alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the Fund's general partner, Boston Capital Associates II L.L.C., 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)-15 or 15(d)-15 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 Fund.



|                  |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:             |  |                            
|November 19, 2008 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |  | Principal 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 Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51365 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELEAZAR PALACIOS-SANTOYO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1378-1-PRM

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eleazar Palacios-Santoyo appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Palacios contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Palacios maintains that he pleadedNo. 02-51365 -2- guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment and one-year maximum term of supervised release which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Palacios acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
# Kentucky Air Guard Assists with Storm Recovery

/ Published April 3, 2024

PROSPECT, Ky. - Fourteen members of the Kentucky Air National Guard’s 123rd Civil Engineer Squadron cleared roadways after tornados touched down across the region.

The Airmen arrived with four trucks and multiple chainsaws around 10:45 p.m. April 2, said Senior Master Sgt. Brandon Hall, senior noncommissioned officer in charge. Working carefully to avoid fallen power lines with help from Louisville Gas & Electric and the Anchorage Fire Department, they removed several trees blocking access to about 100 homes.

The debris was loaded onto trucks and road access was restored by 2 a.m. April 3.

“Helping neighbors during a crisis is one of the best aspects of serving in the Kentucky Air Guard,” Hall said, noting that his Airmen were on site just two hours after being notified at home. “We stand ready to respond any time we’re needed to help.”

Tornados were confirmed in Nelson and Anderson counties, according to the National Weather Service. The service is still assessing data from other locations to determine if damage was caused by tornados or high winds.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SonusNetworks, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2003 andas amended on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Hassan M. Ahmed,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|                     |   /s/ Hassan M. Ahmed                                                                  | * * |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|                     | Hassan M. Ahmed                                                                                  |
| Date: June 10, 2005 | *Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the  Board of  Directors (Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 314 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 314

             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2021

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To repeal the Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment Fund Repeal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Public Law 89-224 (commonly known as the ``Klamath Tribe Judgment 
Fund Act'') (79 Stat. 897) is repealed.

SEC. 3. DISBURSEMENT OF REMAINING FUNDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of Public Law 89-224 (79 Stat. 897) 
(as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) 
relating to the distribution or use of funds, as soon as practicable 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall disburse to the Klamath Tribe the balance of any funds that, on 
or before the date of enactment of this Act, were appropriated or 
deposited into the trust accounts for remaining legal fees and 
administration and per capita trust accounts, as identified by the 
Secretary of the Interior, under that Act (as in effect on the day 
before the date of enactment of this Act).
                                 <all>
```
H. R. 3634 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 109 Main 

Street in Swifton, Arkansas, as the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. GEORGE KELL POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 109 Main Street in Swifton, Arkansas, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘George Kell Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00050-CV

ANTHONY JOSEPH PIAZZA, JR., Appellant

V.

CAROLYN NEILL JENNINGS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court

Shelby County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16CV33571

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Anthony Joseph Piazza, Jr., has filed a motion with this Court1seeking to 

voluntarily dismiss this appeal. Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, the motion is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss this 

appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 16, 2018

Date Decided: July 17, 2018

 

1Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are unaware 

of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
Served: August 6, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 6th day of August, 2014

 Essential Air Service at

 SILVER CITY/HURLEY/DEMING, 

 NEW MEXICO

Under 49 U.S. C. § 47131 et seq.

 DOCKET DOT-OST-1996-1903

 

NOTICE EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR PROPOSALS

By Order 2014-7-6, issued on July 10, 2014, the Department requested proposals for Essential 

Air Service (EAS) at Silver City/Hurley/Deming, New Mexico, with proposals due no later than 

August 12, 2014. On August 5, 2014, the community requested an extension to the deadline

until September 4, 2014.

We will grant the extension request. Proposals for Silver City/Hurley/Deming are now due 

September 4, 2014.

KEVIN D. SCHLEMMER

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division

An electronic version of this document is available at

http://www.regulations.gov

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2015, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), High Density Packaging User Group International, Inc. (“HDPUG”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Nokia Networks, Oulu, FINLAND; and Safran, Eragny-sur-Oise, FRANCE, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HDPUG intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 14, 1994, HDPUG filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15306).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 31, 2014. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 16, 2014 (79 FR 74766).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2015-07528 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE P
GLNG 12/31/2012-Ex 4.4






Exhibit 4.4
Registration No. 30506





                  BERMUDA


TAX ASSURANCE


WHEREAS the Minister of Finance ("the Minister"), pursuant to section 2 of the Exempted Undertakings Tax Protection Act 1966 ,  is authorised to enter into an arrangement with any exempted undertaking upon application.


WHEREAS such undertakings may be given an assurance that in the  event  of  there being enacted in  Bermuda  any  legislation  imposing  tax computed  on  profits  or income or computed on any capital asset, gain or appreciation , or any tax in the nature of estate duty or inheritance tax, then the imposition of any tax described herein shall not be applicable to such undertakings or to any of its operations or the shares, debentures or other obligations of the said undertakings.


THEREFORE the Minister, upon application , hereby grants the aforementioned assurance to:


Golar LNG Limited
("the Undertaking")


PROVIDED THAT this assurance shall not be construed so as to:


		
	(i)
	prevent the application of any such tax or duty to such persons as are ordinarily resident


in these Islands; and


		
	(ii)
	prevent the application of any tax payable in accordance with the provisions of the


Land  Tax Act  1967 or otherwise payable in relation to the l and leased to the
Undertaking.


THIS TAX ASSURANCE shall be in effect until the 31st day of March 2035.




Given under my hand this
23rd day of May 2011


/s/ Maria Boodram


Acting Registrar of Companies
for MINISTER OF FINANCE
******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the

event of discrepancies between the electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes

of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of

the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
IN RE DANIEL N.—CONCURRENCE

ZARELLA, J., concurring. I agree with the majority

that the rule set forth in In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn.

773, 795, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), is not applicable in the

present case. I write separately, however, to note that

I maintain my views regarding supervisory authority

set forth in my concurrence and dissent in In re Yasiel

R. See id., 797–807 (Zarella, J., concurring in part and

dissenting in part). Accordingly, I concur in the result

that the majority reaches.
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 12 , 202 1

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 1

- 00 350

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.R.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20 20

- 12963

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 24, 2021 . The notice of appeal
was due June 14, 2021

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2021 , a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still o bligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).

On July 20 , 202 1 , we ordered appellant to file a p roper motion to extend time2

to file the notice of appeal on or before July 30 , 202 1

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3, 10.5(b). Appellant did not file such a motion. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise
, Bourliot , and Zimmerer

.
#### John Glaze *vs.*Charles and John Drayton.

Case III

Keg. book, No. 1, p. 23

Decree for specific perform anee a-gainstthere*. presciuatives of one of '.hecontracting parties.

The object of complainant's bill was to obtain specific performance of a contract for the purchase of land, made by Mm with William Henry Braytoa, +ho father of the defendant John, who was his heir at law, and the brother of *l-.-..*•< Charles, who was his administrator. The áccreA:: ord.v ■ ” the court is as follows:

Bill and answer read, whereupon ordered, that the defendant John Bray ton execute titles in fee simple to the *110complainant, for the land in bill mentioned, on his paying to defendant Charles, as administrator of said William H. Drayton, interest from the 26th January, 1782, on the balance of the purchase money of the said land, and giving bond with security to he approved by the master for payment of the said balance and remaining interest, by in-stillments, at the times mentioned in the acts of assembly respecting the recovery of old debts,* and that the defendant’s coats he paid by complainant,* and that the said minor (John Drayton) have six months after coming of age, to shew cause against the decree.

DECEMBER. 1784.

*

 The legislature, in consideration of the distressed state of the -the country, after the war, had passed an act, preventing the immediate recovery of debts, and fixing' certain periods for the payment of debts, far beyond the periods fixed by the contract of the parlies. These interferences with private contracts, became very common with most of the state legislatures, even after the distresses arising- from the war had ceased in a great degree. They produced distrust and irritation throughout the community, to such an extent, that new troubles were apprehended; and nothing contributed more to prepare the public mind for giving up a portion of th e state sovereignty, and adopting an efficient national government, than these abuses of power by the state legislatures.
Exhibit 32

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


         In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Forgotten  Investments
Company, Inc., on Form 10- QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned,  Daniel L.  Hodges,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting 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
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.