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

     I, Terrence C. McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer of ASA International Ltd.,
 certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ASA International
Ltd.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, if any, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

     6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of out most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

May 15, 2003                                           /s/Terrence C. McCarthy
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Terrence C. McCarthy
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAROLD C. HALL,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 

 Defendant,

 and

MARK ARNESON, and KENNETH

CROCKER,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56441

D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01977-ABCAJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: EBEL,** KLEINFELD, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

NOV 03 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The Honorable David M. Ebel, Senior United States Circuit Judge for

the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Harold C. Hall appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of

Defendants Mark Arneson and Kenneth Crocker. Reviewing de novo, Ford v. City

of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam), we affirm.

Hall’s claim that his confession was coerced is barred by the doctrine of

issue preclusion. The state trial court reached its decision in Hall’s criminal

case—finding that his confession was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary—after a

full and fair process that involved a hearing, arguments, and a reasoned explanation

of the answer. After Hall was convicted, he appealed to the California Supreme

Court, which affirmed his judgment of conviction and thereby rejected the

argument that his confession was coerced. This court later ordered that a writ of

habeas corpus be granted, Hall v. Dir. of Corr. (Hall I), 343 F.3d 976, 985 (9th Cir.

2003) (per curiam), but on a completely different issue; no subsequent proceedings

have concluded either that the trial court’s voluntary-confession decision was

erroneous or that the court making the decision lacked jurisdiction or acted in some

other fundamentally invalid way, see Hall v. City of Los Angeles (Hall III), 697

F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2012); Hall v. City of Los Angeles (Hall II), No. 07-56853,

2009 WL 2020851 (9th Cir. July 13, 2009) (unpublished decision). Under

California law, therefore, the trial court’s decision on voluntariness was "final"

because it was no longer subject to direct appeal. See People v. Sims, 651 P.2d

2
321, 332 (Cal. 1982) (defining finality under state law), superseded by statute on

other grounds as stated in Gikas v. Zolin, 863 P.2d 745, 751–52 (Cal. 1993);

People v. Cooper, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 389, 405–06 (Ct. App. 2007) (same). There is

no unfairness in applying issue preclusion in these circumstances. See Lucido v.

Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223, 1226–27 (Cal. 1990) (looking to considerations of

public policy before applying issue preclusion). 

AFFIRMED.

3
§ 222.24 Reasonable opportunity to opt out. ( a ) *In general.* You must not use eligibility information about a consumer that you receive from an affiliate to make a solicitation to the consumer about your products or services, unless the consumer is provided a reasonable opportunity to opt out, as required by § 222.21(a)(1)(ii) of this part.
( b ) *Examples of a reasonable opportunity to opt out.* The consumer is given a reasonable opportunity to opt out if: ( 1 ) *By mail.* The opt-out notice is mailed to the consumer. The consumer is given 30 days from the date the notice is mailed to elect to opt out by any reasonable means.
( 2 ) *By electronic means.* ( i ) The opt-out notice is provided electronically to the consumer, such as by posting the notice at an Internet Web site at which the consumer has obtained a product or service. The consumer acknowledges receipt of the electronic notice. The consumer is given 30 days after the date the consumer acknowledges receipt to elect to opt out by any reasonable means.
( ii ) The opt-out notice is provided to the consumer by e-mail where the consumer has agreed to receive disclosures by e-mail from the person sending the notice. The consumer is given 30 days after the e-mail is sent to elect to opt out by any reasonable means.
( 3 ) *At the time of an electronic transaction.* The opt-out notice is provided to the consumer at the time of an electronic transaction, such as a transaction conducted on an Internet Web site. The consumer is required to decide, as a necessary part of proceeding with the transaction, whether to opt out before completing the transaction. There is a simple process that the consumer may use to opt out at that time using the same mechanism through which the transaction is conducted.
( 4 ) *At the time of an in-person transaction.* The opt-out notice is provided to the consumer in writing at the time of an in-person transaction. The consumer is required to decide, as a necessary part of proceeding with the transaction, whether to opt out before completing the transaction, and is not permitted to complete the transaction without making a choice. There is a simple process that the consumer may use during the course of the in-person transaction to opt out, such as completing a form that requires consumers to write a “yes” or “no” to indicate their opt-out preference or that requires the consumer to check one of two blank check boxes—one that allows consumers to indicate that they want to opt out and one that allows consumers to indicate that they do not want to opt out.
( 5 ) *By including in a privacy notice.* The opt-out notice is included in a Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act privacy notice. The consumer is allowed to exercise the opt-out within a reasonable period of time and in the same manner as the opt-out under that privacy notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         175,551
<SECURITIES>                                 1,000,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  429,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,051,492
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,905,447
<PP&E>                                      14,176,046
<DEPRECIATION>                               (421,820)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,862,232
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,903,421
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,916
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,445,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,862,232
<SALES>                                      2,362,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,402,131
<CGS>                                        1,800,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,800,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,072,843
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             308,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (779,957)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (779,957)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 91,253
<CHANGES>                                      164,690
<NET-INCOME>                                 (524,014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2007232EN.01000901.xml

| 4.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/9

---

Composition of the EFTA Court

Appointment of the Registrar of the EFTA Court

(2007/C 232/04)

Mr Skúli Magnússon was appointed Registrar of the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 9, Protocol 5 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 15 April 2007 to 14 April 2010, to succeed Mr Henning Harborg.

---
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.27 Computing time. ( a ) *General rule.* In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this subpart, the date of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run is not included. The last day so computed is included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or Federal holiday. Intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays shall not be included in the computation.
( b ) *For service and filing responsive papers.* Whenever a time limit is measured by a prescribed period from the service of any notice or paper, the applicable time periods are calculated as follows: ( 1 ) If service is made by first class, registered or certified mail, add three days to the prescribed period; and
( 2 ) If service is made by express mail or overnight delivery service, add one day to the prescribed period.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000795662
<NAME> STERLING CHEMICALS HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,217)
<INVENTORY>                                     71,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               189,551
<PP&E>                                         761,958
<DEPRECIATION>                               (324,472)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 728,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,857
<BONDS>                                        893,219
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,553
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                   (384,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   728,457
<SALES>                                        324,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               324,401
<CGS>                                          303,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  303,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (18,535)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 217.305 Exposures related to the Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility.

Notwithstanding any other section of this part, a Board-regulated institution may exclude exposures pledged as collateral for a non-recourse loan that is provided as part of the Paycheck Protection Program Lending Facility, announced by the Board on April 7, 2020, from total leverage exposure, average total consolidated assets, advanced approaches total risk-weighted assets, and standardized total risk-weighted assets, as applicable. For the purpose of this section, a Board-regulated institution's liability under the facility must be reduced by the principal amount of the loans pledged as collateral for funds advanced under the facility.

[Reg. Q, 85 FR 20393, Apr. 13, 2020]
§ 78.35 Scoring criteria for grantees applying for renewal of suicide prevention service grants. VA will score grantees who are applying for a renewal of suicide prevention services grant. VA will set forth specific point values to be awarded for each criterion in the NOFO. VA will use the following criteria to score grantees applying for renewal of a suicide prevention services grant: ( a ) VA will award points based on the success of the grantee's program, as demonstrated by the following: ( 1 ) The grantee made progress in reducing veteran suicide deaths and attempts, reducing all-cause mortality, reducing suicidal ideation, increasing financial stability; improving mental health status, well-being, and social supports; and engaging in best practices for suicide prevention services.
( 2 ) Participants were satisfied with the suicide prevention services provided or coordinated by the grantee, as reflected by the satisfaction survey conducted under § 78.95(d).
( 3 ) The grantee implemented the program by delivering or coordinating suicide prevention services to participants in a timely manner consistent with SSG Fox SPGP policy, the NOFO, and the grant agreement.
( 4 ) The grantee was effective in conducting outreach to eligible individuals and their families and increasing engagement of eligible individuals and their families in suicide prevention services, as assessed through SSG Fox SPGP grant evaluation.
( b ) VA will award points based on the cost-effectiveness of the grantee's program, as demonstrated by the following: ( 1 ) The cost per participant was reasonable.
( 2 ) The grantee's program was effectively implemented on-budget.
( c ) VA will award points based on the extent to which the grantee's program complies with SSG Fox SPGP goals and requirements, as demonstrated by the following: ( 1 ) The grantee's program was administered in accordance with VA's goals for SSG Fox SPGP as noted in the NOFO.
( 2 ) The grantee's program was administered in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines.
( 3 ) The grantee's program was administered in accordance with the grantee's suicide prevention services grant agreement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CASINO
RESOURCE CORPORATION'S ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,546,422
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  310,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,043)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,630,270
<PP&E>                                      17,669,939
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,587,033)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,784,544
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,257,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,618
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,126,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,784,544
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,905,949
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,883,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,278,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,611
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,611
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,611
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 2385** 

PHILLIP M. PRIDGEN ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Bureau of Highways; EDWARD C. ADAMS, JR., Department of Public Works/Bureau of Highways; ROBERT BURGESS, Department of Public Works/Bureau of Highways; TOM SHUMAKER, Department of Public Works/Bureau of Highways; RICK RICHARDS, Department of Public Works/Bureau of Highways; GEORGE GAY, Department of Public Works/Bureau of Highways; THERESA S. HILL, Baltimore County Human Resources; RANDY SHIFFLETT; JAMES T. SMITH, County Executive, Department of Public Works/Bureau of Highways ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimor e
. William D. Quarles, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv
- 02826

- WDO )

Submitted : October 21, 2010 Decided: November 15, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Phillip M. Pridgen, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Grant Cook, BALTIMORE COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Phillip M. Pridgen appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his employment di scrimination action. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pridgen
v. Dep’t of Pub. Works , No. 1:08

- cv
- 02826

- WDO (D. Md. Dec. 1,

2009) . We deny Pridgen’s motion fo r appointment of counsel as

moot and 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.

AFFIRMED