alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2

            CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                          OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, the undersigned Jack (J.D.) Draper, President and Chief Executive
Officer of FIRSTPLUS Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:

     1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (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.


Dated:  September 22, 2005               /s/ Jack (J.D.) Draper
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Jack (J.D.) Draper
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer
                                         Principal Accounting Officer
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-874]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Purisys, LLC 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 file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before October 4, 2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before October 4, 2021.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on June 30, 2021, 1550 Olympic Drive, Athens, Georgia 30601-1602, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled
                             substance
Drug code
ScheduleOpium, powdered
9639
IIOpium, granulated
9640
II
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances as Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. William T. McDermott, Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-16500 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### Robert F. Flacke, as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, Appellant, and Town of Onondaga, Intervenor, v Onondaga Landfill Systems, Inc., Respondent.

—Order unanimously affirmed, without costs, for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Balio, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Balio, J.—injunction.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Den-man, Pine and Schnepp, JJ. [127 Misc 2d 984.]
EXHIBIT 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Debt to Equity



|                     |  |                         |         |      |   |         |  |      |         |      |   |         |  |   |        
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- | ------- | ---- | - | ------- |  | ---- | ------- | ---- | - | ------- |  | - | -------
|                     |  | Year ended December 31,
|Dollars in thousands |  | 2008                    |         | 2007 |   | 2006    |  | 2005 |         | 2004
|Debt                 |  | $                       | 462,650 |      | $ | 542,549 |  | $    | 455,137 |      | $ | 400,915 |  | $ | 339,395
|Equity               |  |                         | 174,946 |      |   | 172,423 |  |      | 169,628 |      |   | 166,354 |  |   | 170,461
|Debt to equity       |  |                         | 2.64    |      |   | 3.15    |  |      | 2.68    |      |   | 2.41    |  |   | 1.99
#### In the Matter of Frederick M. Freese et al., Appellants, v David Levitan, as Chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor, et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Board of Zoning Appeals, dated June 6, 1984, which, subject to specified conditions of the Incorporated Village of Roslyn Harbor, granted the application of the respondent David Minkin for certain variances, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 12, 1984, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

David Minkin sought area variances with respect to a proposed subdivision that had been conditionally approved by the Village Planning Board. To obtain area variances he presented considerable evidence that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties *(see, Matter of Village of Bronxville v Francis,*1 AD2d 236, 238, *affd*1 NY2d 839; *Matter of Hoffman v Harris,*17 NY2d 138, 144; *Dauernheim, Inc. v Town Bd.,*33 NY2d 468, 471; *Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591, 598; *Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Hoffman,*43 NY2d 598, 606). The respondent Board of Zoning Appeals found that "the exceptional topography of the property in question and the irregular configuration of the property ha[ve] created many of the hardships and practical difficulties experienced by the Applicant thereby necessitating the variances sought herein”. In dismissing the CPLR article 78 petition of the appellants (adjacent property owners), Special Term concluded that the Board’s decision "has a reasonable basis and is supported by substantial evidence”. We agree.

The Board granted the variances after a careful review of *806the evidence. Its determination was not arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of discretion and the evidence shows that the decision has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence in the record *(see, Matter of Cowan v Kern, supra).*Although the petitioners contend that Minkin’s difficulties were self-created, in that their source was his desire to maximize the number of buildable plots, we find that the record does not sustain that claim. In any event, that factor, in this area variance case, "is one factor that may be considered, but, by itself, is not determinative” *(Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*40 NY2d 309, 315) and "does not foreclose board approval of an area variance” *(Matter of National Merritt v Weist,*41 NY2d 438, 442). Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Thompson and Eiber, JJ., concur.
#### Frances Ferrara et al., Appellants, v Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 14, 1984, which, upon setting aside a jury verdict in their favor on the issue of liability and granting defendant’s motion for judgment in its favor, dismissed the complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Frances Ferrara, a Board of Education employee, seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of an assault by an intruder in her office at Public School 63 in Ozone Park, Queens. Defendant cannot be held liable for the injuries sustained by plaintiff Frances Ferrara in this matter absent a showing that it owed a special duty to her *(see, e.g., Vitale v City of New York,*60 NY2d 861, *rearg denied*61 NY2d 759; *Glick v City of New York,*53 AD2d 528, *affd*42 NY2d 831). There is ample support in the record for Trial Term’s determination that there was no demonstration that the stationing of a security guard at the school’s entrance was intended specifically for her benefit or that it established the existence of a special duty on the part of defendant for her protection *(see, Miller v State of New York,*62 NY2d 506, 510; *Vitale v City of New York, supra; Corcoran v Community School Dist. 17,*114 AD2d 835; *Anilyan v Board of Educ.,*115 AD2d 515). Furthermore, plaintiffs’ failure to present any evidence of prior criminal acts in the building and the absence of reasonable steps taken by defendant to minimize the foreseeable danger was fatal to their claim *(see, Nallan v Helmsley-Spear, Inc.,*50 NY2d 507, 518-519).

We have reviewed plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/29/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:182
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil and Water Management Research: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Soil and Water Management Research People & Locations





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Contact Information
- Biochar
- ARS News Articles
- Research Projects
- Presentations

Kurt A Spokas
                     

                     Soil Scientist
                     


                     ARS News Articles
                        item
                                             Findings on Biochar, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ethyleneitem
                                             Computer Program Eases Climate Change Research


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1043 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1043

  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at the 
corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, as 
           the ``Lloyd D. George United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 1997

  Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. Bryan) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at the 
corner of Las Vegas Boulevard and Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, as 
           the ``Lloyd D. George 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 LLOYD D. GEORGE UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE.

    The United States courthouse under construction at the corner of 
Las Vegas Boulevard and Clark Avenue in Las Vegas, Nevada, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Lloyd D. George United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lloyd D. George 
United States Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### John A. Del Vecchio et al., Plaintiffs, v Danielle Associates, LLC, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant. Saturn of Newburgh, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And a Second Third-Party Action.)

[942 NYS2d 217]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J), entered August 26, 2011, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the third-party defendant to produce records of repairs made to the subject parking lot following the date of the subject accident.

*942Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion of the defendant/third-party plaintiff which was to compel the third-party defendant to produce records of repairs made to the subject parking lot following the date of the subject accident is granted.

In October 2008 the injured plaintiff and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the injured plaintiff when he fell in a parking lot owned by the defendant/third-party plaintiff, Danielle Associates, LLC (hereinafter Danielle), and leased by the third-party defendant, Saturn of Newburgh, Inc. (hereinafter Saturn). Insofar as relevant here, the Supreme Court denied that branch of Danielle’s motion which was to compel Saturn to produce records of repairs made to the subject parking lot following the date of the subject accident.

CPLR 3101 (a) requires full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action *(see Giordano v New Rochelle Mun. Hous. Auth.,*84 AD3d 729, 730-731 [2011]; *Kooper v Kooper,*74 AD3d 6, 10 [2010]). “Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control” *(Cleland v 60-02 Woodside Corp.,*221 AD2d 307, 308 [1995]; *see Hughes v Cold Spring Constr. Co.,*26 AD3d 858, 859 [2006]; *Niemann v Luca,*214 AD2d 658 [1995]; *Cacciolo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*186 AD2d 528, 530 [1992]; *Klatz v Armor El. Co.,*93 AD2d 633, 637 [1983]).

Here, the material sought by Danielle may be relevant in determining which entity maintained and controlled the area where the accident allegedly occurred. Thus, such material is properly subject to disclosure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Danielle’s motion which was to compel Saturn to produce records of repairs made to the subject parking lot following the date of the subject accident *(see Hughes v Cold Spring Constr. Co.,*26 AD3d at 859; *DeRoche v Methodist Hosp. of Brooklyn,*249 AD2d 438, 439 [1998]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eugene Fludd, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from 12 judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ferraro, J.), each rendered November 12,1982, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, burglary in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree (nine counts), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues that could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### CARPENTER v. MILES.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.

December 26, 1895.)

Review on Appeal—Discretion op Trial Court.

A motion for new trial on the ground of excessive damages is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its decision thereon will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from Jefferson county court.

Action by Sabina Carpenter against Andrew B. Miles for assault and battery. From a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial on the minutes, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and MARTIN and MERWIN, JJ.

John Conboy, for appellant.

I. R. Breen, for respondent.

HARDIN, P. J.

We have looked carefully through the evidence given at the trial, and are of the opinion that it sustains the verdict. It was for the jury to resolve the sharp and stubborn conflict furnished by the different witnesses. The charge of the learned county judge fairly presented the questions of fact to the jury, and he instructed the jury that, if they found malice on the part of the defendant, they might give punitive damages. We are not willing to disturb the verdict by reason of the amount thereof, to wit, $500. Besides, the motion for a new trial, as to the extent of the damages, was addressed to the discretion of the county court. We ought not to disturb the conclusion reached by that court in the exercise of its discretion. Code, § 1340, as amended in 1895 (1 *384Laws 1895, p. 840); Thomas v. Keeler, 52 Hun, 318, 5 N. Y. Supp. 359; Tucker v. Pfau, 70 Hun, 59, 23 N. Y. Supp. 953; Kincaid v. Richardson, 25 Hun, 237, 239; Wright v. Chase, 77 Hun, 90, 28 N. Y. Supp. 310; Reilley v. President, etc., Delaware & H. Canal Co., 102 N. Y. 383, 7 N. E. 427; Clark v. Eldred, 54 Hun, 5, 7 N. Y. Supp. 95. No exceptions were taken during the trial which justify us iy interfering with the verdict of the jury.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

MARTIN, J., concurs. MERWIN, J., concurs in the result.
#### IBERIA CREDIT BUREAU INCORPORATED, doing business as Information Services; Wardell X. Gerhardt; Alfred J. Theriot; Constance White Louviere; Elliot Joliet; et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TELECORP COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, also known as SunCom, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-30221.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 26, 2011.

David Patrick Daniel, Jr., Law Offices of D. Patrick Daniel, Jr., L.L.C., Joseph R. Joy, III, Joseph Joy & Associates, Lafayette, LA, James Robert Davis, Jr., Law *177Office of J. Robert Davis, Houston, TX, Elizabeth Cary Dougherty, Baton Rouge, LA, Theodore M. Haik, Jr., Esq., Senior Counsel, Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs, New Iberia, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Esq., Kelly Elizabeth Ransom, Esq., Leblanc Bland, P.L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Joseph E. Leblanc, Jr., Leblanc Bland, P.L.L.C. Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because it concerns an interlocutory order compelling arbitration for some of the plaintiffs. Such an order to compel arbitration is not a final order or judgment, and the district court did not certify this interlocutory appeal in writing. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          16,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,805,155
<PP&E>                                          31,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,837,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,483,120
<BONDS>                                        270,977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     624,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,837,083
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,727
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,454
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,978
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,295
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,295
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>