continues to run until the end of the next business day); (see also ECF No. 553, Decl. of Publication.). As stated previously, courts typically require “strict compliance” with the rules and deadlines governing forfeiture proceedings. Amiel, 995 F.2d at 371 (collecting cases applying standard). However, in the context of a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Second Circuit has advised that “[a] pro se complaint should not be dismissed unless ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claims which would entitle [them] to relief.’ ” Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y., 287 F.3d 138, 145 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting Conley eneral creditor lacked standing to petition to modify an order of forfeiture); Coluccio, 51 F.3d at 339 (<HOLDING>); Schwimmer, 968 F.2d at 1581; see also
holding that a contest to a claim of exemption was ineffective when that contest was not by affidavit and did not properly state that the claim of exemption was invalid or excessive holding that general creditors do not have standing to contest forfeitures holding that 20 of creditors knowing of consignment relationship does not satisfy general knowledge requirement notwithstanding that such creditors represented 63 of claims against debtor holding that employers have standing to sue holding that representatives of the news media have the standing to contest a court order restricting public access to legal proceedings