alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Financial Officer,

As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.



I, Richard L. Markee, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:



| | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2005 (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                             
|/s/    Richard L. Markee                                     
|Richard L. Markee                                            
|Interim Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
|September 13, 2005
**Exhibit 35.2**

**SERVICERCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTCAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE TRUST 2006-C**

Capital One Auto Finance Trust 2006-C

Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.

c/o 140 East Shore Drive, Room 1052-D

Glen Allen, Virginia23059

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Auto Finance Trust 2006-C for thefiscal year ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Capital One, National Association (formerly known asHibernia National Bank) (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and representthat:

1.   A review of the activities and performanceof the Servicer under the Services Agreement dated as of February 17, 2006, byand between Capital One Auto Finance, Inc. and the Servicer (the “Agreement”)during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under mysupervision.

2.   To the best of my knowledge, based on suchreview, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreementin all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of theReport.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 15th day of February 2007.

**CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION**
| By:    |   | /s/ Steven E. Cunningham |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
| Name:  |   | Steven E. Cunningham     |   |
| Title: |   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |

** **

----
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05323]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-978]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances: ANI Pharmaceuticals, 
Inc.

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., has applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer 
to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
May 13, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before May 13, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The DEA requires that all comments be submitted 
electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides 
the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on 
the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to 
https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions at that 
site for submitting comments. Upon submission of your comment, you will 
receive a Comment Tracking Number. Please be aware that submitted 
comments are not instantaneously available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have received a Comment Tracking Number, 
your comment has been successfully submitted and there is no need to 
resubmit the same comment.''

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on January 6, 2022, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 70 Lake 
Drive, East Windsor, New Jersey 08520, applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Drug
          Controlled substance            code           Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psilocybin.............................    7437  I
Psilocyn...............................    7438  I
Levorphanol............................    9220  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substances for the internal use or for sale to its customers. No other 
activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Matthew J. Strait,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-05323 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ines CELIS-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50526

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 20, 2017

Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin J. Cheeks, Attorney, Law Offices of Benjamin J. Cheeks, A.P.C., S,an Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ines Celis-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 72-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

*474Celis-Lopez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). He argues that the court failed to conduct the requisite comparative culpability analysis and erred in finding that he was not a minor participant. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, and its factual finding that a defendant was not a minor participant for clear error. *See United States v. Hurtado,*760 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). Contrary to Celis-Lopez’s argument, the court properly compared his culpability to that of an average participant in his offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A). It specifically compared Celis-Lopez to the one co-participant to whom Celis-Lopez asked to be compared, and also considered Celis-Lopez’s role in the overall drug smuggling scheme. *See United States v. Rojas-Millan,*234 F.3d 464, 473-74 (9th Cir. 2000). Furthermore, although the court acknowledged that some of the facts supported a minor role adjustment in this case, it did not clearly err in finding, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Celis-Lopez’s role in the offense was not minor. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); *United States v. Quintero-Leyva,*823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016).

Celis-Lopez also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his mitigating circumstances. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the large amount of drugs that Celis-Lopez imported. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Kathleen Lynne RAY, Debtor. Kathleen Lynne Ray, Appellant, v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Appellee.

No. 16-60088

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017*

Filed November 21, 2017

Kathleen Lynne Ray, Pro Se

Gregory L. Wilde, Esquire, Tiffany *&*Bosco, P.A., Las Vegas; NV, for Appellee

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kathleen Lynne Ray appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her motion to extend the time to file an opposition to appellee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay and her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision without deference to the BAP. *Turtle Rock Meadows Homeowners Ass’n v. Slyman (In re Slyman),*234 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s request for a continuance to file her opposition to appel-lee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay because Ray failed to show that she would suffer any harm as a result of the denial. *See United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Mariposa Cty., Cal.,*791 F.2d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 1985) (setting forth standard of review and factors utilized for reviewing denials of requested continuances (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ray’s motion for *602reconsideration because Ray failed to comply with the local bankruptcy court rules. *See*Bankr. D. Nev. R. 9014(a)(1) (explaining that all motions “shall be set so that at least twenty-eight (28) days’ notice of the hearing of the motion is given”).

We reject as without merit Ray’s contention that the order on appeal must be reversed due to the appearance of impropriety.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ray’s motion to stay appellate proceedings (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          38,606
<SECURITIES>                                     8,831
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,839<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      2,437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,612
<PP&E>                                         442,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 525,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,579
<BONDS>                                        372,678
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   525,990
<SALES>                                          3,834<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,192
<CGS>                                            4,839
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,569
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,569
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,569
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> Notes and accounts receiveble-trade are reported net of allowances for
doubtful accounts in the Statement of Financial Position.
<F2> Net sales are reported net of promotional allowances applicable to tangible
items.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6958 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require cabinet officials to notify 

Congress in the event such an official is temporarily unable to perform 

the functions and duties of their position, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mr. BEAN of Florida (for himself, Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas, Ms. 

HAGEMAN, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mrs. LUNA, Mr. OGLES, and Mrs. 

HARSHBARGER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to require cabinet 

officials to notify Congress in the event such an official 

is temporarily unable to perform the functions and duties 

of their position, 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 ‘‘Cabinet Accountability 

5 and Transparency Act’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6958 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS IF CABINET OFFICER 

2 UNABLE TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS AND DU3 TIES OF POSITION. 

4 Section 3349 of title 5, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(c)(1) If an officer who is a member of the Presi7 dent’s cabinet and whose appointment to office is required 

8 to be made by the President, by and with the advice and 

9 consent of the Senate, is temporarily unable to perform 

10 the functions and duties of the office, such officer shall 

11 notify (in writing) Congress not later than 24 hours before 

12 such absence begins. 

13 ‘‘(2) The employing agency of such officer shall sub14 mit the notice required under paragraph (1) in the event 

15 such officer is unable to submit such notice due to a med16 ical emergency or any other unforeseen circumstance.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20671 Conference Calendar

OLALUMADE BAMIDELE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE CITY OF HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-3823

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Olalumade Bamidele, Texas prisoner # 684802, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as duplicative and thus malicious. Bamidele asserts for the first time on appeal that he did not receive a complete copy of the district court’s order of dismissal. The record does not reflect any attempt by Bamidele to obtain a copy of the order even though he received notice of the court’s dismissal andNo. 98-20671 -2- timely filed a notice of appeal. Bamidele also refers to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 2 and 4, but he has failed to explain how the district court violated these rules. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8). Bamidele has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Bailey v. Johnson , 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
May 22, 2015 

 

Mr. Donald Vivier 

1871 Marquette Avenue 

Orlando, FL 32826 

Dear Mr. Donald Vivier: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-0982), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE00635.A01

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1998 financial  statments of SmartServ Online,  Inc. and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
                 
<S>                                  <C>          
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                               36,564
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        76,240                                                                   
<ALLOWANCES>                              0   
<INVENTORY>                               0                             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    233,119
<PP&E>                            1,002,403  
<DEPRECIATION>                      466,653                                              
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,408,482                                           
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             3,495,647      
<BONDS>                              31,863      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0    
<PREFERRED>                               0      
<COMMON>                             11,898      
<OTHER-SE>                      (2,130,926)      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      1,408,482      
<SALES>                             693,729      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    693,729      
<CGS>                               440,737      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       440,737      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  1,832,555      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  810,797      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (2,387,452)     
<INCOME-TAX>                              0      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (2,387,452)     
<DISCONTINUED>                            0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0      
<CHANGES>                                 0      
<NET-INCOME>                     (2,387,452)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.36)     
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.36)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 965 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.965

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
  the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern District of 
 Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the Albert V. Bryan United States 
                               Courthouse.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    (a) New Courthouse.--
        (1) In general.--The Federal building located at Courthouse 
    Square South and Jamieson Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia, shall be 
    known and designated as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States 
    Courthouse''.
        (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
    document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
    Federal building referred to in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be 
    a reference to the ``Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse''.
    (b) Old Courthouse.--
        (1) In general.--The Federal building located at 200 South 
    Washington Street in Alexandria, Virginia, shall not be known and 
    designated as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse''.
        (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
    document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
    Federal building known and designated prior to the effective date 
    of this section as the ``Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse'' 
    shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal building referred 
    to in paragraph (1).
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall become effective on the 
date of the completion of the construction of the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a)(1).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```