alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

             BOSTON FINANCIAL QUALIFIED HOUSING TAX CREDITS L.P. III
                             (A Limited Partnership)

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Financial Qualified Housing
Tax Credits L.P. III (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2006 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/Gary Mentesana
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Gary Mentesana
                                        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:  November 14, 2006


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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SONYA VONCILLE BYRD, *

 * 

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 08-00584-KD-B

*

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, *

Commissioner of *

Social Security, *

*

Defendant. *

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this

file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no

objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated January 19, 2010, is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of February, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00584-KD-B Document 19 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 1
Order entered November 6, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00174-CR

JON MATTHEW WOODLAND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-81351-2018

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s October 31, 2019 motion for extension of time to file its 

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received on October 30 filed as of the date 

of this order.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 27, 2016

v No. 324460 Wayne Circuit Court THYRONE DESHAWN EVANS, LC No. 13-009779-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: G ADOLA , P.J., and S ERVITTO and S HAPIRO , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, J. ( dissenting ).

After briefs were filed in this case, our Court issued its dec ision in People v Agar

, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2016) (Docket No. 321243). In Agar , the defendant was convicted of distributing child s exually abuse m aterial and pos sessing child sexually abusive material. Before trial, he move d for public funds so that he c ould retain his own computer forensics expert, but he was unable to articulate what he expec ted the expert to say. Id . at ___; slip op 2-3. This Court neverthe less concluded that the defend ant had met his burden of establishing a nexus between the facts of the case and the need for an expert, in part because of defense counsel’s “admission that he needed help in understandi ng the technical issues at play[.]” Id . at ___; slip op 2-3. This Court noted that “the defense woul d have benefited from adequately educated counsel, even in the examination of the peo ple’s expert.” Id . at ___; slip op 3. Similarly, in this case defense counsel was unable to artic ulate what he expected a ballistics expert to say and he expressed a need to consult an expert in o rder to understand the science. I would conclude that, under the circumstances, defense counsel e stablished a sufficient nexus between the facts and the need for the appointment of an expert . This case involves two people firing guns, defendant from inside a car and an unknown third p arty from outside and behind the car. The police located two diffe rent caliber bullets but coul d not determine which bullet struck the victim. At minimum, consultation with an independent balli stics expert could have better prepared defense counsel for cro ss examination of the prosecuti on’s witness, and it may have provided exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, I would remand thi s case to the trial court to allow

defendant to obtain funds for ret aining such an expert and, if he chooses, to move for a new trial based upon the testimony or affida vit from such an expert.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EARATON ADAMS, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

vs. ) 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, L.LC., ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Rule 41(a)(1) joint stipulation (Doc. 365) 

requesting the dismissal of the 21 Plaintiffs’1

 disparate impact claims, Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of Dr. 

Bradley’s expert reports, and Austal’s withdrawal of its motion to exclude (Doc. 345). 

Pursuant to the parties’ Rule 41(a)(1) joint stipulation, which is signed by counsel for 

Plaintiffs and counsel for Austal, it is ORDERED that the May 2, 2011 Daubert hearing is 

CANCELLED and Austal’s Motion to Exclude (Doc. 345) is MOOT. 

Additionally, the parties’ joint stipulation, requesting dismissal of the 21 Plaintiffs’ disparate 

impact claims against Austal, is GRANTED. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the disparate impact claims alleged by Plaintiffs Beverly 

Thomas, Carlos Johnson, Myron Barnes, Nelson Bumpers, Carolyn Slay, Gloria Sullivan, Alvin 

Cunningham, Frederick Carter, Franklin Thomas, Frederick Williams, Jerome Pettibone, Tesha 

Hollis, Jeremel Matthews, Larry Laffiette, Jr., Nathaniel Reed, George Wells, Rahman Pratt, Robert 

Adams, Ron Law, Jermaine Roberson and Sidney Hedgeman, against Defendant Austal USA, LLC, 

are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 366 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 2
2 

Nothing herein shall be construed as dismissing any of the Plaintiffs’ remaining claims 

against Defendant Austal, USA, LLC.

DONE and ORDERED this the 29th day of April, 2011.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1 Plaintiffs Earaton Adams and Charles Stills did not allege disparate impact against Austal.

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 366 Filed 04/29/11 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 23

                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement of U S WEST Communications, Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-51125 and
33-62845) of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the
discontinuance of accounting for the operations of U S WEST Communications,
Inc. in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 71,
"Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types of Regulation", in 1993, dated
February 12, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of U
S WEST Communications, Inc., as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and for the
years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, which report is included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the incorporation by reference
of our report dated February 12, 1996 on the related consolidated financial
statement schedules, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.


/S/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 1996
H. R. 1432 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the deductibility 

of charitable contributions to certain organizations for members of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘VSO Equal Tax Treatment 

Act’’ or as the ‘‘VETT Act’’. 

SEC. 2. DEDUCTIBILITY OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CERTAIN 

ORGANIZATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986 is amended by inserting after paragraph (5) the following 

new paragraph: 

‘‘(6) An organization described in section 501(c)(19) that 

is a federally chartered corporation.’’. 

(b) PERCENTAGE LIMITATION.—Section 170(b)(1)(A) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at 

the end of clause (viii), by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ix), 

and by inserting after clause (ix) the following new clause: 

‘‘(x) an organization described in section 501(c)(19) 

that is a federally chartered corporation,’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section 

shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
| 1)   | the              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)              of              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                  |                                                                                   |                                            |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                  | **COMPANY              NAME CORPORATION**                                              |
|                             |                                                                              |                                       |
| Dated:              February 13, 2006 |                                                                                   | /s/WILLIAM              P.              SPENCER |
|                                  | William                P. Spencer Chief                Executive Officer and President |
|                                  |                                                                                   |

----
Exhibit 10(ff)

                        RENEWAL AND EXTENSION AGREEMENT

         This Renewal and Extension Agreement ("Agreement") is dated effective
as of January 2, 1998, by and between RadioSunGroup of Texas, Inc. ("Borrower")
and Kenneth R. Reynolds, ("Lender").

                               W I T NE S S E T H

         WHEREAS, the Borrower executed and delivered that certain Promissory
Note dated October 31, 1985 (the "Note") in the original principal amount of
$1,609,509.00 bearing interest at the rate stated therein: and

         WHEREAS, the Note is secured by various real and personal property; and

         WHEREAS, the Borrower and Lender have agreed to extend the final
maturity of the Note to June 30, 1998;

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Borrower and Lender hereby agree as
follows:

         1. The Note, including all principal then unpaid shall be due and
payable on June 30, 1998.

         2. The interest rate charged on the Note is hereby changed to equal the
fixed rate of interest of ten percent (10%) per annum. Accrued interest shall be
due and payable on January 31, 1998 and on the final day of each successive
calendar month thereafter. Provided, however, on June 30, 1998, all principal
and interest then unpaid shall be finally due and payable.

         3. Privilege is reserved to prepay this Note at any time. Provided,
however, if this Note is prepaid, regardless of the date of prepayment, such
prepayment shall be accompanied by such additional sums as may be required to
ensure that Holder receives a full six months interest on this Note. For
example, if this Note is prepaid on February 1, 1998 (and assuming the regular
interest payment was made as scheduled on January 31, 1998), the prepayment
shall be accompanied by an additional five months of interest as if the Note
were paid in full on its maturity date of June 30, 1998.

         4. All liens presently securing the Note are hereby ratified and
confirmed as continuing to secure the payment of the Note. Nothing herein shall
in any manner diminish, impair or extinguish the Note or the liens securing the
Note.

         5. Borrower and Lender hereby agree that the present unpaid balance
under the Note is $270,600.00 as of the date of this Agreement.

         6. The Lender represents and warrants to Borrower that he is the lawful
owner and holder of the Note and that Lender has full power and authority to
enter into this Agreement.

         EXECUTED, the date written above.

                                               RadioSunGroup of Texas, Inc.
                                               By: /s/John W. Biddinger
                                                        President
<PAGE>

                                               and
                                               By: /s/ Kenneth R. Reynolds
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                                 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of Microvision, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)  the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements and
   of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

2)   the information contained in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |  | /s/JEFF T. WILSON
    Jeff T. Wilson.
    Chief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 15, 2007

---
No. 15,582.

#### Ewing *v.*Lutz et al.

*Pleading.*— Title *to Beal Estate.*— Deed.—Complaint.—When the plaintiff asserts title to real estate, and bases his claim upon a certain deed, and the record shows that a deed regular in form, clear in its terms, and apparently founded upon a valuable considex-ation, was executed by the grantor to the grantee, and there are no facts tending to show fraud or mistake, it is error to sustain a demurrer to the complaint.

From the Wabash Circuit Court.

*F. Ullman, O. H. Bogue, J. B. Walker, R. E. Pendarvis,*for appellant.

*M. H. Kidd*and *J. M. Hunter,*for appellees.

Elliott, C. J.

The appellant asserts title to real estate, and bases his claim upon a deed executed by George W. Ewing, junior, to George W. EwiDg, senior. The deed is the same as that examined and construed in the cases of *Ewing*v. *Jones,*130 Ind. 247; *Ewing*v. *Lemcke,*130 Ind. 600; *Ewing*v. *Torian,*130 Ind. 600, and *Ewing*v. *Carson,*130 Ind. 597. The appellees demurred to the complaint, and their demurrer was sustained, so that the only question presented to us is as to the effect of the deed upon which appellant’s claim of title is founded. There are no extrinsic facts alleged, and we are not required to do more than declare what is the *prima facie*meaning of the deed, and what is its legal effect, when considered independently of extrinsic facts. All we know from this record is that a deed, regular in form, clear in its terms, and apparently founded upon a valuable consideration, was executed by the grantor to the grantee, for there are no facts tending to show fraud or mistake. In the cases referred to we simply gave judgment upon the deed, and we here do no more than decide upon the deed itself. Whether it may be impeached for fraud or mistake, or what facts must be shown to justify its overthrow, are questions with which we have here no con*362cern, and upon which we give no opinion. We have had no brief from the appellees. The cases to which we have referred, and the authorities to which they refer, leave no room to doubt that the court below erred in holding the complaint insufficient.

Filed April 23, 1892.

Judgment reversed.
11156.

#### Newberry *v.*The State.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Indictment for burglary; from Marion superior court —Judge Howard. November *7,*1919.

*W. B. Short, George P. Munro,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

1. It does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in overruling the defendant’s motion for a continuance, based upon the absence of a witness. Upon the hearing of the motion it appeared that the defendant had previously obtained one or two continuances of the case because of the absence of witnesses; and, further, in the state of the record, it does not appear that the testimony of the absent witness was material.

2. Under the ruling in *Mitchell*v. *State,*71 *Ga.*128 (4 a-b), the court did not err in admitting the testimony of a witness as to what another witness (since deceased) swore on the defendant’s commitment trial, the witness stating that he remembered the substance of the deceased witness’s testimony as given on that trial.

3. “ ‘It is not a matter of right for the accused to make a second statement to the court and jury because the State has introduced additional evidence which strengthens the case against him.’ *Boston*v. *State,*94 *Ga.*590 (21 S. E. 603); *Knox*v. *State,*112 *Ga.*373 (37 S. E. 416). Whether he should be allowed to supplement his first statement with another is discretionary with the trial court. *Dixon*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*186 (42 S. E. 357).” *Williams*v. *State,*138 *Ga.*825 (76 S. E. 347). .Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case it does not appear that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to make a second statement.

4. There is no substantial merit in that ground of the motion for a new trial which complains that the court erred in allowing a witness to testify as follows: “Yes, I know William Henry Parks, I know his general character, I would say it is above the average negro; from his character I would believe him in a>court of justice;” the ground of objection being that the “testimony was not within the statutory provisions.”

5. The charge of the court was full and fair, and substantially covered the law of the case. If more particular instructions upon any feature of the case were desired by the defendant, a timely and appropriate written request therefor should have been tendered.

6. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and*Bloodworth, *JJ., eonewr.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          229000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                229000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  316000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           228000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       3128000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (3040000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    316000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 16000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (16000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (16000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (16000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
POWER OF ATTORNEY

      We, the undersigned directors of Mountain Fuel Supply Company, 
hereby severally constitute D. N. Rose and S. E. Parks, and each of them 
acting alone, our true and lawful attorneys, with full power to them and 
each of them to sign for us, and in our names in the capacities 
indicated below, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1995 and any and all 
amendments to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by 
Mountain Fuel Supply Company, hereby ratifying and confirming our 
signatures as they may be signed by the attorneys appointed herein to 
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1995 and any and all amendments to 
such Report.

      Witness our hands on the respective dates set forth below.  

     Signature                          Title              Date



 /s/ R. D. Cash                 Chairman of the Board     2-13-96  
R. D. Cash



 /s/ D. N. Rose                   President & Chief       2-13-96  
D. N. Rose                        Executive Officer
                                      Director


 /s/ R. H. Bischoff                   Director            2-13-96  
R. H. Bischoff



 /s/ W. W. Hawkins                    Director            2-13-96  
W. W. Hawkins



 /s/ R. E. Kadlec                     Director            2-13-96  
R. E. Kadlec



 /s/ Dixie L. Leavitt                 Director            2-13-96  
Dixie L. Leavitt




 /s/ Gary G. Michael                  Director            2-13-96  
Gary G. Michael