alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Factory 2-U Stores, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 1, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Norman
Dowling, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company,
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, 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate,
effective as of June 10, 2004.


                                           /s/ Norman Dowling
                                           ------------------
                                           Norman Dowling
                                           Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Factory 2-U Stores, Inc. and will be retained by Factory 2-U Stores,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Editorial Note on Part 170
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 170 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 170.260 Steps you may take before FDA responds to your GRAS notice. ( a ) You may submit a timely amendment to your filed GRAS notice, to update your GRAS notice or in response to a question from us, before we respond to your notice by letter in accordance with § 170.265(b)(1) or cease to evaluate your notice in accordance with § 170.265(b)(3).
( b ) At any time before we respond to your GRAS notice in accordance with § 170.265(b)(1), you may request in writing that we cease to evaluate your GRAS notice. Your request does not preclude you from submitting a future GRAS notice in accordance with this subpart with respect to the notified substance.
§ 1240.83 Approval of watering points. ( a ) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall approve any watering point if ( 1 ) the water supply threat meets the standards prescribed in the Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Drinking Water Regulations as set forth in 40 CFR part 141, and
( 2 ) the methods of and facilities for delivery of such water to the conveyance and the sanitary conditions surrounding such delivery prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.
( b ) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs may base his approval or disapproval of a watering point upon investigations made by representatives of State departments of health or of the health authorities of contiguous foreign nations.
( c ) If a watering point has not been approved, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs may permit its temporary use under such conditions as, in his judgment, are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.
( d ) Upon request of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, operators of conveyances shall provide information as to watering points used by them.
[40 FR 5620, Feb. 6, 1975, as amended at 48 FR 11431, Mar. 18, 1983; 48 FR 13978, Apr. 1, 1983]
§ 358.701 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter dandruff, seborrheic dermatitis, or psoriasis drug product in a form suitable for topical application is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each of the conditions in this subpart and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this subpart to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
#### M'KINNEY’S Administrator *against*ROBINSON.

COT CEETIOEARI.

Set-off in a different right, legalized by consent.

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— The only reason assigned for the reversal of this judgment, which has any foundation in the record is, that the matter offered by way of off-set by Robinson, the defendant below, was illegal, and ought not to have been admitted. The action was brought for the price of certain articles which the defendant had purchased at the sales of the intestate’s estate. The defendant, before the bringing of the action, had married the widow of the intestate, and now would set-off', against this demand of the administrator, the widow’s distributive share of the personal estate. This, to be sure, would have been altogether unlawful. But in this case, the defendant had given full notice *246of his intention, and the justice certifies, that the plaintiff expressly agreed that it should be so done.1 As there is, therefore, no injustice in the proceeding, and what ought to have been determined in two suits is by this [*] means settled in one, I think [191] the old maxim of the law applies, *consensus tollit errorem.*Affirm.

*Chetwood,*for plaintiff.

Rossell and Pennington, Justices. — Concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

1

 Vide *1 Halst. 104.*— Ed.
#### BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[41 C. Cls. R., 19; 205 U. S. R., 105.]

*On the defendants’ Appeal.*

The contract is for the construction of disappearing gun carriages, to be delivered at the times specified. Thirty-five dollars a dajr is to be deducted from the contract price on each gun carriage for every day’s delay. In the correspondence, which makes the contract, the parties uniformly speak of this as “ *penalty,”*and never as liquidated damages. The sum to be withheld would amount in a year to 35 per cent of the cost of each gun carriage. It does not appear that the defendants’ fortifications were ready for the gun carriages prior to their delivery or that they were delayed in the construction of their work or- that they suffered any damages whatever by the delay.

The court below decides:

Where, the parties in the correspondence which makes the contract uniformly speak of a per diem amount to be withheld in case *530of delay as *“ penalty,"*and where the per diem would amount in a year to 35 per'cent of the cost of the article, the court is not at liberty to say that the per diem designated as penalty was mutually intended to be liquidated damages.

The court below, under the authority of the decision in the case of *The Phoenix Iron Company*v. *The United States*(39 C. Cls. R., 526), entered judgment in favor of the claimant for $21,000.

The decision of the court below is reversed on the grounds that a stipulated deduction of an amount per claj'- equivalent to the difference between the short and the long time for delivery is to be construed as liquidated damages for whatever delay occurs in the delivery and not as a penalty, although the word penalty may have been used in some portions of the contract, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

March 11, 1907.

Mr. Justice Peckham

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Fred Meyer, Inc. on Form S-4 of our report dated March 21, 1997, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A dated July 23, 1997 of Quality Food Centers,
Inc. for the year ended December 28, 1996, and to the reference to us under the
headings of "QFC Selected Historical Financial and Other Data" and "Experts" in
the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Seattle, Washington
January 21, 1998


<PAGE>   2
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Fred Meyer, Inc. on Form S-4 of our report dated February 10, 1997 (February
14, 1997, as to Notes 1, 3, 9 and 10) relating to the financial statements of
Keith Uddenberg, Inc., appearing in the Current Report on Form 8-K/A dated
November 12, 1996 and filed February 20, 1997, of Quality Food Centers, Inc. to
us under the heading of "Experts" in the Prospectus, which is part of this
Registration Statement.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Seattle, Washington
January 23, 1998
Editorial Note on Part 201
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 201.119 In vitro diagnostic products. ( a ) “In vitro diagnostic products” are those reagents, instruments and systems intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or in the determination of the state of health in order to cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease or its sequelae. Such products are intended for use in the collection, preparation and examination of specimens taken from the human body. These products are drugs or devices as defined in section 201(g) and 201(h), respectively, of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) or are a combination of drugs and devices, and may also be a biological product subject to section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.
( b ) A product intended for use in the diagnosis of disease and which is an in vitro diagnostic product as defined in paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed to be in compliance with the requirements of this section and section 502(f)(1) of the act if it meets the requirements of § 809.10 of this chapter.
[41 FR 6910, Feb. 13, 1976]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-01-1996             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-02-1995             DEC-02-1995
<CASH>                                         688,855                 352,827
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,939,664               2,301,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,785,796               2,032,409
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,424,477               5,536,280
<PP&E>                                       4,811,853               4,812,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,508,861              11,560,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,199,392               3,388,152
<BONDS>                                      1,204,941               1,052,658
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        14,507                  14,498
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,056,571               2,052,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,508,861              11,560,850
<SALES>                                      6,641,955               7,984,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,641,955               7,984,259
<CGS>                                        5,681,005               6,466,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,982,715               7,927,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,292                  24,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (371,052)                 32,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (148,000)                 13,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (223,052)                 19,271
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (223,052)                 19,271
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.15)                   0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.15)                   0.01
        


</TABLE>
#### § 26.21 Safeguard clause.

Each party recognizes that the importing country has a right to fulfill its legal responsibilities by taking actions necessary to ensure the protection of human and animal health at the level of protection it deems appropriate. This includes the suspension of the distribution, product detention at the border of the importing country, withdrawal of the batches and any request for additional information or inspection as provided in § 26.12.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60246

Summary Calendar

 

HAROLD E. GREEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-93LS

- - - - - - - - - -

February 4, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Harold E. Green appeals from a judgment affirming the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim

for disability insurance benefits. He contends that the

Commissioner failed to apply the correct legal standards and that

his decision concerning the onset of his disability was not

supported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed the record

and the briefs of the parties, and we AFFIRM for essentially the
No. 97-60246

-2-

reasons set forth by the magistrate judge and adopted by the

district court. See Green v. Chater, No. 95-CV-93 (S.D. Miss.

Mar. 19, 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
Comments on Proposed Environmental Protection Agency Carbon Regulations 

Mr. Evan R. Endres 

9 Judicial Street, Apt 2 

Pittsburgh PA, 15211 

My name is Evan R. Endres, I am a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a United States Citizen, 

registered voter, and tax payer. 

I'm here today to voice my support for the EPA's proposed carbon rules as it is critical to the future 

health of the American economy. These rules should be implemented promptly and without delay. 

My interest in climate changes stems from great concern of the economic consequences of failing to act. 

Extreme weather events and pressure from changes to climate on our agricultural industries have a real 

cost that is born by all tax payers. My tax dollars go to support FEMA, national flood insurance 

programs, and federal crop insurance, all of which are being utilized more frequently and with greater 

costs than ever before. In addition, consumer costs associated with market disruption from climate 

related incidents are impacting consumers, including myself, at the grocery store. 

Colder winters and hotter summers put immediate burden of managing the effects of climate change on 

some of our most vulnerable, elderly, and low income residents. The cost of caring for these individuals 

when they do not have the resources to endure these extremes is born by all of us through funding to 

public health, community, and first responder programs, further increasing taxation and straining local 

budgets. 

The economic benefit associated with addressing carbon pollution, goes far beyond mitigating the cost 

of impacts. The EPA outlines a plan by which states can use renewable energy, and energy efficiency 

measures to comply. These strategies will pay dividends to the American economy in the form of 

renewable energy and energy efficiency industry jobs. 

Department of Energy modeling has shown that Pennsylvania alone could achieve 90,000 jobs from 

having just 20% of our electricity come renewable energy sources like solar and wind by 2030. 

The cost of doing nothing far outweighs the costs and benefits to the American economy associated 

with implementing and enforcing this rule. 

I speak in 100% support of the Environmental Protection Agency, the proposed standards you've 

outlined and your authority under the Clean Air Act to enforce them. 

Thank you, 

Evan R. Endres
§ 522.1450 Moxidectin solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter (mL) of solution contains 10 milligrams (mg) moxidectin.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 055529 and 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.426 of this chapter.
( d ) *Special considerations.* See § 500.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Conditions of use in cattle—* ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer by subcutaneous injection 1 mL for each 110 pounds (lb) (50 kilograms (kg)) body weight to provide 0.2 mg moxidectin/2.2 lb (0.2 mg/kg) body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* Beef and nonlactating dairy cattle: For treatment and control of Gastrointestinal roundworms: *Ostertagia ostertagi* (adults, fourth-stage larvae, and inhibited larvae), *Haemonchus placei* (adults), *Trichostrongylus axei* (adults and fourth-stage larvae), *Trichostrongylus colubriformis* (adults and fourth-stage larvae), *Cooperia oncophora* (adults), *Cooperia pectinata* (adults), *Cooperia punctata* (adults and fourth-stage larvae), *Cooperia spatulata* (adults), *Cooperia surnabada* (adults and fourth-stage larvae), *Nematodirus helvetianus* (adults), *Oesophagostomum radiatum* (adults and fourth-stage larvae), *Trichuris* spp. (adults); Lungworms: *Dictyocaulus viviparus* (adults and fourth-stage larvae); Cattle grubs: *Hypoderma bovis* and *Hypoderma lineatum;* Mites: *Psoroptes ovis* (*Psoroptes communis* var. *bovis*); Lice: *Linognathus vituli* and *Solenopotes capillatus.* For protection from reinfection with *Dictyocaulus viviparus* and *Oesophagostomum radiatum* for 42 days after treatment, with *Haemonchus placei* for 35 days after treatment, and with *Ostertagia ostertagi* and *Trichostrongylus axei* for 14 days after treatment.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Cattle must not be slaughtered for human consumption within 21 days of treatment. This drug product is not approved for use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older, including dry dairy cows. Use in these cattle may cause drug residues in milk and/or in calves born to these cows. A withdrawal period has not been established for preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
[70 FR 36337, June 23, 2005, as amended at 71 FR 7414, Feb. 13, 2006; 76 FR 48714, Aug. 9, 2011; 82 FR 21690, May 10, 2017; 86 FR 14820, Mar. 19, 2021; 88 FR 27699, May 3, 2023]
CERTIFICATION
      (e)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;(f)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(g)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(h)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (c)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(d)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Uzi SassonUzi Sasson, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officerand Vice President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6332

WILLIAM IRVIN MARABLE, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEWIS W. BARLOW; JAMES W. GARNETT; D. TYSON, Medical; MRS. WINN, Medical, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-209-A) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 6, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Irvin Marable, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Irvin Marable, Sr., filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on July 11, 1997; Marable’s notice of appeal was filed on February 10, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Marable’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Marable’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. 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