alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund (the
"Fund") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer,
hereby certifies 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.



                                         /s/Jenny Netzer
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Jenny Netzer
                                         Principal Executive Officer and
                                         Principal Financial Officer
                                         Arch Street VIII, Inc., as
                                         Managing General Partner of
                                         Boston Financial Tax Credit Fund


                                         Date:  July 13, 2005


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Associated Imports, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Leon Amiel Publisher, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered on or about December 11, 1989, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The corporate defendants moved to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 317 and 5015 on the grounds that they had not received the summons and complaint, as they had inadvertently failed to correct the address of their designated agent with the Secretary of State, and had no notice of the action. The court denied the motion, finding that service was properly made on the Secretary of State, but that the corporate defendants had actual notice of the proceedings as the process had been forwarded to counsel. The court also found that there was no showing of a meritorious defense which would warrant vacatur of the default.

The failure of defendants to make the required showing of lack of notice and meritorious defense under CPLR 317, or excusable default and a meritorious defense under CPLR 5015 (a), warranted denial of their motion to vacate the default. *(Anchor Sav. Bank v Alpha Developers,*143 AD2d 711, *lv dismissed*73 NY2d 907.) The record reveals that the corporate defendants had actual notice of the summons and complaint in time to defend. Further, service of process on a corporation is complete when the Secretary of State is served irrespective of whether the process subsequently reaches the corporate defendant *(see, e.g., Micarelli v Regal Apparel, 52*AD2d 524). Nor does failure to keep a current address of an agent on file with the Secretary of State constitute a reasonable excuse for the default *(see, Conte Cadillac v C.A.R.S. Purchasing Serv.,*126 AD2d 621). Finally, the defendants failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense to liability in the balance of a comprehensive settlement agreement which had been partly performed by a last payment in excess of $200,000. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76625-76626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31131]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-114-000]


Algonquin LNG, Inc.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

December 1, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 22, 2000, Algonquin LNG, Inc. (ALNG)

[[Page 76626]]

tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 82, to be effective on January 1, 
2001.
    ALNG states that the purpose of this filing is to revise the phone 
number of the person to whom complaints should be directed regarding 
ALNG's compliance with the Commission's gas marketing affiliate rules 
and to provide for the posting on ALNG's Internet Web site of 
information regarding shared operating employees and shared facilities, 
as well as any physical office space barriers and card key protections 
that may be necessitated by virtue of shared office space, consistent 
with Commission precedent.
    ALNG states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31131 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              10,644
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               6,980
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     8,875
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         26,594
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               4,049
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 3,949
<LOANS>                                            159,374
<ALLOWANCE>                                          1,611
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     222,780
<DEPOSITS>                                         205,766
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                    945
<LONG-TERM>                                            431
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             6,183
<OTHER-SE>                                           9,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     222,780
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      3,409
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                      479
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                       161
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     4,049
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   1,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,744
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                2,305
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           95
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                       2025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        428
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                             274
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           274
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .09
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        4.69
<LOANS-NON>                                            498
<LOANS-PAST>                                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     1,550
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                          (37)
<RECOVERIES>                                             3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    1,611
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 1,611
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                                  0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Trimol Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, 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 Company as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.



No purchaser or seller of securities or
any other person shall be entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims
any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



| | /s/ Jack Braverman     
| | -----------------------
| | Jack Braverman         
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | TRIMOL GROUP, INC.     



August 14, 2012



[A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Trimol Group, Inc. and will be retained by Trimol Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77025-77026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31349]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6613-4]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7167 or www.epa.gov/oeca/ofa.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed November 27, 
2000 Through December 1, 2000 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 000416, DRAFT EIS, SFW, CA, Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation 
Plan, Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit, To Protect, Conserve and 
Enhance Fish, Wildlife and Plants and their Habitat, Natomas Basin, 
Sacramento County, CA, Due: February 6, 2001, Contact: Vickie Campbell 
(916) 414-6600.
EIS No. 000417, DRAFT EIS, NPS, GA, Cumberland Island National Seashore 
General Management Plan, Wilderness Management Plan, Commercial 
Services Plan, Interpretation Plan, Resource Cultural and Natural 
Management Plan, Implementation, St. Marys County, GA, Due: April 9, 
2001, Contact: Arthur Frederick (912) 882-4336.
EIS No. 000418, FINAL EIS, AFS, MN, Little East Creek Fuel Reduction 
Project, Plan to Grant Access Across Federal Land to Non-Federal 
Landowners, Implementation, LaCroix Ranger District, Superior

[[Page 77026]]

National Forest, Saint Louis County, MN, Due: January 8, 2001, Contact: 
Jim Thompson (218) 666-0020.
EIS No. 000419, DRAFT EIS, MMS, LA, AL, MS, FL, Eastern Planning Area 
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 181 (December 2001), 
Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal Counties/
Parishes of LA, MI, AL and northwestern FL, Due: January 22, 2001, 
Contact: Archie Melancon (703) 787-1547.
EIS No. 000420, THIRD DRAFT SUPPLEM, NOA, Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP), Updated Information, Framework Adjustment 14 to 
adjust the annual Amendment 7 day-at-sea allocation for 2001 and 2002 
and to re-open portions of the Hudson Canyon and Virginia/North 
Carolina Areas for Scallop Fishing, Due: January 24, 2001, Contact: 
Patricia Churchill (202) 482-5916.
EIS No. 000421, DRAFT EIS, COE, CA, Guadalupe Creek Restoration 
Project, Restore Riparian Vegetation and Native Anadromous Fish 
Habitat, From Almaden Expressway to Masson Dam, Implementation, 
Guadalupe River, Santa Clara County, CA, Due: January 22, 2001, 
Contact: Brad Hubbards (916) 557-7054.
EIS No. 000422, FINAL EIS, USN, NY, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve 
Plant Bethpage to Nassau County, Transfer and Reuse, Preferred Reuse 
Plan for the Property, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, NY, Due: 
January 2, 2001, Contact: Robert K. Ostermueller (610) 595-0759.

    This Notice of Availability should have appeared in the 12/1/2000 
Federal Register. The Official Wait Period began on 12/1/2000 and ends 
on 1/2/2001.

    Dated: December 5, 2000.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-31349 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### BURWELL et al. v. SOUTHWEST CONST. CO. et al.

No. 8962.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 21, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 25, 1933.

Willson & Cooper, of Cotulla, for appellants.

Boggess, La Crosse & Lowrey, of Del Rio, for appellees.

ELY, C. J.

This suit was brought by W. M. Burwell and C. B. Burwell, against the construction company, Robert L. Guyler, who conducts the affairs of the company, and La Salle county. The county had entered into a contract with the construction company to erect a courthouse and jail, on January 17, 1931. Guyler really owns the construction company, and uses that name under which he obtains and executes contracts. His residence was in Del Rio, Vai Verde county. On January 24, 1931, Guyler made a written proposal to the Burwells to employ them at the rate'of $6 per day to work on the structures, and also to give them 25 per cent, of the net profits of the job. The proposition was accepted by appellants. It is stated in the letter that the 25 per cent, was to be in addition to the $6 per day, which should recompense W. M. Burwell and his father, O. B. Burwell, for services in procuring the contract for the construction company. The suit was for 25 per cent, of the profits, whether in money or in material, salvaged from the contract. It was alleged that the county still owed the construction company $1,500, which it had in hand. The county was ready and willing to pay the amount to the person designated by the court, and in reality made itself a stakeholder for the parties. . Appellants had obtained a writ of injunction prohibiting the payment of the money, or any part thereof, by the county to any one except the one to whom it had been adjudicated. There-being a dispute as to the ownership of the-money, the commissioners’ court ordered it held until the dispute had been decided. There was not and could not have been any money held except for the purpose of protecting the county against the contending claims. The tax assessor testified to that fact. The county of La Salle was not only a proper, but a necessary, party. A writ of garnishment could not be obtained and could' not operate against the county.

The county was sued at its home, and, being a proper and necessary party, the suit was properly brought there. Roberts v. Bludworth, 295 S. W. 210, by this court; Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v. Heid Bros. (Tex. Com. App.) 52 S.W.(2d) 74. The money and the material were in La Salle county, one of the necessary parties was there, and the venue was properly laid . in-that county. Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1995, subd. 29a, which is construed in the Commonwealth Bank Case herein cited.

The judgment of the district court, changing the venue to Val Verde county, is reversed, the plea of privilege of the construction company is denied, and the cause will be remanded for trial to La Salle county.
### F

W : C l a r i f i c a ti on o f PS D P e r mit A pp l i c a ti on f o r P P E C

S t e v e H ill

t o :

R og e r K oh n

09 / 30 / 2011 11 : 17 A M

C c :

G a r y R ub e n s t e i n

, d

j e nk i n s

, M a gg i e

_ F it z g e r a l d

, " M c K i n s e y

, J ohn A

. "

S ho w D e t a il s

H i s t o r y : T h i s m e s s a g e h a s b e e n f o r w a r d e d

. R o g e r :

Dur i n g o u r t

el e ph o n e c

o n v e r sa t i o n o n T u e sda y

, y

o u r e qu e s t e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n of c e r t a i n asp e ct

s of t h e pr

oj e ct and

t h e P SD app li c a t i o n

.

PM

A l l o f t h e pr

oj e c t ’ s par t i c u l a t e e m i ss i o ns a r e assu m e d t

o b e PM 2

.5 . A s a r e su l t

, t h e P

T E for P M e qua l s t h e P

T E f o r

PM 2 .5 , and a l s

o e qua l s t h e P

T E for PM 10

.

T h e pr oj e c t ’ s P T E for P M i s 3 7

. 2 T P

Y (s ee T ab l e 4 -19

)

, w h i c h e x c e e d s t h e P

SD t hr e sh o l d for P

SD app l i c ab i l i t y

,

w h i c h i s 2 5 T P Y ( 40 C F R (b)( 2 3 )( i ))

. T h e pr

oj e ct i s t h e r

e for e sub j e ct t o P S D for P M

.

T h e B A C T ana l y s i s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r

e pa c ka g e d P S D app l i c a t i o n i n c l u d e s a t o p

- d o w n ana l y s i s for P M / PM 10

/

PM 2 .5 fro m t urb i n e s and fro m t h e c oo l i n g t o w e r

. Be c a u s e a l l of t h e P M e m i ss

i o ns a r e PM 2 .5 , t h e sa m e a n a l y

s i s

i s app l i c ab l e t o a l l t hr ee p o l l u t an t

s

.

H 2 S and f l u or i d es

T h e P SD t hr e sh o l ds for

H 2 S / r e du c e d su l f ur c o m p o unds and f

l u or i d e s a r

e 10 T P Y and 3 T P

Y r e sp e ct iv e ly

.

T h e P roj e c

t ’ s annua l e m i ss

i o ns of e a c

h of t h e s e p o l l u t an t

s w i l l b e b el o w t h e ap p l i c

ab l e P S D t hr e sh o l ds

.

-- S t e v e H i ll 

### P a g e 1 o f 1

10 / 6 / 2011 f il e :// C :\ D o c u m e n t s a nd S e tti ng s \ r kohn \ L o c a l S e tti ng s \ T e m p \ no t e s B AAA 25 \

~ w e b0379

. h tm
P. 1 `

le~ "Rehiel, Diane" To: Greg Schweer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

<drehiel@astm .org> cc:

ti 09/15/2004 08:29 AM Subject: RE: Question about ASTM E-324

Dear Greg ,

Below is the rationale for the withdrawal of E 324 .

"The standard utilize old, well-developed technology ; it is highly unlikely

that any additional and/or modifications will ever be pursued by E15 . The

time and effort needed to maintain these documents detract from the time

available to develop new standards which use modern technology . "

If you would like Committee E15 to reconsider this standard, I welcome you to

provide me with information for the reason . I also invite you to participate

in the development and review process .

Thank you .

Diane Rehiel

-----Original Message-----

From : Schweer .Greg@epamail .epa .gov [mailto :Schweer .Greg@epamail .epa .gov]

Sent : Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10 :50 AM

To : Rehiel, Diane

Subject : Question about ASTM E-324

Hi Diane ,

Can you tell me why ASTM standard E-324 (melting point by capillary

method) was withdrawn by ASTM in 2001 and was not replaced with another

standard? This test standard was the method specified by the U .S . EPA

in a proposed test rule issued by the U .S . EPA under TSCA in December

2000 . We are nearing completion of the final rule and need to

understand why the method was withdrawn . I can be reached either by

e-mail or by phone (202-564-8469) . Thanks .
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-120-000]

Take notice that on November 29, 2000, Mississippi River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing as part of its Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following sheets, to become effective January 1, 2001:

Thirty Eighth Revised Sheet No. 5

Thirty Eighth Revised Sheet No. 6

Thirty Fifth Revised Sheet No. 7

MRT states that pursuant to the GRI provisions of the settlement in Docket No. RP98-235, and Commission Order in Docket No. RP99-323, MRT is filing to adjust its annual GRI transportation surcharge rates established in the GRI 2001 RD&D program.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections                           ( print page 77358)                        385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-31426  Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M