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 Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Chief Financial Officer of C&M Management Inc., and Directory of Accounting of Boston Capital Corporation 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 result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  | Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                  |                                                      
|                  | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|                  | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|                  | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|Date:             |                                                      
|November 20, 2003 | By:                                                  
|                  |                                                      
|                  |                                                      
|                  |
#### H. M'Millan, *vs. Administrators of*Eldridge.

The only ground of appeal in this case is that the circuit court erred in decreeing costs to the defendant.

This is not a subject of appeal;, and it is. ordered and adjudged that the decree of the circuit courtbe affirmed. By *h» whole court.

*261This is an appeal on the question of costs alone. The, appellant Stewart, contends, that as he obtained a verdict at law on the issue directed out of this court, he is entitled to the, costs of that issue at least. We are aware that some opinions, have been expressed to that effect; but we are not of that opinion- The whole merits of the case have been decided against the appellant, and we think he ought to pay all the costs. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decree of the court he affirmed.

By the whole court.
#### ISRAEL RIKER, Appellant, *vs.*JULIA ANN SCOFIELD, Respondent.

APPEAR IN EQUITY FROM THE COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT.

Parties should bring their testimony into the appellate court in authentic form, otherwise it will not be noticed.

If a bill of exceptions be relied on to exhibit the testimony, the bill should appear to have been signed by the judge below, or properly certified by the clerk; or in some manner authenticated as containing the testimony actually taken in the case.

If the appellant neglect to bring into this court his testimony from the court below in an authentic form, he cannot have the benefit of it, and the cause must be heard upon such testimony as appears authentic, and a decree rendered accordingly.

*Alvah, Ho/nd*for Respondeat.

*By the*Gowt,

Cole, J.

It appears from tbe papers aad records ia this cause, that the bill was filed to compel a specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. An answer was put in, June 11, 1855, and a replication to this answer filed March 6th, 1856. It also appears that at the September term of the circuit court, the case was brought to a hearing'upon the pleadings and proofs, taken we presume, in court; and that the appellant’s bill was dismissed with costs. From this order or judgment dismissing the bill, an appeal has been taken to this court.

Upon examining the papers in this case we do not find a particle of testimony either to sustain or reverse this judgment. There is, to be sure, among the papers what purports to be a *368bill of exceptions, or minutes of testimony in a case between these parties, but this bill of exceptions is not signed by the court, nor certified by the clerk, nor in any manner authenticated as being testimony taken in the case, or used upon the trial. Of course we cannot consider it. If the appellant went to a hearing without having any testimony to sustain the allegations of his bill, undoubtedly the circuit court properly dismissed the bill. If he did really introduce testimony sufficient to show that he was entitled to relief, it was his duty to have that testimony here in some authentic shape, so that we might consider it. _ As the case stands before us, we must affirm the judgment of the court below, with costs.
### Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) EPA Webinar -- June 5, 2014

**Reid Harvey, CAMD, OAP & Kevin Culligan, SPPD, OAQPS**

**First Name Last Name**  **Company** We ndy Graham Air Products Mike Palazzolo Alcoa Ben Squires Alcoa Harold Reed Am erican W ater Tom DePonty AREVA Kaj Jensen Bank of America Dave Pogue CBRE Bruce Wi lcoxon ConocoPhillips Malcolm Fawcett ConocoPhillips Ann Loom is Dominion

Paula Hamel Dominion Lenny Dupuis Dominion Gregory Ryan DTE Energy

Karen Britto DTE Energy Kevin Leahy Duke Energy

Dan We iss Duke Energy Richard Kunkel Duke Energy Jackie Carney Exelon Audrey Ly ke Exelon Bill Brady Exelon Larry Boggs GE

John Oldi GE Ryan Murray GE Aviation Cameron Pratt Holcim (US)Erika GuerrA Holcim (US)

Svetlana Zenkin HP Edan Dionne IBM Stephen Harper Intel Jennifer Lay ke Johnson Controls Sandy Taft National Grid Christine Milligan National Grid Gideon Katsh National Grid Brian Marrs NRG Wi lliam Chernicoff Toyota Andrea Howell We ye rhaeuser Steve Wo ock We ye rhaeuser Company

### Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC) EPA Webinar -- June 5, 2014

**Questions Asked**

Q: is there a 6 percent cap on nuclear? Q: Are states required to include some of each of the 4 building blocks in their plans, or if they can meet their state goal without increasing RE or EE is that permitted? Q: W e are all trying to examine the measures to meet your state's goal. W hen doing the calculation, are all generation sources, except hydro, eligible to be in the dem oninator - all coal, gas, nuclear, RE and EE?

Q: W hat was EPA's rationale for setting rate-based goals for each state instead of massbased goals? Are the equivalent mass-based goals for each state provided in the technical support documents? Q: Just to add to Ann Loomis' question....what about a nuclear plant whose license expires in 2025? Q: Another question. For states that have achieved significant emissions between 2005 and 2012 (the baseline), does the rule allow states to credit these early reduction activities?

Q: On the point that this was a bottom up calculation ... so they looked at what was feasible/plaubible for tech deployme nt during that time, these state numbers were teh outcome of that analysis. Q: On the bill question (8% ee reducing bills). Is that 8% based on what is already happening re ee trends, or based on what they think is additional ee?

Q: You say

that states can average over time to meet target-- I assume the 2030 targert? And I have read stories today suggesting that most of reductions are front loaded. W hy are those stories incorrect?Q: Could we have a m ore detail explanation of how the costs of the rule where

calculated? what models were used?

Q: Separate from the previous offset question, use of biomass is tentatively addressed by EPA in the pream ble as potentially being considered as qualify ing for CO2 emission reduction pending the finalization of the Accounting Framework, if I have captured that accurately . How is EPA going to add that into the proposed rule once the Framework is issued?
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6539

FONZ SHEPARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03204-BO)

Submitted: September 27, 2018 Decided: October 11, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fonz Shepard, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fonz Shepard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 

337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). Because it is possible that Shepard could cure the defects 

in his complaint through amendment to name a defendant amenable to suit, the order he 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 

1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to 

the district court with instructions to allow Shepard to file an amended complaint. See

Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, 807 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in 

the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this annual report on Form 20-F of TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V.
for the period ended December 31, 2002, I, Pedro Padilla Longoria, Chief
Executive Officer of TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V., hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.    this Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 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 this Form 20-F for the period ended December
31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V.

Date: June 30, 2003                           /s/ Pedro Padilla Longoria
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Pedro Padilla Longoria
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              (principal executive officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by TV Azteca, S.A. de
C.V. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 2 A0 95 7 . ANDRI AN OLDHAM v . J UDY W I LDER.

In t h i s ci v i l m at t er, An d ri an Ol d h am ap p eal s fro m

a t ri al co u rt o rd er d en y i n g

h er m o t io n (i ) t o q u as h a s u b p o e n a i s s u ed b y ap p el l ee J ud y W i l d er’ s co u n s el an d

(i i) fo r a p ro tect i v e ord er b arri n g fu rt h er p o st -ju d g m en t d is co v ery fro m b ei n g s o u g ht

fro m h er. W i l d er h as fi l ed a m o t i on t o rem an d t h i s cas e t o t h e t ri al co u rt s o t h at s h e

m ay (i ) wi t h d raw t h e su b po en a i s s u ed b y h er co u n s el an d d i rect ed t o O l d h a m a n d

(i i) as k t h e t ri al co u rt t o di s m i s s as m o o t Ol d h am ’ s m o t i o n t o q u as h an d fo r a

p ro t ect i v e o rd er. W il d er’ s m o t i o n i s h ereb y GRANTED. Up o n en t ry o f a t ri al co u rt

o rd er d is p o s i n g of W i l d er’ s m o t i o n t o d is m i ss

, an y p art y ag g ri ev ed b y s u ch o rd er m ay

s eek fu rt h er ap p el l at e rev iew b y ei t h er (i ) s eek i n g a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e rev i ew

fro m t h e t ri al co u rt an d

, i f o n e i s o b t ai n ed

, b y fi l i n g an ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry

rev i ew i n t h i s C o u rt

, s ee OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ), o r (i i) i f t h e o rd er i s s u b ject to

i m m ed i at e rev i ew, b y fi l i n g a t i m el y n o t i ce o f ap p eal referen ci n g su ch o rd er, s ee

OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a); Hi ckey v. RREF BB S BL Acq ui s i t i o n s , 3 3 6 Ga. Ap p

. 4 1 1 , 4 1 2

-

4 1 4 (1 ) (7 8 5 SE2 d 7 2) (2 01 6 ).

In t h e ev en t t hat

, wi th i n 3 0 d ay s o f t h e d at e of t hi s o rd er, W i l d er’ s co u n s el h as

n o t wi th d rawn t he s u b po en a an d fi l ed a m ot i o n in t he t ri al co u rt s eek i ng t o d i s m i ss

O l d h a m ’s m o t i o n t o q u as h an d fo r a p ro t ect i v e o rd er, t h e tri al co urt i s h e r e b y

DIRECTED t o re-t ran sm i t th e reco rd to t h i s Co u rt b as ed o n th e t ri al co u rt ’ s p ri o r April 28, 2022o rd er d en y i n g Ol d h am ’ s m o t i on

, at wh i ch p o in t Ol d h am ’ s ap p eal fro m t h at o rd er wi l l

b e rei ns t at ed

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/28/2022
•

•

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

State ofOregon

. Department of

Environmental

Quality

JANUARY 2002
•

•

•

I.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Program Description

Attorney General's Statement

Memorandum of Agreement

Appendices

A. Oregon Administrative Rule

Chapter 340, Divisions 100

through 106, 108, 109, 110, 120,

and 12

B. Oregon Hazardous Waste

Statutes (ORS 466 and 468)

C. Web Site Information

StateofOregon

Department of

Environmental

Quality

JANUARY 2002
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00069-CV

IN RE JASON PAUL MILLER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding for a writ of mandamus, Relator Jason Paul Miller 

contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to disqualify opposing 

counsel, Micah Haden, from representing the Real Party in Interest Heather Lynn Miller. 

Relator, however, has now filed a second original mandamus proceeding, Cause No. 10-

19-00107-CV, arising from the same underlying case, in which he represents that Haden 

is no longer representing the Real Party in Interest.

Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot controversies. See Nat’l Collegiate 

Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). “A case becomes moot if, since the time 

of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties—that is, if 
In re Miller Page 2

the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest 

in the outcome.” Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012).

By letter dated April 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified Relator that it 

appeared that this original proceeding had become moot and that the Court may dismiss 

this original proceeding unless, within ten days from the date of the letter, a response 

was filed showing grounds for continuing the original proceeding. No response has been 

received.

Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed. Relator’s 

emergency motion to stay is dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 24, 2019

[OT06]
Order entered December 2012 

## 0052.

In The 

## Court of [ppeaI i tritt of at BaIIa No. 05-12-01647-CR RICARDO BELTRAN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-56077-M



### ORDER Appellant was sentenced m the above appeal on January 30, 2012. He filed a motion for new trial on February 28, 2012 and a notice of appeal on April 26, 2012. The notice ofappeal, however, was not forwarded to this Court until November 26, 2012. Neither the clerk’s nor the reporter’s records have been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County Dismct Clerk to file the clerk’s record within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We ORDER Belinda Baraka, as official court reporter of the 194th Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk, Criminal RecordsDivision; Belinda Bamka, Official Court Reporter, 194th Judicial District Co.urt; and counsel for

all parttes.

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

### JUSTICE
*Present*— Chancellors Hutson and Mathews.

#### Bellinger, executor of Skottowe *vs.*J. L. Gervais.

SEPTEMBER. 1790.

CASE LX.

jr. b. p. 265.

Agent not liable for depreciated money which perished in his hands.

Commissions to agent, two and a half per cent, on money received and paid, and one per cent, on delivering up bonds.

C. C. Pinckney, complainant’s solicitor. — E. Rutledge, defendant’s solicitor.

Tils case related to the settlement of the *affairs*of the late Mr. Skottowe, which had hcen in the hands of Mr. Gervais as his agent, during the war. The principal question related to some depreciated paper money, which sunk in his hands. The court was of opinion that, as the defendant swore positively he never had applied to his own use any of the money received for Skottowe, he ought not to be accountable for it in any other way than the depreciated paper in his hands, lie could not loan it during the war, and the times were such as to embarrass every man in deciding what was best to be done with funds. — On the claim of commissions for monies actually received and paid away by defendant, (except the depreciated paper,) the court, after hearing the master’s report* decreed, that the defendant be allowed two and a half per cent, on receiving, and two and a half on plying or re mitting the money received; and one per cent, for delivering over the bonds and notes due to the testator. — Each party to pay their own costs, hut Mr. Bellinger to deduct his from the funds of the estate.

This is all that appears entered in the register’s book:-. But in chancellor Mathews’s notes of the case, accompanying the brief, are the following words: *“*And that the above he the standing rule with regard to attornies or agents.”
Kentucky National Guard ADT visits chicken farm entrepreneur
 
  By Air Force 2nd Lt. Ashleigh Peck
  PANJSHIR PROVINCE, Afghanistan - Members of the Kentucky Agribusiness Development Team visited with a local chicken farm owner in Khenj District Dec. 12. Shanawaz Khan is a Go Joeal villager who started his chicken farm about 16 months ago with 30 chickens.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Decided July 2, 2019

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1580

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

DENNIS M. FRANKLIN, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

No. 3:14-CR-00128

James D. Peterson , Chief Judge

.

____________________________________________________________________________

No. 16-1872

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

SHANE SAHM, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

No. 3:15-CR-00110

James D. Peterson , Chief Judge

. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1Nos. 16-1580 & 16-1872 Page 2

O R D E R

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has answered the question of state law that this court certified to it. United States v. Franklin , 928 N.W.2d 545 (Wis. 2019). Burglary under Wisconsin law, Wis. Stat. § 943.10(1m), applies to burglaries of vehicles as well as buildings and dwellings. That means the state crime is broader than the federal generic crime of burglary that may serve as a predic ate for enhanced offenses under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). See Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (Iowa burglary statute broader th an federal generic burglary because it applies to burglaries of vehicles). In resp onse to our request, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has decided definitively that the state crime is not “divisible” among different locations for purposes of applying the Armed Career Criminal Act. As a result, the prior Wisconsin burglary convictions of defendants-appellants Dennis Franklin and Shane Sahm do not qualify as prior convicti ons for “violent felonies” to support their federal sentences under the Armed Career Cr iminal Act. The parties have submitted statements of position under Circuit Rule 52. They and we agree on the next step. The federal sentences for both Franklin and Sa hm in these appeals are hereby VACATED and their cases are REMANDED to the district court for resentencing without applying the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
EXHIBIT 32.1(a)





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





(ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





In connection with the periodic report of Dynegy Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bruce A. Williamson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.





Date: May 10, 2010
By:
/s/ BRUCE A. WILLIAMSONBruce A. Williamson

President and Chief Executive Officer