alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified Statements**

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2021 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Federal Entity Reporting Requirements for the *Financial Report of the United States Government.*Each report crosswalk lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports. Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by Fiscal Service:

Page 1 of 1

# image1.png
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 Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Mark I. Gittelman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|      |                   |                                             
|----- | ----------------- | --------------------------------------------
|      |                   |                                             
|Date: | February 17, 2009 |                                             
|      |                   | Mark I. Gittelman                           
|      |                   | Chief Financial Officer and
    Treasurer of
|      |                   | Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.                 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Before the Second Division,

July 20, 1944

No. 49634.

#### Protest 892308-G (A) of Northam Trading Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that certain of the merchandise is of the same dutiable character as that involved in Abstract 48207. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 54649.

#### American Jewelers et al. *v.*United States,

protests 154806-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those-the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                   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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Medical Products,
Inc. (the "Corporation") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies:

         (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
Corporation.


/s/ Marshall B. Hunt
-------------------------------------
Marshall B. Hunt
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2003


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Horizon Medical
Products, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Medical Products, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
MISSION AND

READINESS SUPPORT

Assistant Director

NCR TRAINING 

OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE

(NCR)

Assistant Director

CHIEF INFORMATION

OFFICER

Assistant Director

October 1, 2018

DIRECTOR

CHIEF OF STAFF

DEPUTY DIRECTOR

TECHNICAL TRAINING

OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE

(TTO)

Assistant Director

CHIEF FINANCIAL

OFFICER

Assistant Director

TRAINING MANAGEMENT

OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE

(TMO)

Assistant Director

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR

FOR TRAINING OPERATIONS

CHIEF COUNSEL

CORE TRAINING

OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE

(CTO)

Assistant Director

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-8008

JOSEPH ORTIZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CA-04-359-2)

Submitted: August 15, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005

 

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Ortiz, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of

the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable, and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Ortiz has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWAYNE EICHLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1108 GEB JFM P

vs.

CDC OFFICER SHERBIN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 31, 2006 and September 1, 2006, defendants filed

motions to vacate the pretrial and trial dates based on the pending dispositive motions. Good

cause appearing, defendants’ motions to vacate the pretrial and trial dates will be granted. The

September 29, 2006 pretrial conference date and the December 19, 2006 trial date will be

vacated. These dates will be reset, if appropriate, following resolution of the dispositive motions. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ August 31, 2006 and September 1, 2006 motions to vacate the

pretrial and trial dates are granted;

2. The September 29, 2006 pretrial conference date is vacated; and

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 111 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

3. The December 19, 2006 trial date, set before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell,

is vacated. 

DATED: September 11, 2006. 

/001

eich1108.vac 

Case 2:04-cv-01108-GEB-JFM Document 111 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Benny Dean Bartee, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0965 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

Stephen Kennedy, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action. He claims defendants violated his

constitutional rights in connection with a guilty plea resulting

in a prison sentence he now is serving. He has not invalidated

his conviction by habeas corpus or other means.

March 16, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to either file a

petition for habeas corpus or show cause why this action is not

barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff did

not respond.

Case 2:04-cv-00965-DFL-PAN Document 10 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Plaintiff cannot proceed under the civil rights statute for

reasons explained in the March 16, 2005, order.

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends this action be

dismissed.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: May 31, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00965-DFL-PAN Document 10 Filed 05/31/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59535.

protests 186524-K, etc. (New York).

#### Baar & Beards, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Uziel Frydman, certify that:

 

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Registrant”);

 

2.      Based on my knowledge, this quarterly reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report;

 

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this quarterly report;

 

4.      The Registrant’s other certifying officer andI am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for theRegistrant and we have:

 

(a)       designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;

 

(b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to thefiling date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

(c)       presented in this quarterly report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresbased on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.      The Registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

(a)       all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the Registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

 

(b)       any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theRegistrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.      The Registrant’s other certifying officer andI have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.

 

Date:  December 12, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ Uziel Frydman                                |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   | Uziel Frydman                                    |
|   | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, |

 

----
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1527 

To appropriate amounts to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve 

the provision of health care to veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2017 

Mr. MCCAIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To appropriate amounts to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve the provision of health care to veterans, 

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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Access to 

5 Care for Veterans Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. APPROPRIATION OF AMOUNTS FOR VETERANS 

7 CHOICE PROGRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro9 priated, and is appropriated, to the Secretary of Veterans 

10 Affairs, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1527 IS

1 appropriated, $4,300,000,000 to be deposited in the Vet2 erans Choice Fund under section 802 of the Veterans Ac3 cess, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 

4 113–146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note). 

5 (b) AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.—The amount ap6 propriated under subsection (a) shall be available for obli7 gation or expenditure without fiscal year limitation. 

8 (c) PROHIBITION ON OTHER USE.—The Secretary of 

9 Veterans Affairs may not use or reprogram amounts ap10 propriated under subsection (a) for any purpose other 

11 than to carry out the program under section 101 of the 

12 Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 

13 (Public Law 113–146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 note). 

14 SEC. 3. EMERGENCY DESIGNATIONS. 

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act is designated as an 

16 emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 

17 Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)). 

18 (b) DESIGNATION IN SENATE.—In the Senate, this 

19 Act is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant 

20 to section 403(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), 

21 the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 

22 2010. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
21.13 Acknowledge a Batch
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KOFI OBENG

- AMPONSAH,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 14

- 56369

D.C. No. 5:14

- cv

- 00262

- GHK

- JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS , and FERNANDEZ , Circuit Judges.

Kofi Obeng

- Amponsah appeal s pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his diversity action alleging foreclosure related claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s

request for oral argument set forth in the opening brief is deni ed. 

# FILED

FEB 22 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 56369

In his opening brief, plaintiff fail s to address how the district court erred in

d ismissing his action for failure to respond to defendant’s motion to dismiss . As a

result, he ha s waived his appeal of the dismissal order. See Smith v. Marsh , 194

F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in

its opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971,

977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an ap pellant . . . .”).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to respond , we do

not consider plaintiff’s challenge to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See

Al

- Torki v. Kaempen , 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM RELTEC'S
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      27,600,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              168,600,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,400,000
<INVENTORY>                                104,300,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           336,800,000
<PP&E>                                     165,500,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              43,900,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             854,500,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      168,100,000
<BONDS>                                    112,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,000,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       600,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 533,800,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               854,500,000
<SALES>                                    518,200,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           518,200,000
<CGS>                                      360,800,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              360,800,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           115,200,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,300,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,400,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             35,800,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                18,700,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         17,100,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                17,100,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6187

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICARDO JAVIER ARELLANO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00060-MR-1)

Submitted: May 31, 2022 Decided: June 15, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricardo Javier Arellano, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6187 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/15/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Javier Arellano appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). After reviewing the record, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arellano’s motion. 

See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. 

denied, 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United 

States v. Arellano, No. 3:09-cr-00060-MR-1 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2022). We deny as moot 

Arellano’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6187 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/15/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WILLIAMS, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1167 LKK EFB P

vs.

SGT. NUCHOLS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis seeking relief for

civil rights violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 21, 2006, plaintiff filed a document

that the court construes as a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking the return of legal

documents after his transfer to another facility. Good cause appearing, defendants will be

directed to file a response.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants shall file a response to

plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction no later than twenty days from the date of this

order. 

Dated: November 15, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01167-LKK -EFB Document 35 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 1