alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 65229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25103]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated May 21, 2004, and published in the Federal Register 
on June 3, 2004, (69 FR 31411), American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc., 
101 Arc Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63146, made application by renewal 
to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed 
below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010)...........  I
Dimethyltryptamine (7435)..................  I
Dihydromorphine (9145).....................  I
Cocaine (9041).............................  II
Codeine (9050).............................  II
Hydromorphone (9150).......................  II
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
Ecgonine (9180)............................  II
Meperidine (9230)..........................  II
Metazocine (9240)..........................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
Oxymorphone (9652).........................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture in bulk, small quantities of the 
listed controlled substances as radiolabeled compounds.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic 
classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest 
at this time. DEA has investigated American Radiolabeled Chemicals, 
Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the 
public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing 
of the company's physical security systems, verification of the 
company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the 
company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, 
and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is 
granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed.

    Dated: November 1, 2004.
William J. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-25103 Filed 11-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND


CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chaolei
Marketing and Finance Company for the period ending June 30, 2008,
I,  Fan
Luo, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Chaolei
Marketing and Finance Company  hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.
            Such
      Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008,
      fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
      the period ended June 30, 2008, fairly represents in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chaolei
      Marketing and Finance Company




Date:
August 6, 2008





Chaolei Marketing and Finance
      CompanyBy:
      /s/ Fan
      LuoFan
      Luo
              Chief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In  connection  with  the accompanying Quarterly Report of Superior Oil and
Gas  Co.  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003
(the  "Report"), I, Daniel Lloyd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

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


                                   /s/  Daniel  Lloyd
Dated:  March  5,  2004            ---------------------------------------------
                                   Daniel  Lloyd
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-Q  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.







                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
§ 842.603 Election at time of retirement of a fully reduced annuity to provide a current spouse annuity. ( a ) A married employee or Member retiring under FERS will receive a fully reduced annuity to provide a current spouse annuity unless— ( 1 ) The employee or Member, with the consent of the current spouse, elects a self-only annuity, a one-half reduced annuity to provide a current spouse annuity, or a fully reduced annuity or a one-half reduced annuity to provide a former spouse annuity, in accordance with § 842.604 or § 842.606; or
( 2 ) The employee or Member elects a self-only annuity or a fully reduced annuity or a one-half reduced annuity to provide a former spouse annuity, and current spousal consent is waived in accordance with § 842.607.
( b ) Qualifying court orders that award former spouse annuities prevent payment of current spouse annuities to the extent necessary to comply with the court order and § 842.613.
( c ) The amount of the reduction to provide a current spouse annuity under this section is 10 percent of the retiree's annuity.
[52 FR 2061, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 57 FR 54678, Nov. 20, 1992]
§ 831.403 Eligibility to make voluntary contributions. ( a ) Voluntary contributions may be made only by— ( 1 ) Employees (including phased retirees) or Members currently subject to CSRS, and
( 2 ) Applicants for retirement, including phased retirees who apply for full retirement status under subpart Q of this part.
( b ) Voluntary contributions may not be accepted from an employee, Member, or applicant for retirement who— ( 1 ) Has not deposited amounts covering all creditable civilian service performed by him or her; or
( 2 ) Has previously received a refund of voluntary contributions and who has not been reemployed subject to CSRS after a separation of more than 3 calendar days.
( c ) An employee or Member covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), including an employee or Member who elected to transfer or was automatically placed in FERS, may not open a voluntary contributions account or make additional contributions to an existing voluntary contribution account.
[56 FR 43863, Sept. 5, 1991, as amended at 79 FR 46619, Aug. 8, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7232
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SANTINO LARON SYKES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-50, CA-96-448) Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Santino Laron Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Sykes , Nos. CR-94- 50; CA-96-448 (E.D. Va. July 24, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 amendment to annual report of I-trax,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the year ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Shannon W. Farrington, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 Company.



/s/ Shannon W. Farrington
--------------------------
Shannon W. Farrington
Chief Financial Officer

August 11, 2004




                                       47
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS OF INSIGHT CAPITAL, INC.



The undersigned hereby certify that the annual report on Form 10-K of Insight Capital, Inc. (the registrant) for the year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



/s/ Michael S. WillnerMichael S. WillnerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerInsight Capital, Inc.March 9, 2004/s/ John AbbotJohn AbbotSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerInsight Capital, Inc.March 9, 2004
#### Kenneth E. Franklin, as Guardian ad Litem for Dennis E. Franklin, an Infant, Appellant v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 30510.)

—'Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur. Present — McCurn, P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.
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 this quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of CFB Bancshares,
Inc.,  I, Billy M.  Rice,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of CFB  Bancshares,  Inc.,
certify, 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 this report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of CFB Bancshares, Inc.



Date:  May 14  ,2004                       /s/ Billy M. Rice
          -----                            -------------------------------------
                                           Billy M. Rice
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### In re Estate of John A. Creighton. James H. McCreary et al., appellees, v. Catherine McShane Furay et al., appellees; William T. Thompson, Attorney General, et al., Interveners, appellants.

Filed December 10, 1910.

No. 16,776.

Appeal from the district court for Douglas county: Lee S. Estelle, William A. Redice and Alexander C. Troup, Judges.

*Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.*

*Smyth, Smith & Schall,*for appellants.

*E. Walt cloy, George W. Doane, Charles B.*Keller, *W. R. De France, Arthur C. Walceley*and *W. D. McHugh, contra.*

Root, J.

The record in this case is in the same condition as is the record in *In re Estate of Creighton, ante,*p. 107. The appellees have filed objections to the jurisdiction of the court.

For the reasons stated in *In re Estate of Creighton, ante,*p. 107, the objections are

Overruled.
### §426o–1. Great Lakes dredging levels adjustment

#### (a) Definition of Great Lake

In this section, the term "Great Lake" means Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario (including the St. Lawrence River to the 45th parallel of latitude).

#### (b) Dredging levels

In operating and maintaining Federal channels and harbors of, and the connecting channels between, the Great Lakes, the Secretary shall conduct such dredging as is necessary to ensure minimal operation depths consistent with the original authorized depths of the channels and harbors when water levels in the Great Lakes are, or are forecast to be, below the International Great Lakes Datum of 1985.

(Pub. L. 106–541, title III, §343, Dec. 11, 2000, 114 Stat. 2613.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 106–541, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
#### John Kennedy, Appellant, v. August Heckscher, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P, J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certificationof the Chief Executive Officer of Insight Midwest, L.P.**

I, Michael S.Willner, certify that:

1)               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Insight Midwest, L.P. (the “Registrant”);

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

3)               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4)               The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a)               designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)              evaluated theeffectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)               disclosed in thisreport any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5)               The Registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

a)               all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b)              anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
|        | /s/ MICHAEL S.  WILLNER                                                    |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Michael S. WillnerChairman and Chief  Executive OfficerMarch 30, 2006 |

 

----
#### James Young, Appellant, *v.*William W. Campbell et al., Respondents.

The fact that the object of an action may be defeated by refusing a temporary injunction is not of itself sufficient to deprive the court of all discretionary power in the matter.

In an action by a taxpayer to restrain the collection of a tax for the payment of certain bonds, issued by some of the defendants as commissioners of a town to pay for railroad stock, a preliminary order of injunction was vacated on the grounds that plaintiff himself had taken part in the issue of the bonds, that it did not appear that the town desired to contest them, and that the bondholders had no opportunity to be heard. *Held,*that even if there was any supposable case where this court would review the discretion of the court below in refusing or vacating a temporary order of injunction, this was not one.

(Argued November 12, 1878;

decided January 21, 1879.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, affirming an order of Special Term which vacated an order granting a temporary injunction herein.

This action was brought by plaintiff as a taxpayer of the town of Cherry Yalley on behalf of himself and other taxpayers against the collector, supervisor and railroad commissioners of the town, to restrain the collector from collecting a tax for the payment of certain bonds issued by the commissioners to pay for stock in the “ Cherry Yalley aud Mohawk River Railroad Company.”

The further facts appear sufficiently in the opinion.

*J. E. Dewey,*for appellant.

*E. W. Paige,*for respondents.

Rapallo, J.

The order made at Special Term vacating the preliminary order of injunction in this action was affirmed at General Term on the ground that it was a proper exercise of the discretion of the court to dissolve the injunction. *526Without passing upon the questions of the validity of the bonds or of the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action, the court rested its decision upon the grounds that the plaintiff had himself taken part in the issue of the bonds, that it did not appear that the town desired to contest them, and that the bondholders had no opportunity to be heard on the motion. Even if any case can be supposed in which this court would review the discretionary action of the court below" in refusing or vacating a temporary order of injunction, it is quite clear that this is not such a case. The circumstance that the object of the action may be defeated by refusing a temporary order, is not of itself sufficient to deprive the court of all discretionary power in the matter.

The appeal should be dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1239

DAVE L. DIXON; JULIANA K. DIXON , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING COMPANY, C/O Lawyers Incorporating Service Company; HSBC BANK USA, National Association, C/O The Corporation Trust Incorporated; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., C/O Sharon Horstkamp , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 01710

- DKC )

Submitted : March 22, 2021 Decided: April 2, 2021

Before KEENAN and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Dave L. Dixon and Juliana K. Dixon, Appellants Pro Se. Daniel A. Glass, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellee s.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dave L. Dixon and Juliana K. Dixon seek to appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint without prejudice and denying their motion to amend with leave to refile. This court may exercise jurisdiction over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The distric t court’s dismissal of the Dixons’ complaint without prejudice “raises questions about the finality of the dismissal order, as dismissals without prejudice naturally leave open the possibility of further litigation in some form.” Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 610 (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted) , cert. denied , ___ S. Ct. ___, No.
20

- 759, 2021 WL 666419 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021)

. In Bing , we concluded that the without

- prejudice dismissal was a final, appealable order fo r three reasons: (1) the plaintiff had failed to identify any facts that could be added to his complaint to cure the pleading deficiency; (2) the district court had directed the case to be closed after dismissing the complaint; and (3) the plaintiff had el ected to stand on his complaint. Id. at 615. Weighing these factors here, we conclude that the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdicti on and remand to the district court with instructions to allow the Dixons to file an amended complaint. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 80 7 F.3d 619, 630 (4th Cir. 2015), abrogated in part by Bing , 959 F.3d at 614

- 15. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
§ 841.104 Special terms defined. ( a ) Unless otherwise defined for use in any subpart, as used in connection with FERS (parts 841 through 850 of this chapter), terms defined in 5 U.S.C. 8401 have the same meanings assigned to them by that section.
( b ) Unless otherwise defined for use in any subpart, as used in connection with FERS (parts 841 through 850 of this chapter)— *Agency* means an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code; a legislative branch agency; a judicial agency; and the U.S. Postal Service and Postal Rate Commission.
*Associate Director* means the Associate Director for Retirement and Insurance in OPM, or his or her designee.
*OPM* means the Office of Personnel Management.
[52 FR 19242, May 21, 1987, as amended at 79 FR 46631, Aug. 8, 2014]