alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2008041EN.01002201.xml

| 15.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 41/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 41/22

---

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION

of 12 February 2008

concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) for the financial year 2006

(2008/116/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (1), as amended by the Agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (2),

Having regard to Internal Agreement 91/401/EEC on the financing and administration of Community aid under the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (3), setting up, amongst others, the Seventh European Development Fund (Seventh EDF) and in particular Article 33(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Financial Regulation 91/491/EEC of 29 July 1991 applicable to development finance cooperation under the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention (4), and in particular Articles 69 to 77 thereof,

Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the Seventh EDF as at 31 December 2006 and the Court of Auditors’ report concerning the financial year 2006 together with the Commission’s replies (5),

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Seventh EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 33(3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the financial management of the Seventh EDF is to be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on the recommendation of the Council.

| (2) | The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Seventh EDF during the financial year 2006 has been satisfactory, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The overall implementation by the Commission of the operations of the Seventh EDF during the financial year 2006 has been satisfactory,

HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the Seventh EDF for the financial year 2006.

Done at Brussels, 12 February 2008.

For the Council

The President

A. BAJUK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 3.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 156, 29.5.1998, p. 3.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 229, 17.8.1991, p. 288.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 266, 21.9.1991, p. 1.

4

(5)  
  OJ C 259, 31.10.2007, p. 1.

5

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50595 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO ROCHA-MENDOZA,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50631

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CATALINO GARCIA-ARREDONDO, also known as

Samuel Perez-Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50663

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EUTIQUIO GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, also known as 

Luis Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant;
No. 00-50595

c/w Nos. 00-50631 & 00-50663 & 

00-50701 & 00-50769

- 2 -

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

**Gonzalez’s real name is David Chavez-Prado. 

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50701

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN MORALES-HERNANDEZ, also known as

Martin H. Morales,

Defendant-Appellant;

____________________

Consolidated with

No. 00-50769

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADRIAN DEMERIO LABRADO-ALVAREZ, also known as

Adrian Labrado,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Rocha-Mendoza, Catalino Garcia-Arredondo, Eutiquio

Gonzalez-Gonzalez**, Martin Morales-Hernandez, Adrian Demerio

Labrado-Alvarez (collectively the Defendants) appeal their
No. 00-50595

c/w Nos. 00-50631 & 00-50663 & 

00-50701 & 00-50769

- 3 -

sentences following their guilty plea convictions for illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The

Defendants argue that their sentences should not have exceeded

the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The

Defendants acknowledge that their argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but they

seek to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000). 

The Defendants’ argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres,

523 U.S. at 235. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgments of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
II 

Calendar No. 408 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1728 

[Report No. 109–246] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

APRIL 20, 2006 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of April 7, 2006, by Mr. 

DOMENICI, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating portions of Ste. Genevieve County in the State of Missouri as a unit of 

the National Park System, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ste. Genevieve County 

5 National Historic Site Study Act of 2005’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 1728 RS

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) AREA.—The term ‘‘Area’’ means Ste. Gene4 vieve County, Missouri, which includes the Bequette5 Ribault, St. Gemme-Amoureaux, and Wilhauk 

6 homes, and the related and supporting historical as7 sets located in Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri. 

8 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

9 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di10 rector of the National Park Service. 

11 SEC. 3. STUDY. 

12 (a) In General.—Not later than 3 years after the date 

13 on which funds are made available to carry out this Act, 

14 the Secretary shall, in consultation with the State of Mis15 souri— 

16 (1) complete a study on the suitability and fea17 sibility of designating the Area as a unit of the Na18 tional Park System, which shall include the potential 

19 impact that designation of the area as a unit of the 

20 National Park System is likely to have on land with21 in the proposed area or bordering the proposed area 

22 that is privately owned at the time that the study is 

23 conducted; and 

24 (2) submit to the Committee on Resources of 

25 the House of Representatives and the Committee on 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 1728 RS

1 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a re2 port describing the findings of the study. 

3 (b) Contents.—The study under subsection (a) shall 

4 be conducted in accordance with Public Law 91–383 (16 

5 U.S.C. 1a–1 et seq.). 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 408 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1728 

[Report No. 109

–246] 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study 

and for other purposes. Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, tions of Ste. Genevieve County in the State of the suitability and feasibility of designating porAPRIL 20, 2006 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
LKQ-EX10.13_2014.12.31


Exhibit 10.13




	
					
	 
	M E M O R A N D U M
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	TO:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	FROM:
	Compensation Committee
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	DATE:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	RE:
	Bonus Program
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 








You have been selected to participate in the LKQ Corporation Management Incentive Plan (“MIP”) for purposes of your potential ­­___________bonus.  The potential bonus described in this letter is subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the MIP (a copy of which is attached to this memorandum).
	
								
	Performance Period:
	 
	January 1,                 
	 to December 31,                 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Performance Goals:
	 
	The diluted earnings per share of LKQ Corporation
	 

	 
	 
	 
	("EPS") for the Performance Period; provided, however,
	 

	 
	 
	 
	that EPS shall be increased to the extent that EPS was
	 

	 
	 
	 
	reduced in accordance with GAAP by objectively
	 

	 
	 
	 
	determinable amounts due to:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	1.
	A change in accounting policy or GAAP;
	 

	 
	 
	2.
	Dispositions of assets or businesses;
	 

	 
	 
	3.
	Asset impairments;
	 

	 
	 
	4.
	Amounts incurred in connection with any financing;
	 

	 
	 
	5.
	Losses on interest rate swaps resulting from mark to
	 

	 
	 
	 
	market adjustments or discontinuing hedges;
	 

	 
	 
	6.
	Board approved restructuring or similar charges
	 

	 
	 
	 
	including but not limited to charges in conjunction with
	 

	 
	 
	 
	or in anticipation of an acquisition;
	 

	 
	 
	7.
	Losses related to environmental, legal, product liability
	 

	 
	 
	 
	or other contingencies;
	 

	 
	 
	8.
	Changes in tax laws; 
	 

	 
	 
	9.
	Losses from discontinued operations; and 
	 

	 
	 
	10.
	Other extraordinary, unusual or infrequently occurring 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	items as disclosed in the Company's financial statements   
	 

	 
	 
	 
	or filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 









	
							
	 
	 
	 
	In addition, the Compensation Committee shall adjust the 

	 
	 
	 
	Performance Goals or other features of the Award that 

	 
	 
	 
	relate to the value or number of the shares of common

	 
	 
	 
	stock of the Company to reflect any stock dividend, stock

	 
	 
	 
	split, recapitalization, combination or exchange of shares,

	 
	 
	 
	or other similar changes in such stock.  Notwithstanding the

	 
	 
	 
	foregoing, the Compensation Committee, in its sole

	 
	 
	 
	discretion, may reduce the Actual Award payable to you

	 
	 
	 
	below that which otherwise would be payable pursuant to

	 
	 
	 
	the Payout Formula or may eliminate the Actual Award.

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Target Award:
	 
	 
	 % of Base Salary
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Payout Formula:
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	EPS ($)
	Percentage of Base Salary

	 
	 
	Less than
	 
	 
	0
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2228 

To extend the duty suspension on Iminodisuccinate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Ms. HART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the duty suspension on Iminodisuccinate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. IMINODISUCCINATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Headings 9902.29.83 and 

5 9902.38.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

6 United States (relating to mixtures of sodium salts) are 

7 each amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2228 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
[No. 36481-2-I.

Division One.

September 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Derrick Derrell Sanders, *Defendant,*Odis Gregory Holt, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-07807-7, Richard M. Ishikawa, J., entered April 6, 1995. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-62-TLS 

 ) 

DAVID OLVERA ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 36], filed on March 21, 2017. The Defendant has waived objection to 

the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 36] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject 

to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), if applicable and necessary, the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 

One (1) of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such 

offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on April 13, 2017. 

s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ronambl4 Omrr G. Mowerr 

County Attorney 

oahi10cw G0unty 

Perrytoa, Texer 

l tantially the follovlng 

pF0p4Fty 488484eu 

land to 8 pumh*r 

the amount 4f 

aollrotar ?4qu 

448444*d 4galn 

tioa to the ao 

I the puraharer o? thr ~a1 pmpmanal pr~p4rtt owaet? br hir rrnhanarrd by the vrnd44 of the real 

real eatatc yxw4ha44d and that he Ia sat 

40 on the per8on8.1 property whioh havr b44n 

Y4 b4lLeve ttmt you are aorraat in the 

ft Ia now definltcl~ 44t4l>lirhod that th4 It419 provLd4d in Artlul4 VIft, ekathn 16 of our Oonrtftubioa ati ht¶alO 

7172, R~vS44d Civil Btatu$er, attaahoo only to 4aah ewaFtkt4 

tract or parcel of 1anB for t4rcr arrr*red qainet it. Mhh4J 

V8. #aor &rLB 3.x. 172 (F&p. Gt.)$ brrlr va. w44t, 5 8.W. tea) 

970; State Wot-tgago GOrpoF8tlO#l v4. L&u 55 3.w. (aa) 257 

(Revorsml on OEher Qrt~unhr) 48 8.W. (Zd) 9 50. FMI thw ~~inlofa 
Honorable 0848r 0. ~lOWOr8, pllgr 2 

of thr Texarkma Court of Civil Appe4le In the aoee of State 

VI. Hunt, SZO7 6.H. 6S6, we q,uote RS follove: 

Wut w4 egren vith the tri41 oourt 

that ths rtatr, did not have e lien on the 

lmd to 8eoure the payment of rlther the poll 

taxer arreesed 8gRin8t the Wllli4mree or the 

t8X84 8888484d q8inSt them On 804OUnt Of 

their omerehlp of perrorul property. The 

general rule is that tar48 ere never 8 klen 

on prop4rty unlesr expr4erlJ mede 80. 

Gooley, Tax’n, p. 885. The lien oreated by 

reotlon 15 of utlale 8 o? the Conrtltution UQon @14&r& prop4rty' is anlr far taxes *4844- 

ed 4gaInet l uah property; end so o? the lien 

upon 2~81 property provided for br Artisle 

7628, Ver no ní l Statutee. * 

It 18 our opinion th8t the pWaha8Sr of 88id real 

property lr entitled to p4y the tax vbloh ha& been areerr4d 

4gdnrt that prop4rt7 alons without b4Ing required to 947 

the tax which had been 18vI& yainrt the pereonxl pWXWty 

of the vendor. 

Yours very truly 

&TTORWEY OmENAL OF PEltA 

@U.:Jr 

41enn R. LewIe 

Aerlstxnt
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Antonio E. Turgeon certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of TechnoConcepts, Inc. (formerly
Technology Consulting Partners, Inc.);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 2, 2005

/s/ Antonio E. Turgeon
Antonio E. Turgeon, President,
Chief Executive Officer
Hermes Fidelina MORAZAN-ALVAREZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6881.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### Samuel MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rosemarie RANKIN; Webster University, Inc., doing business as Webster University, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-50995.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 10, 2011.

Jeffrey Brent Pownell, Esq., Roger Claud Davie, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Steven Joseph Blanco, Blanco, Ordonez *&*Wallace, P.C., Clara Beth Burns, Kemp Smith, L.L.P., El Paso, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Samuel Morgan filed an action in Texas court alleging state law claims for employment discrimination and defamation. Webster University removed the case to federal court, asserting that all the alleged conduct occurred on Fort Bliss, a federal enclave governed exclusively by federal law. The district court denied Morgan’s motion to remand to state court and granted Webster’s motion to dismiss the employment discrimination claims without prejudice because those state law claims were not adopted as federal law on the enclave. Rather than amend his complaint, Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the entire action so that he could immediately challenge the district court’s rulings on appeal.

Webster’s notice of removal states that all of the events alleged by Morgan occurred on Fort Bliss. Morgan did not dispute Webster’s factual allegations. Therefore, the district court was entitled to rely upon them in deciding the motion to remand. *Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy,*392 F.3d 147, 149 (5th Cir.2004); *Aquafaith Shipping, Ltd. v. Jarillas,*963 F.2d 806, 808 (5th Cir.1992). Because all of the events at issue occurred on Fort Bliss, the causes of action arose on a federal enclave. Thus, the district court properly found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action. *See Mater v. Holley,*200 F.2d 123, 124-25 (5th Cir.1952).

Similarly, the court properly dismissed Morgan’s employment discrimination claims. Any state law created after Fort Bliss became a federal enclave has no force there. *See Lord v. Local Union No.2088,*646 F.2d 1057, 1060 (5th Cir. Unit B June 1981). Morgan’s argument that Title VII’s non-preemption provision somehow adopted Texas employment discrimination law on the enclave is utterly without support and, as the district court noted, “confusing at best.”

As for the defamation claims, Morgan never challenged their dismissal in the district court. Indeed, the dismissal was without prejudice with leave to replead until Morgan voluntarily dismissed his entire action in order to pursue this appeal. *366Arguments not raised before the district court are waived. *Martco Ltd. P’ship v. Wellons, Inc.,*588 F.3d 864, 877 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, Morgan cannot now argue that the district court erred in granting his own motion; he obtained exactly the relief he sought. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-12281

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 9, 2011.

Michelle Schieber, Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Melvin E. Hyde, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William J. Mason, Attorney at Law, Columbus, GA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Randolph Lawrence, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

Before CARNES, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William J. Mason, appointed counsel for Randolph Lawrence in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Lawrence’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
John H. MORLEY, Jr., petitioner, v. Lawrence M. FARNESE, Jr.

No. 13-464.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Newkirk Master
Limited Partnership; (the "Registrant") for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Thomas Staples, Chief Financial Officer of the Manager of the
Registrant's General Partner, 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.


By: /s/ Thomas Staples
    --------------------------------
Name: Thomas Staples
      Chief Financial Officer of the
        Registrant's General Partner

Date: March 10, 2006