, Eucker insisted that he was charged with violating subsection 3 of 15 U.S.C. § 78h(c) and that the indictment should have been dismissed because it failed to allege an essential element of the crime charged, to wit, that the total amount of securities hypothecated was in excess of the aggregate customer indebtedness to Orvis with respect to such securities. Because the Government insisted that it was proceeding under subsection 1 of § 78h(c), we remanded to the District Court for findings as to whether appellant’s plea was know*719ingly made. *See United States v. Eucker,*532 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1976).

On April 27, 1976, following a hearing at which appellant’s testimony was taken, District Judge Knapp found that Eucker knew at the time of his plea that the facts to which he pleaded guilty necessarily involved a violation of subdivision 1. He therefore denied appellant’s application to withdraw his guilty plea. Because this finding was not clearly erroneous, *United States v. Lombardozzi,*436 F.2d 878, 881 (2d Cir.), *cert. denied,*402 U.S. 908, 91 S.Ct. 1379, 28 L.Ed.2d 648 (1971), the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
# C_2008116EN.01001703.xml

| 9.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 116/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/17

---

Action brought on 19 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-121/08)

(2008/C 116/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kontou-Durande and L. Pignataro)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/61/EC (1) of 30 September 2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements and notification of serious adverse reactions and events, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/61/EC (1) of 30 September 2005 implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards traceability requirements and notification of serious adverse reactions and events, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/61 into domestic law expired on 31 August 2006.

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 32.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5634]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                               GUN SAFETY

  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to the need 
for stronger gun safety laws in our country. This Congress has not only 
failed to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, it 
has actually weakened gun safety laws.
  I am proud that my home State of Massachusetts is a leader in gun 
violence prevention and has the lowest firearm fatality rate per 
100,000 population of any urban industrialized State.
  I am proud of the work being done by antigun violence advocates 
across the Commonwealth, including Boston's mayor, Tom Menino, and John 
Rosenthal, founder of the organization, Stop Handgun Violence. Today, 
Stop Handgun Violence is hosting a rally in Boston calling on Congress 
to pass stronger gun safety legislation. I applaud their work and the 
efforts of other organizations like the Brady Campaign as they continue 
to educate and advocate for sensible legislation.
  What more will it take for this Congress to bring commonsense gun 
control measures to the floor? How many more tragedies? Silence is no 
longer acceptable.

                          ____________________
```