alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. III


( A Limited Partnership )




EXHIBIT 32.2





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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing Tax Credits L.P. III (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 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/Kenneth J. Cutillo


Kenneth J. Cutillo


Principal Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


Arch Street III, Inc., as


Managing General Partner of


Boston Financial Qualified


Housing Tax Credits L.P. III





Date:    August 16, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4761 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4761

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 6, 2004

Mr. Davis of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

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

SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.

    Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended in the first sentence--
            (1) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$125,000,000''; and
            (2) by striking ``2002 through 2004'' and inserting ``2005 
        through 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

In accordance with Title 41 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 102-3.65(a), notice is hereby given that the Charter for the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine (BOR) was renewed for an additional two-year period on November 20, 2014.

It is determined that the BOR is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of Health and Human Services by law, and that these duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of this group.

                    Inquires may be directed to Jennifer S. Spaeth, Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Mail Code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or                     *spaethj@od.nih.gov.*

Dated: December 3, 2014.

Jennifer S. Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-28750 Filed 12-8-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00070-CR

Regina Long, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 2C1606985, THE HONORABLE JOHN MICHAEL MISCHTIAN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O D E L I V E R

O R I G I N A L T R I A L E X H I B I T T O C O U R T

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Rule 34.6(g) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant

Regina Long has filed an unopposed motion to transfer two original trial exhibits, State’s Exhibit 

#2 and State’s Exhibit #9, to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(g) (authorizing appellate court 

to “direct the trial court clerk to send it any original exhibit” on any party’s motion).

The motion is granted in part, as to State’s Exhibit #2, and denied in part, as to

State’s Exhibit #9. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial court to provide the original State’s 

Exhibit #2, which consists of nine-three color photographs submitted collectively as State’s 

Exhibit #2, to this Court on or before November 13, 2020.

It is so ordered on October 14, 2020.

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith

Do Not Publish
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 5, 2020

b0129

Order 

Clerk

February 5, 2020

160535

In re INGRAM, Minors. SC: 160535

COA: 347801

Wayne CC Family Div: 

 17-001387-NA

__________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 15, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the Court of Appeals judgment. We REMAND 

this case to that court which, while retaining jurisdiction, shall remand this case to the 

Wayne Circuit Court Family Division for that court to reconsider its December 3, 2018 

order terminating respondent’s parental rights to LJI and LMI. The circuit court shall be 

directed to specifically address: (1) whether there is a statutory basis to terminate 

respondent’s parental rights to LJI and LMI, see In re JK, 468 Mich 202, 210 (2003); and 

(2) whether termination is in LJI’s and LMI’s best interests, taking into consideration, 

among other evidence, respondent’s efforts towards sobriety, see In re Moss, 301 Mich 

App 76, 90 (2013). The circuit court may, in its discretion, receive proofs or hold an 

evidentiary hearing. The circuit court shall be directed to forward to the Court of Appeals 

a written opinion addressing the above issues within 42 days of the Court of Appeals 

remand order. The Court of Appeals shall its consideration of this case. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-17366 of United Companies Financial Corporation on Form S-8 of our report
dated June 22, 1998, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of United
Companies Financial Corporation Employees' Savings Plan for the year ended
December 31, 1997.




/s/  DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Baton Rouge, Louisiana
June 22, 1998
#### Loyd G. DICKINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION and Mike Adams, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-56392.

D.C. No. CV-99-11991-RSWL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Loyd G. Dickinson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, *see Bowen v. Hood,*202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Dickinson contends that retroactive application of the amendments to section 235 of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”), which extend the life of the Parole Commission, violate the Equal Protection Clause by delaying the presumptive release date for prisoners sentenced under the old law. This contention is without merit. Where there is no protected class, an equal protection claim is subject to the rational basis test. *See McGinnis v. Royster,*410 U.S. 263, 270, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973) (applying rational basis test to prisoners). Accordingly because the amendments imposed under the SRA served a legitimate government purpose, Dickinson’s equal protection claim must fail. *See*SRA Pub. L. No. 100, 182, § 2(a), 101 Stat. 1266 (1987) (stating that Congress acted to streamline sentencing process and equalize terms of incarceration for similarly situated defendants).

Dickinson also contends that the retroactive application of the SRA deprives him of a liberty interest without due process of the law. This contention is also without *562merit. The language of the SRA does not create a liberty interest in parole. Dickinson has no right to immediate release.

Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing Dickinson’s petition. *See Bowen,*202 F.3d at 1218.

AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. We decline to address Dickinson’s remaining claims as he fails to present adequate facts or relevant law to permit appellate review. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(6).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                         213,000
<SECURITIES>                                   508,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,104,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   107,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,733,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,723,000
<PP&E>                                       5,478,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,298,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,903,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,660,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       363,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,705,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,903,000
<SALES>                                     11,445,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,445,000
<CGS>                                        8,158,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,158,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,562,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                725,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   282,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            443,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   443,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4624 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4624

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                 ``Ray Charles Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2004

  Ms. Watson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, as the 
                 ``Ray Charles Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RAY CHARLES POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4960 West Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, 
shall be known and designated as the ``Ray Charles Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 Ray Charles 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
#### Adrienne MCGLONE, Appellant, v. CITY OF LINCOLN; Lancaster County Health Department, Appellees.

No. 00-3174.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 29, 2001.

Filed June 4, 2001.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Adrienne McGlone appeals from the district court’s judgment in favor of defendants following a bench trial in McGlone’s employment discrimination lawsuit. Having carefully considered the arguments in McGlone’s brief, we are satisfied that no error of law appears and the district court correctly found that race and retaliation had nothing to do with McGlone’s termination. Accordingly, without further discussion, we affirm the judgment of the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 5, 2002, included and incorporated by
reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-56476, 333-67822, 333-68400, 333-67067, 033-60406, 033-57167, 033-39466,
333-86299, 333-34609, 333-29657, 333-14869, 033-59235, and 033-59237) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-68042, 333-68040, 333-68044, 333-67820, 333-66233, 033-45525, 033-50260, 033-45074, 033-52094,
333-19671, 333-91305, 333-94955, 333-30742, 333-29819, 033-36694 and 333-77703). It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of Aquila, Inc. subsequent to
December 31, 2001, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our reports.

/s/
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Kansas
City, Missouri
March 20, 2002

---

QuickLinks
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-92,917-01
IN RE JAMES RYAN R OSS , Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR AWRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NOS. 12-12-12875-CR A ND 09-13- 00093-CR IN THE 9T H DISTRICT COURT FROM M ONTGOMERY C OUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R
Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ o f m an damus pursuant to the orig inal jurisdiction of this Court. I n it, he contends that he has repe atedly written to the Montgome ry County Distri ct C l er k , attempting to purcha se copies of trial transcr ipts, but he has rec eived response s to the effec t that the cler k has re ceive d his “letter s and/or mot ions” and will be noti fied “if a n order is signed in [his] case .” In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. Respondent, the Di strict Clerk of Montgome ry C o u nty , is order ed to file a response stating whether he rec eived a reque st from the Relator for a statement of costs for his rec ords. I f the District Clerk rec eived such a reque st, he shall2

state the nature of his response and, if available , provide a copy of the response . I f the District Clerk
rec eived such a reque st and did not respond, he shall provide his rationale for not responding
. This ap p lication for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abey ance until Resp o n d en t h as submitt ed the appropr iate response . Such response shall be submitt ed within 30 day s of the date of this order.
Filed: September

29, 2021 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summarized financial information from the Questar Gas
Company Statement of Income and Balance Sheet for the year ended December 31,
1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the audited financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,747
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     20,347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,188
<PP&E>                                         882,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 354,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 704,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          164,487
<BONDS>                                        225,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,974
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   704,851
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               448,223
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  350,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,506
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,492
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,014
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,014
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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



In connection with theAmendment No. 1 to this Annual Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-K/Afor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Demorest, Chief Executive Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby 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:



| | (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 MOCON, Inc.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date:     July 14, 2014 | /s/ Robert L. Demorest
Robert L. Demorest
Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
#### David Smith v. John Ihling.

*Issue of justice’s summons on legal holiday is mlid.*

Issue of justice’s summons is a mere ministerial act and valid though! done on a legal holiday.

Error to Yan Burén.

Submitted January 19.

Decided January 25.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*Armdble <& Fitch*for plaintiff in error.

The Holiday Act (Comp. L. § 5682) merely forbids such legal proceedings as necessitate holding court: *Hemmens v. Bentley*32 Mich. 89; *Hamilton v. People*29 Mich. 173; but the issue *615by a justice of a summons is ministerial: Cooley on Torts 378.

*George W. Lawton*for defendant in error.

Judgment cannot be signed on days that are *dies non: Harrison v. Smith*9 B. *&*C. 243; nor process issued: *Van Vechten v. Paddock*12 Johns. 178; Washington’s Birthday is on the same footing for business purposes as Sunday: *Gladwin v. Lewis*6 Conn. 49: 16 Am. Dec. 33; *School Dist. v. Gage*39 Mich. 484; and the issue of a summons is business within the statute: Comp. L. § 5682; *Coleman v. Henderson*12 Am. Dec. 290; Littell’s Cases 171.

Marston, J.

This action was commenced in justice’s court by issuing a summons on a legal holiday, February 22, 1881. On the return day, a motion was made to .quash the proceedings which was denied, a trial was then had and judgment for the plaintiff. The cause was then taken to the circuit on a special aj>peal and the judgment of the justice reversed. The case comes here on writ of error.

The circuit court erred. The issuing of summons is a ministerial act and is not forbidden by the statute.

The judgment of the circuit must be reversed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.