alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     Eachof the undersigned officers of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the “Company”) hereby certifies tohis knowledge that the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31,2007 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Vaughn M. Kailian   Vaughn M. Kailian  President and Chief Executive Officer  (PrincipalExecutive Officer)     /s/ James R. Sulat   James R. Sulat  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer)  March 27, 2008 *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and will be retained by MemoryPharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4010 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4010

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make permanent the 
   authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue 
  priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric 
                               diseases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2020

Mr. Casey (for himself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make permanent the 
   authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue 
  priority review vouchers to encourage treatments for rare pediatric 
                               diseases.

    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 ``Creating Hope Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING FOR PERMANENT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE PRIORITY REVIEW 
              VOUCHERS TO ENCOURAGE TREATMENTS FOR RARE PEDIATRIC 
              DISEASES.

    Section 529(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
U.S.C. 360ff(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.417 Settlement of proceedings. ( a ) The General Counsel and the respondent may agree to settle all or some of the issues in an enforcement proceeding at any time before a final decision is issued by the DOT decisionmaker. The General Counsel shall serve a copy of any proposed settlement on each party and shall submit the proposed settlement to the administrative law judge for approval. The submission of a proposed settlement shall not automatically delay the proceeding.
( b ) Any party to the proceeding may submit written comments supporting or opposing the proposed settlement within ten (10) days from the date of service.
( c ) The administrative law judge shall approve the proposed settlement, as submitted, if it appears to be in the public interest, or otherwise shall disapprove it.
( d ) Information relating to settlement offers and negotiations will be withheld from public disclosure if the General Counsel determines that disclosure would interfere with the likelihood of settlement of an enforcement proceeding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM "HUDSON
REPIRATORY CARE INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1998
<CASH>                                             507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                       635
<INVENTORY>                                     18,024
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,076
<PP&E>                                          83,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                (51,161)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 165,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         (15,543)
<BONDS>                                      (115,000)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         (31,513)
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      (63,535)
<OTHER-SE>                                         464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 (165,321)
<SALES>                                      (100,498)
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             (100,498)
<CGS>                                           53,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,692
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 61,676
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (68,659)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    104
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,879)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 725
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 725 appear at 84 FR 1608, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 725.17 Applications for extensions of credit. ( a ) A Regular member may apply for a Facility advance to meet its liquidity needs by filing an application on a Facility-approved form, or by any other method approved by the Facility.
( b ) ( 1 ) An Agent member may apply for a Facility advance by filing an application on a Facility-approved form, or by any other method approved by the Facility.[4]
( 2 ) The Agent's application shall be based on the following: ( i ) Approved applications to the Agent by its member natural person credit unions for pending loans to meet liquidity needs; or
( ii ) Outstanding loans previously made by the Agent to meet liquidity needs of its member natural person credit unions; or
( iii ) Such other demonstrable liquidity needs as the NCUA Board may specify; or
( iv ) For the period beginning April 29, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2021, the applicant Agent's own liquidity needs. After the aforementioned period, an Agent is prohibited from submitting an application for an extension for its own liquidity needs.
( 3 ) An Agent shall not submit an application to the Facility based on the liquidity needs of any member natural person credit union which has not agreed to the repayment, security and credit reporting terms prescribed by the Facility for Agent loans;
( 4 ) Any loan to meet liquidity needs which have been or will be the basis for an application by the Agent for a Facility advance must be applied for on an application form approved by the Facility.
( 5 ) Unless approved by the Facility, an Agent shall not submit an application to the Facility based on the liquidity needs of any credit union which became a member natural person credit union of the Agent after February 2, 1980, unless such credit union has been a member natural person credit union of the Agent for six months, was chartered within six months before becoming a member natural person credit union of the Agent, or had access to the Facility either as a Regular member or through another Agent within six months before becoming a member natural person credit union of the Agent.
( c ) In emergency circumstances, the applications for extensions of credit required under paragraph (a) and paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(4) of this section may be verbal, but must be confirmed within five working days by an application as required by such subsection or paragraphs.
( d ) Applications of Regular and Agent members shall be filed with a Facility lending officer. Each application for credit which is completed and properly filed will be approved or denied within five working days after the day of receipt.
[44 FR 49437, Aug. 23, 1979, as amended at 47 FR 1371, Jan. 13, 1982; 85 FR 23735, Apr. 29, 2020; 86 FR 15572, Mar. 24, 2021] Footnotes -
725.17
[4] If the Agent is an Agent group, the application must be filed by the Agent group representative, and any Facility advance will be made to the Agent group representative.
#### § 258.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to ensure that consumers are adequately informed before they book air transportation or embark on travel involving change-of-gauge services that these services require a change of aircraft en route.
# STATEOF LOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ANDREW D. WETZEL NO. 

### 2021 KW 1244 

### DECEMBER 30, 2021 In Re: Andrew D. Wetzel, applying 

## for supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

### Tammany, Nos. 437719, 439156, 440180, 446758, 448399, 

### 450459, and 455768. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., LANIER AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. VGW WIL CHH



### COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 1 ; DEPUTY 

### L RK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
§ 415.35 Acceptable flight risk. ( a ) *Flight risk through orbital insertion or impact.* Acceptable flight risk through orbital insertion for an orbital launch vehicle, and through impact for a suborbital launch vehicle, is measured in terms of the expected average number of casualties (Ec) to the collective members of the public exposed to debris hazards from any one launch. To obtain safety approval, an applicant must demonstrate that the risk level associated with debris from an applicant's proposed launch meets the public risk criteria of § 417.107(b)(1) of this chapter for impacting inert and impacting explosive debris.
( b ) *Hazard identification and risk assessment.* To demonstrate compliance with paragraph (a) of this section, an applicant must file an analysis that identifies hazards and assesses risks to public health and safety and safety of property associated with nominal and non-nominal flight of its proposed launch.
( c ) *Design.* A launch vehicle must be designed to ensure that flight risks meet the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section. An applicant must identify and describe the following: ( 1 ) Launch vehicle structure, including physical dimensions and weight;
( 2 ) Hazardous and safety critical systems, including propulsion systems; and
( 3 ) Drawings and schematics for each system identified under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( d ) *Operation.* A launch vehicle must be operated in a manner that ensures that flight risks meet the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section and in accordance with collision avoidance requirements in § 450.169 and critical asset protection requirements in § 450.101(a)(4) and (b)(4). An applicant must identify all launch operations and procedures that must be performed to ensure acceptable flight risk.
[Doc. No. FAA-2000-7953, 71 FR 50531, Aug. 25, 2006, as amended by Amdt. No. 415-6, 81 FR 59439, Aug. 30, 2016; Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 415-7, 85 FR 79715, Dec. 10, 2020]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3307] 

# DEPARTMENT: 

United States Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Painting on Light: Drawings and Stained Glass in the Age of Durer and Holbein,” imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles, CA, from July 11, 2000 through September 24, 2000, and at the St. Louis Museum of Art in St. Louis, MO from November 4, 2000 through January 7, 2001 is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Jacqueline Caldwell, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6982). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: May 4, 2000. 

William B. Bader, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United States Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 00-11701 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MERCEDES DE JESUS SANCHEZ DE

FRANCO; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-71228

Agency Nos. A098-589-371

A098-589-372

A098-589-373

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Mercedes de Jesus Sanchez de Franco and her children, natives and citizens

of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

FILED

MAY 23 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. SantosLemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and grant

in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners did not demonstrate that it is more likely than not they will be tortured

if returned to El Salvador. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1196-97 (9th Cir.

2003).

In denying petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA

found they failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on

account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this

case they did not have the benefit of either this court’s decisions in HenriquezRivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), and Cordoba v. Holder,

726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I.

& N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA

2014). Thus, we grant the petition as to petitioners’ asylum and withholding of

removal claims, and remand to the agency to determine the impact, if any, of these

decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

2 11-71228
#### § 1271.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - NAFTA-3369

                    On March 20, 2000, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. United Steelworkers of America stated that the production of copper rod was shifted from the Pauline, Kansas plant of Superior-Essex to Mexico. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 27, 2000 (65 FR 16227).                

The Department initially denied NAFTA-TAA to workers producing copper building wire at Superior-Essex, Pauline, Kansas based on the finding that criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility requriements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as amended, were not met. The subject firm did not increase imports of like products from Canada or Mexico, nor did it shift production to Canada or Mexico.

New information obtained on reconsideration regarding the production of copper rod at the subject plant show that prior to the plant closure, sales and production of copper rod increased from 1998 to 1999. Superior—Essex did not import copper rod form Mexico or Canada, nor did it shift production from Pauline, Kansas to those countries. The copper rod produced by workers at the Superior-Essex, Pauline, Kansas, is being transferred to other domestic plants of the subject firm.

## Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA for workers and former workers of Superior—Essex, Pauline, Kansas.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 20th day of April 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00-11119 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
| (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. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      March 1, 2011                                    |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                        |   |
| /s/      Alton L. Boynton                                   |   |
| Alton      L. Boynton                                       |   |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer                  |   |
| (Principal      Executive Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----