alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XVIII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-Q  for
the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  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/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 7, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 7, 2008
#### W. W. Hulings *v.*William Martin.

Statute of Limitations — Jurisdiction.

The statute of limitations continues to run until an action is commenced in a court having jurisdiction.

*321Jurisdiction.

Tlie beginning of an action in a county where defendant does not live and the service of process on him in a county where he lives, other than the county in which the action is brought, gives the court no jurisdiction, andi the commencing of such an action will not prevent the statute of limitations from running.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

January 21, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Coker:

Process was served upon the appellee in Jefferson county, and the common pleas court had jurisdiction of the case. Sec. 106, Civil Code.

The law and facts were submitted to the court, and the facts stated in the answer were admitted to be true; and as it does not appear from the record wjhat evidence was heard on the trial, it must be presumed that the evidence, if any was heard, authorized judgment to be rendered for the appellee.

If it be assumed that the facts stated in the answer and admitted to be true, constituted all the evidence heard on the trial, then the judgment rendered was more favorable to the appellant than he was entitled to. It is not important upon what ground the court dismissed the petition, if the dismissal was right on any ground, the judgment must be affirmed.

One of the facts stated in the answer and admitted to be true, is that the appellee resided in Shelby county when the suit w.as commenced, and that this was known to the appellant at the time. Whether the Jefferson common pleas court would acquire jurisdiction depended wholly upon the accident whether the appellee would come into the county, so that a summons might be served on him there. Until process was served in Jefferson county, that court had no jurisdiction; and when it acquired jurisdiction, and not until then, did the action suspend the running of the statute; and as more than fifteen years had then elapsed after the action, the note was barred.

It is not a question whether the appellant prosecuted his action in good faith; this might be admitted without in any way affecting the question. Until an action was commenced in a court having jurisdiction, the statute continued to run; and as the Jefferson court of common pleas had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant except b'y service of a summons in that county, its jurisdiction never *322attached until the summons was served. If the action had been commenced in Shelby at the time the petition was filed in Jefferson, and process had not been served until the time at which it was served in this case, the question of diligence and good faith in prosecuting the action would have arisen, for as appellee’s residence was then in Shelby, the court of that county would have had jurisdiction from the filing of the petition; and a summons issued in good faith there would have suspended the statute. Secs. 106, 107, Civil Code.

*John B. Cochran, for appellant.*

*Du,pey & Middleton, for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### James Huffstetter, et al., *v.*Stanley Moore, et al.

Decedents’ Estates — Claim—Married Women.

Where a claim of a married woman has been allowed by the administrator and not questioned either by him or the heirs in a proceeding to sell real estate to pay debts to which they were parties, they will not be allowed in a petition for a settlement of the estate to question its validity.

Married Women.

While a married woman may plead coverture in her own behalf, such disability cannot avail her adversaries who were themselves under no disability.

APPEAL PROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 8, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The administrator of David Huffstetter set up in the award in *287favor of Mrs. Crouch a debt against the estate of his intestate, and thereby ratified and made it valid so far as he could do so; and he made the heirs and distributees parties, and put it in their power to impeach the award if they chose to do so; but they have failed to interpose any available objections to it, if any exist.

*Thomas Kennedy, W. Newell, for appellants.*

*Thomas F. Hargis, for appellees.*

In the petition for a settlement of the estate, the administrator recognized the award as valid, and sought td'sell real estate to pay the debts of his intestate, including this, and thereby put the claim of Mrs. Crouch in suit, which suspended the statute of limitations as effectually as if she had sued on it herself. The other heirs (the administrator being one), stood silently by without objecting to the award until the statute had barred the original cause of action, and then for the first time signified their objection. If they had attacked the award by their answers, filed within a reasonable time after it was set up by the administrator, Mrs. Crouch might have resorted to her original cause of action; but having failed to do so until her right of action is gone, it would be a fraud upon her now to attack the award, and thus prevent even an inquiry into the justice of her original claim.

That she was a *feme covert*might have enabled her to1 avoid the award if she had elected to do so; but her disability cannot avail her adversaries, who were themselves under no disability.

The award precludes all inquiry into the original cause of action.

Judgment *affirmed.*
#### Scary *v.*Brush.

*Costs.—Appeal from Justice of the*Peace.—On appeal from a justice of the peace to the circuit court or court of common pleas, where the plaintiff has failed to recover before the justice, and again fails on appeal, the defendant is entitled to judgment against the plaintiff for full costs.

APPEAL from the Boone Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

Brush sued Scary before a justice of the peace, for twenty dollars, and'was beaten. He appealed to the common pleas, where he was again beaten. But the court rendered judgment that each party pay his own costs. The question as to the correctness of this ruling is the only question in this case.

*173
      *J. E. McDonald, J. M. Butler,*and *E. M. McDonald,*for appellant.

We think it quite clear that the ruling of the court was wrong. Costs follow judgment in the common pleas or circuit court on appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, as a general rule. 2 G. H. 597, sec. 70. There are two exceptions to the rule, but this case does not fall within either of them.

The judgment as to costs is reversed, with costs, and the case remanded, with instructions to render judgment in favor of the appellant for full costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1625 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1625

To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish St. Patrick's Day as 
                           a Federal holiday.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

 Mr. Fitzpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
             the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to establish St. Patrick's Day as 
                           a Federal holiday.

    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 ``St. Patrick's Day Act''.

SEC. 2. ST. PATRICK'S DAY.

    Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to Washington's Birthday the 
following:
            ``St. Patrick's Day.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES
                SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                     WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

                           FORM 10-Q

            QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
              OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


           For the Quarter ended December 31, 1996

              Commission file number     33-24537


            CENTURY PACIFIC TAX CREDIT HOUSING FUND II
      (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


          CALIFORNIA                       95-4178283
(State of other jurisdiction of            (IRS Employer
incorporation of organization)             Identification Number)


1925 Century Park East, Suite 1760
Los Angeles, CA                            90067
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)


Registrant's telephone number, including area code:
(800) 262-8242


No Change
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year if changed
since last report)


Indicate by a check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.


Yes  [x]          No  [ ]
EXHIBIT 10.9(b)AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT          THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) by and between MylanLaboratories Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”) and Stuart A. Williams (the“Executive”), is made as of April 3, 2006.          WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to that certain Executive EmploymentAgreement dated as of July 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”);          WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend and extend the Agreement, effective as ofApril 1, 2006, as set forth below;          NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which arehereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety to read asfollows:“Effective Date; Termination of Employment. This Agreement shall commence and be effective asof the date hereof and shall remain in effect, unless earlier terminated or extended orrenewed, as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, through March 31, 2007.” 2. The following proviso is hereby added to the end of the final sentence of Section8(d) of the Agreement:“provided, however, that such consideration, compensation, and benefits shall be reduced by anybenefits that the Executive or the Executive’s estate or beneficiaries are entitled to pursuantto plans or arrangements of the Company.” 3. The following is hereby added as Section 8(h) of the Agreement:“Section 409A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the payment ofconsideration, compensation, and benefits pursuant to this Section 8 shall be interpreted andadministered in manner intended to avoid the imposition of additional taxes under Section 409Aof the Internal Revenue Code.” 4. This Amendment shall be governed by, interpreted under and construed in accordancewith the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  5. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an originaland all of which shall constitute the same document.
 

 
 6. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement is hereby confirmed in allrespects.          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed and delivered as of the date and theyear first written above.         MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.         By:  /s/ Robert J. Coury          Name: Robert J. Coury  Title: Vice Chairman and CEO         EXECUTIVE           /s/ Stuart A. Williams       Stuart A. Williams
2
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37700) pertaining to the
Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated February 18, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Gaiam, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| |  | ---------------------

Denver,
Colorado
March 10, 2003



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 99.1
                  CERTIFICATION BY WILLIAM C. OWENS 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 on Form 10-Q of Owens Mortgage
Investment Fund, a California Limited Partnership (the "Issuer") for the period
ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William C. Owens, Chief Executive Officer
of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of the Issuer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report containing financial statements of the Issuer fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Issuer.


/s/ William C. Owens

William C. Owens
Chief Executive Officer of Owens Financial Group, Inc., General Partner
November 12, 2002
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00263-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellant

v.

TAYLOR ANN RADKE,

Appellee

From the County Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 39104

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

The State moves to abate this appeal and to remand to the trial court for entry of 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The State requested findings of fact and 

conclusions of law after the trial court granted Defendant Taylor Ann Radke’s motions 

to suppress. Although approximately two months have passed since the State filed its 

request, the trial court has not entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.

When the losing party on a motion to suppress requests findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, the trial court must issue them in order for the court of appeals to 
State v. Radke Page 2

properly review the trial court’s ruling. State v. Oages, 210 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006); State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 698-99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

We grant the State’s motion to abate. This appeal is abated to enable the trial court 

to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the granting of Radke’s Motion 

to Suppress Physical Evidence and Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Statements.

The trial court shall, within twenty (20) days from the date of this order: (1) make 

appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (2) deliver the findings of fact 

and conclusions of law to the trial court clerk. 

The trial court clerk shall: (1) prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law that the trial court renders; and (2) file the 

supplemental clerk’s record with the Clerk of this Court within forty-five (45) days after 

the date of this order.

The Appellant’s brief will be due thirty (30) days after the supplemental clerk’s 

record is filed. The Appellee’s brief will be due thirty (30) days after the Appellant’s brief 

is filed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Motion granted; case abated and remanded

Order issued and filed October 2, 2019

Do not publish

RWR
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1543 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to ensure that the database relating to 

investigations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is language 

accessible, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2023 

Ms. GARCIA of Texas (for herself, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. ALLRED, Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. SOTO, Mr. VEASEY, and Mr. GREEN of 

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Labor to ensure that the database 

relating to investigations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is language accessible, 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. LANGUAGE ACCESSIBLITY OF DATABASE OF IN4 VESTIGATIONS UNDER FAIR LABOR STAND5 ARDS ACT. 

6 In maintaining the database containing information 

7 relating to investigations under the Fair Labor Standards 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1543 IH

1 Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 202 et seq.), as required pursuant 

2 to the amendments made by the OPEN Government Data 

3 Act, the Secretary of Labor shall ensure that the informa4 tion in such database is publicly accessible in at least 8 

5 of the most commonly spoken languages in the United 

6 States, as determined by the Bureau of the Census. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[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 Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
V, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Company.

Dated: August 9, 2006

                                     /s/ William Colucci
                                     ----------------------------
                                     William Colucci, President
                                     BF Acquisition Group V, Inc.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37700) pertaining to the Gaiam, Inc.1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan and the Gaiam, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock PurchasePlan, of our report dated February 19, 2004, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Gaiam, Inc. included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 
|              | /s/ Ernst  & Young LLP |   |
|-------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|              |                       |
| Denver,  Colorado |                       |
| March 12,  2004   |                       |

 

----
#### Ella Smith’s G’d’n, et al., *v.*Robert Calvin, et al.

Suit to Quiet Title — Averment of Ownership.

A petition to quiet title is good which avers title in an ancestor and that it was vested in plaintiff by his will.

Statute of Limitations.

The statute of limitations must be set up if relied upon, by plea and cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer where the only defect in plaintiff’s petition is that his cause is barred by time.

APPEAL PROM TAYLOR CIRCUIT COURT.

November 29, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott:

The appellants claim lots Nos. 12 and 13, in Campbellsville, under the will of their grandfather, and the appellees claim it under a mortgage from the said ancestor and a continued adverse possession for over fifteen years. The appellants demurred to the answer of appellees, and the court sustained the demurrer, not to the answer, but to the appellants’ petition, and whether the demurrer was properly sustained is the only question for our consideration.

As appellants aver title in their ancestor, and that it was vested 'in *809them by his will, and as they do not even state that appellees had been in possession fifteen years, it seems to this court that the petition stated a good cause of action. The statute of limitations must be set up if relied on by plea, and cannot be taken advantage of by demurrer where the only defect in plaintiff’s petition is that his cause of action is barred by time.

*D. G. Mitchell, J. N. & D. W. Lindsey, for appellants.*

*William Howell, for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is *reversed*with directions to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PART H4

I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4539 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 214. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2004 

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 214. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 214. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.34.52 Pigment Yellow 214 (CAS 

No. 254430–12–5) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.17.90) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2006 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 
PART H4

2 

•HR 4539 IH 

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ