alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statement of operations found on
pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Company's form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30,
1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                           11813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1549595
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       2100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1621717
<PP&E>                                          972779
<DEPRECIATION>                                  815808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1870164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3737890
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3155
<OTHER-SE>                                     1140529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1870164
<SALES>                                        2275852
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2275852
<CGS>                                          1303235
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2313095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 86406
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              109504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (228153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (228153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (228153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Environmental Health Sciences Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         November 9-10, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Sheraton Chapel Hill Hotel, One Europa Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27514.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Linda K. Bass, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat'l Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, (919) 541-1307.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, Biometry and Risk Estimation—Health Risks from Environmental Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances—Basic Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 6, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-24711 Filed 10-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3042

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of l986 to permit the issuance of 

tax-exempt bonds for certain air and water pollution control facilities 

and to provide that the volume cap for private activity bonds shall 

not apply to bonds for such air and water pollution control facilities, 

facilities for the furnishing of water, and sewage facilities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mr. 

HINOJOSA, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CARTER, and Ms. GRANGER) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of l986 to permit 

the issuance of tax-exempt bonds for certain air and 

water pollution control facilities and to provide that the 

volume cap for private activity bonds shall not apply 

to bonds for such air and water pollution control facilities, facilities for the furnishing of water, and sewage 

facilities.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3042 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Clean Air and Water 

3 Investment and Infrastructure Security Act of 2003’’.

4 SEC. 2. TAX-EXEMPT BONDS FOR AIR AND WATER POLLU5 TION CONTROL FACILITIES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 142 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining exempt facil8 ity bond) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of para9 graph (12), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 

10 (13) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at the end the 

11 following new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(14) air or water pollution control facilities 

13 (within the meaning of section 103 as in effect be14 fore the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 

15 1986).’’

16 (b) BONDS FOR AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CON17 TROL FACILITIES AND FOR WATER AND SEWAGE FACILI18 TIES EXEMPT FROM VOLUME CAP ON PRIVATE ACTIVITY

19 BONDS.—Paragraph (3) of section 146(g) of such Code 

20 is amended to read as follows: 

21 ‘‘(3) any exempt facility bond issued as part of 

22 an issue described in paragraph (1), (2), (4), (5), 

23 (12), (13), or (14) of section 142(a) (relating to air24 ports, docks and wharves, facilities for the fur25 nishing of water, sewage facilities, environmental en26 hancements of hydroelectric generating facilities, 
3

•HR 3042 IH 

1 qualified public educational facilities, and air and 

2 water pollution control facilities), and’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to obligations issued after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 160.33 Late charges.

A Federal savings association may include in a home loan contract a provision authorizing the imposition of a late charge with respect to the payment of any delinquent periodic payment. With respect to any loan made after July 31, 1976, on the security of a home occupied or to be occupied by the borrower, no late charge, regardless of form, shall be assessed or collected by a Federal savings association, unless any billing, coupon, or notice the Federal savings association may provide regarding installment payments due on the loan discloses the date after which the charge may be assessed. A Federal savings association may not impose a late charge more than one time for late payment of the same installment, and any installment payment made by the borrower shall be applied to the longest outstanding installment due. A Federal savings association shall not assess a late charge as to any payment received by it within fifteen days after the due date of such payment. No form of such late charge permitted by this paragraph shall be considered as interest to the Federal savings association and the Federal savings association shall not deduct late charges from the regular periodic installment payments on the loan, but must collect them as such from the borrower.
DATE:

TO: Desk Officer

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget THROUGH: Kate Mullan

In formation Collections Clearance Division Privacy I nformation and Records Management Services FROM: Leonard L. Hay nes, III, Ph.D. Senior Director Institutional Service SUBJECT: Request for Approval of the Predominantly B lack In stitutions Program Application (CFDA 84.031P) Attached for y

our review and approval is the application package for the Predominantly Black I nstitutions Program. We are requesting a three

- year approval. The application will be used for the Fiscal Year 2013 Phase I Data Collection , which will be collecte d in Spring 2013. The attached I CR Part I , ICR Part II , Supporting Statement, and the Application for the Predominantly

Black I nstitutions program are being submitted as required for approval of a data collection instrument. Attachments: ICR Part I ICR Part II Supporting Statement Application for Predominantly Black Institutions
In Special Term —

Gholson, J. presiding.

#### J. & J. SLEVIN *vs.*REYNOLDS, IRWIN, & CO. et al.

One defendant cannot take advantage of a defence peculiar to his co-defendant.

Petition states that J. & J. Slevin as partners say, “ That there is due them on a promissory note, (copy annexed,) from the said Jaines Reynolds and William Irwin, late partners, as Reynolds, Irwin, & Co. as makers, and said Henry C. Borchelt and H. IT. Newman, as endorsers, defendants, the sum of one hundred and thirty-two dollars and thirteen cents, with interest from May 12th, 1847. Said plaintiffs further say that said note was duly presented for payment to makers at maturity!. -That it was not paid, and notice of non-payment was duly given to said endorsers. Whereupon said plaintiffs pray for judgment in the sum of $134.13, and interest from May 12th, 1847, and 'costs.”

The Sheriff returned the writ endorsed ;■ “ 1854, May 22nd, served William Irwin and H. H. Newman, by copies personally. Not found as to James Reynolds and Henry W. Borchelt.” William Irwin, one of the defendants, demurred to the petition, because it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and prays judgment that said petition be dismissed.”

T. D. Lincoln for plaintiffs; Mills & Hoadley for defendant, Irwin.

Gholson, J.

This is an action on a promissory note u gainst makers and endorsers. It is in default as to one endorser, and there appears to be no service on the other endorser. One of the makers of the note demurs, on the ground that the petition does not state sufficient facts to *38constitute a cause of action. The point relied on is, that the petition does not sufficiently charge the endorsers.

I shall overrule this demurrer, without deciding that point, on the principle, that one defendant cannot avail himself of a defence that is peculiar to his co-defendant.

The Code, section 35, allows persons, severally liable upon the same obligation or instrument, to be included in the same action: and under section 371, judgment may be given for or against one or more of them. By the same section (371) in an action against several defendants, the Court may, in its discretion, render judgment against one or more of them, leaving the action to proceed against the others, whenever a several judgment may be proper.

When one of several defendants demurs on the ground taken in this case, the enquiry should be, whether there is stated in the petition, facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. If there be, and the Court, upon the facts stated in the petition, might proceed to render a judgment against him, he cannot prevent it by urging that there are other defendants joined with him, as to whom facts sufficient are not stated.

In this case, the petition shows a good cause of action against the defendant who demurs, and his demurrer is therefore overruled.
#### § 324.302 Exposures Related the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility.

Notwithstanding any other section of this part, an FDIC-supervised institution may exclude exposures acquired pursuant to a non-recourse loan that is provided as part of the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, announced by the Federal Reserve on March 18, 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 provision, an FDIC-supervised institution's liability under the facility must be reduced by the purchase price of the assets acquired with funds advanced from the facility.

[85 FR 16237, Mar. 23, 2020]
§ 204.6 Charges for deficiencies. ( a ) Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to assess charges for deficiencies at a rate of 1 percentage point per year above the primary credit rate, as provided in § 201.51(a) of this chapter, in effect for borrowings from the Federal Reserve Bank on the first day of the calendar month in which the deficiencies occurred. Charges shall be assessed on the basis of daily average deficiencies during each maintenance period.
( b ) Reserve Banks may waive the charges for deficiencies based on an evaluation of the circumstances in each individual case.
( c ) In individual cases, where a Federal supervisory authority waives a liquidity requirement, or waives the penalty for failing to satisfy a liquidity requirement, the Reserve Bank in the District where the involved depository institution is located shall waive the reserve requirement imposed under this part for such depository institution when requested by the Federal supervisory authority involved.
( d ) Violations of this part may be subject to assessment of civil money penalties by the Board under authority of Section 19(1) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 505) as implemented in 12 CFR part 263. In addition, the Board and any other Federal financial institution supervisory authority may enforce this part with respect to depository institutions subject to their jurisdiction under authority conferred by law to undertake cease and desist proceedings.
[Reg. D, 74 FR 25639, May 29, 2009, as amended at 77 FR 21854, Apr. 12, 2012]
42454.

#### NORBO TRADING CORPORATION v. WOHLMUTH.

Felton, Chief Judge.

Although a petition seeking a declaratory judgment is not *per se*an equitable action *(Felton v. Chandler,*201 Ga. 347 (39 SE2d 654); *Todd v. Conner,*220 *70Ga. *173, 175 (137*SE2d *614), it*confers equity jurisdiction when it contains both sufficient allegations and prayers for equitable relief. *State Hwy. Dept. v. Hewitt Contr. Co.,*221 Ga. 621, 623 (146 SE2d 632), and cases cited. The prayer for a *temporary*injunction to maintain the status quo among the parties *pending an adjudication of the issues,*as provided for under the Declaratory Judgments Act *(Code Ann.*§ 110-1102 (b); Ga. L. 1945, p. 137; Ga. L. 1959, pp. 236, 237), is not one for equitable relief. *Phoenix Assur. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.,*215 Ga. 650 (112 SE2d 588), and cases cited; *Reid v. Standard Oil Co. of Ky.,*218 Ga. 289 (127 SE2d 678). A prayer for *permanent*injunction, however, when supported by sufficient allegations to authorize the grant of such relief, does confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court. *Solomon v. Mayor &c. of Savannah,*183 Ga. 631, 634 (7) (189 SE 230); *Hudon v. Village of North Atlanta,*219 Ga. 179 (132 SE2d 74). That only interlocutory, or temporary, injunctions are intended to be included in actions at law under *Code Ann-.*§ 110-1102 (b) is indicated by the provision therein for the granting of “injunction and *other interlocutory*extraordinary relief. . .” (Emphasis supplied.)

*Hall and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

Argued January 3, 1967

Decided January 20, 1967.

The present petition, which was denominated “Petition for declaratory judgment and equitable relief” and sanctioned by the trial judge, not only contains a prayer for a permanent injunction, but also alleges, in addition to the plaintiff’s right to a declaratory judgment, that a permanent injunction is necessary to prevent the defendant from interfering with or acting contrary to the plaintiff’s exercise of his rights and powers under an alleged power of attorney. These allegations are sufficient to show that the prayer for a permanent injunction is not spurious and, hence, to extend the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional power to this case, even if it should be considered a “bad equity case,” which is defined as “those cases where the pleadings of the party who invokes the aid of equity, while for some reason not sufficient to set forth a cause in equity, allege facts and contain prayers raising a substantial question as to whether the pleader is entitled to relief in equity.” State *Hwy. Dept. v. Hewitt Contr. Co.,*221 Ga. 621, 623, supra. Accordingly, the appeal is

*Transferred to the Supreme Court.*

*71*John B. Calhoun,*for appellant.

*Joseph B. Bergen, Converse Bright, Edenfield, Heyman & Sizemore, Newell Edenfield,*for appellee.
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 of Naturade, Inc. (the "Company") fully complied with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.

/s/BILL D. STEWARTBill D. Stewart Chief Executive OfficerNovember 14, 2002/s/LAWRENCE J. BATINALawrence J. Batina Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2002


---

QuickLinks
§ 268.504 Compliance with settlement agreements and final actions. ( a ) Any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties. Final action that has not been the subject of an appeal or a civil action shall be binding on the Board. If the complainant believes that the Board has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement or decision, the complainant shall notify the Board's EEO Programs Director, in writing, of the alleged noncompliance within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance. The complainant may request that the terms of the settlement agreement be specifically implemented or, alternatively, that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased.
( b ) The Board shall resolve the matter and respond to the complainant, in writing. If the Board has not responded to the complainant, in writing, or if the complainant is not satisfied with the Board's attempt to resolve the matter, the complainant may appeal to the Commission for a determination as to whether the Board has complied with the terms of the settlement agreement or decision. The complainant may file such an appeal 35 days after he or she has served the Board with the allegations of noncompliance, but must file an appeal within 30 days of his or her receipt of the Board's determination. The complainant must serve a copy of the appeal on the Board and the Board may submit a response to the Commission within 30 days of receiving notice of the appeal.
( c ) Prior to rendering its determination, the Commission may request that the parties submit whatever additional information or documentation it deems necessary or may direct that an investigation or hearing on the matter be conducted. If the Commission determines that the Board is not in compliance with a decision or a settlement agreement, and the noncompliance is not attributable to acts or conduct of the complainant, it may order such compliance with the decision or settlement agreement, or, alternatively, for a settlement agreement, it may order that the complaint be reinstated for further processing from the point processing ceased. Allegations that subsequent acts of discrimination violate a settlement agreement shall be processed as separate complaints under § 268.105 or § 268.204, as appropriate, rather than under this section.
[68 FR 18085, Apr. 15, 2003, as amended at 84 FR 27035, June 11, 2019]
Exhibit 10(9)

                             FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
                          LINCOLN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK
                EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT
                            (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1998)

         Pursuant to rights  reserved  under Section 9.1 of the Lincoln  Federal
Savings Bank Employee  Stock  Ownership  Plan and Trust  Agreement (the "Plan"),
Lincoln  Federal  Savings Bank (the "Bank")  amends the Plan,  effective July 1,
1998, as follows:

         1.       Section  1.37(a)(v) of the Plan is amended to provide,  in its
                  entirety, as follows:

                  (v)      amount  not  includible  into  income  by  reason  of
                           Section 125 or 401(k) of the Code;


         2.       The last sentence of Section 1.37 is deleted in its entirety.


         3.       Section 4.3(a)(ii) is amended to provide, in its entirety,  as
                  follows:

                  (ii)     thirty  thousand  dollars   ($30,000),   as  adjusted
                           pursuant to Section 415(d).



         This  First  Amendment  to the  Plan  has  been  executed  this  day of
17 day of August, 1999.

                                                 LINCOLN FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK


                                                 By: /s/ T. Tim Unger
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     T. Tim Unger
                                                 Its: President/CEO
Attest:

By: /s/ John M. Baer
    ------------------------------
    John M. Baer
Its: CFO/Secretary/Treasurer
#### Julius Sondheim, Respondent, *v.*Katherina Schmidt, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

A. Goldfarb, for appellant.

Kurzman *&*Frankenheimer, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The ruling which sustained the objection to the question: “Did you in July, 1898, have any conversation with Mr. Sondheim as to cancelling the agreement with the defendants? ” was wrong and may have prejudiced the defendant.

The judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.