alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Michael Horan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the “Quarterly Report”) of Dynatem, Inc. (the “Company”); 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untruestatement of a 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 otherfinancial information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Quarterly Report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) Omitted; 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this Quarterly Report any change in the Company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter, in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of theCompany’s board of directors: 

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: October 13, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000797167
<NAME> NATURADE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,911,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,407,848
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,312,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,674,314
<PP&E>                                       2,807,387
<DEPRECIATION>                                 768,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,009,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,001,084
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        125
<COMMON>                                           530
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,936,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,009,980
<SALES>                                      9,813,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,813,776
<CGS>                                        4,880,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,511,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               526,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             305,172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,410,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (100,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,310,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,310,069)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)
        

</TABLE>
§ 313.23 Offset prior to completion of procedures. The FDIC may collect a debt by administrative offset prior to the completion of the procedures described in § 313.25, if: ( a ) Failure to offset a payment would substantially prejudice the FDIC's ability to collect the debt; and
( b ) The time before the payment is to be made does not reasonably permit completion of the procedures described in § 313.25. Such prior offsetting shall be followed promptly by the completion of the procedures described in § 313.25.
EXHIBIT B 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 1 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 2 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 3 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 4 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 5 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 6 of 7
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2245-2 Filed:01/16/18 Entered:01/16/18 17:30:09 Desc:

Exhibit Exhibit B Page 7 of 7
§ 603.340 Appeal of an initial adverse determination of a request to amend a record. ( a ) Not more than 10 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after receipt by an individual of an adverse determination on the individual's request to amend a record or otherwise, the individual may appeal to the Director, Office of Agency Services.
( b ) The appeal shall be by letter, mailed or delivered to the Director, Office of Agency Services, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090. The letter shall identify the records involved in the same manner they were identified to the Privacy Act Officer, shall specify the dates of the request and adverse determination, and shall indicate the expressed basis for that determination. Also, the letter shall state briefly and succinctly the reasons why the adverse determination should be reversed.
( c ) The review shall be completed and a final determination made by the Director not later than 30 days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) from receipt of the request for such review, unless the Director extends such 30-day period for good cause. If the 30-day period is extended, the individual shall be notified of the reasons therefor.
( d ) If the Director refuses to amend the record in accordance with the request, the individual shall be notified of the right to file a concise statement setting forth that person's disagreement with the final determination and that person's right under 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(A) to a judicial review of the final determination.
( e ) If an amendment of a record as requested upon review is refused, there shall be included in the disputed portion of the record a copy of the concise statement filed by the individual together with a concise statement of the reasons for not amending the record as requested. Such statements will be included when disclosure of the disputed record is made to persons and agencies as authorized under 5 U.S.C. 552a.
[40 FR 40454, Sept. 2, 1975, as amended at 51 FR 41942, Nov. 20, 1986; 56 FR 2673, Jan. 24, 1991; 70 FR 69645, Nov. 17, 2005; 81 FR 47692, July 22, 2016]
§ 51.2 Appointment of receiver. ( a ) *In general.* The Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller) may appoint any person, including the OCC or another government agency, as receiver for an uninsured bank. The receiver performs its duties under the direction of the Comptroller and serves at the will of the Comptroller. The Comptroller may require the receiver to post a bond or other security. The receiver, with the approval of the Comptroller, may employ such staff and enter into contracts for professional services as are necessary to carry out the receivership.
( b ) *Grounds for appointment.* The Comptroller may appoint a receiver for an uninsured bank based on any of the grounds specified in 12 U.S.C. 191(a).
( c ) *Judicial review.* If the Comptroller appoints a receiver for an uninsured bank, the bank may seek judicial review of the appointment as provided in 12 U.S.C. 191(b).
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0826 Directorate ID : 20 11 - SW - 046 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, AS332L , AS332L 1, AS332L2 and SA330J Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operato rs): 20 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The proposed actions are intended to prevent the hoist cable from jamming and subsequent cable failure, which could result in injury and damage to the helicopter. Costs : We estimate that work hours would average $85 an hour. Based on these estimates, we would expect the following costs:  The cost for installing and removing placards is minimal.  Disabling the hoist py rotechnic shear function would require 1 work- hour and no parts would be needed for a cost of $85 per helicopter, $1,700 for the U.S. fleet.  In stallation of the hoist beam lower fitting protector for Model AS332 helicopters without a right hand (RH) sliding door and without a short footstep would require 6 work - hours for a labor cost of $510 per h elicopter. Parts would cost $4,760 for a total cost of $5,270 per helicopter.  In stallation of the hoist beam lower fitting protector and short footstep with lower side protector for Model AS332 helicopters without a RH sliding door and with a short footstep would require 12 work - hours for a labor cost of $1020 per helicopter. Parts would cost $26,891 for a total cost of $27,401 per helicopter.  In stallation of the hoist beam protector for Model AS332 helicopters with a RH sliding door would require 3 work - ho urs for a labor cost of $255 per helicopter. Parts would cost $20,858 for a total cost of $21,113 per helicopter.  In stallation of the hoist beam protector for Model SA330J helicopters would require 3 work - hours for a labor cost of $255 per helicopter. Part s would cost $4,774 for a total cost of $5,029 per helicopter.  Enabling the hoist py rotechnic shear function would require 1 work- hour and no parts would be needed for a cost of $85 per helicopter.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be conside red a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )2

Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
§ 211.44 Reporting and disclosure of international assets. ( a ) *Requirements.* ( 1 ) Pursuant to section 907(a) of the International Lending Supervision Act of 1983 (Title IX, Pub. L. 98-181, 97 Stat. 1153) (ILSA), a banking institution shall submit to the Board, at least quarterly, information regarding the amounts and composition of its holdings of international assets.
( 2 ) Pursuant to section 907(b) of ILSA, a banking institution shall submit to the Board information regarding concentrations in its holdings of international assets that are material in relation to total assets and to capital of the institution, such information to be made publicly available by the Board on request.
( b ) *Procedures.* The format, content and reporting and filing dates of the reports required under paragraph (a) of this section shall be determined jointly by the Federal banking agencies. The requirements to be prescribed by the Federal banking agencies may include changes to existing reporting forms (such as the Country Exposure Report, form FFIEC No. 009) or such other requirements as the Federal banking agencies deem appropriate. The Federal banking agencies also may determine to exempt from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section banking institutions that, in the Federal banking agencies' judgment, have *de minimis* holdings of international assets.
( c ) *Reservation of authority.* Nothing contained in this rule shall preclude the Board from requiring from a banking institution such additional or more frequent information on the institution's holding of international assets as the Board may consider necessary.
[Reg. K, 68 FR 1159, Jan. 9, 2003]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40811 USDC No. B-94-CV-330

__________________ GEORGE RODRIGUEZ, SR.; JOSE RODRIGUEZ; HORTENCIA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LISA GRIFFIS, Deputy U.S. Marshal; RAY PREWETT, President, Valley AG Insurance Service, Incorporation; HERB HOOT, Insurance Coordinator, Valley AG Insurance Service, Incorporation; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney General; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE; VALLEY AG INSURANCE SERVICE, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - March 5, 1996 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * George Rodriguez, Sr., appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment for the defendants in a suit filed by Rodriguez and two other plaintiffs challenging a civil forfeiture. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). Rodriguez has filed a request with this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To prevail upon his IFP motion, Rodriguez must demonstrateNo. 95-40811 -2- that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Rodriguez challenges the seizure of an insurance policy, arguing that he was entitled to notice and a hearing prior to the cancellation of the policy and that the policy was improperly cancelled prior to entry of the order of civil forfeiture. This is not a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See magistrate judge's report of June 20, 1995. Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED and the APPEAL is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7235]

Notice of Public Meeting of the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) Scientific Advisory Board

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 
the PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board hereinafter referred to as ``the 
Board,'' will meet as indicated below.

    The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) 
Scientific Advisory Board will meet on January 6-7, 2011 at the St. 
Gregory Hotel, 2033 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. The meeting 
will be from 9 a.m. until approximately 5 p.m. on both days and is open 
to the public.
    The meeting will be hosted by the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS 
Coordinator, Ambassador Eric Goosby, who leads implementation of the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
    The PEPFAR Scientific Advisory Board serves the Global AIDS 
Coordinator in a solely advisory capacity concerning scientific, 
implementation, and policy issues related to the global response to 
HIV/AIDS. These issues will be of concern as they influence the 
priorities and direction of PEPFAR evaluation and research, the content 
of national and international strategies and implementation, and the 
role of PEPFAR in the international discourse regarding appropriate and 
resourced responses. Topics for the January 6-7th meeting will include 
an overview of PEPFAR-funded evaluations, priority setting within HIV/
AIDS Care, Treatment and Prevention areas, and recommendations to the 
Ambassador on the future direction of evaluation and research within 
PEPFAR.
    The public may attend this meeting as seating capacity allows. To 
RSVP and for those requesting reasonable accommodation, please contact 
the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Tiffany Peoples: E-mail 
(PeoplesTN2@state.gov), by December 29, 2010. Requests made after that 
time will be considered, but might not be possible to accommodate. 
While the meeting is open to public attendance, the Board will 
determine procedures for public participation and will announce those 
procedures at the meeting.
    For further information about the meeting, please contact Paul 
Bouey, Deputy Coordinator, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator 
at (202) 663-2440 or BoueyPD@state.gov.

    Dated: December 8, 2010.
Paul D. Bouey,
Deputy Coordinator, Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-31498 Filed 12-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
CORNER LOT ASSESSMENT.

[Lucas Circuit Court,

January Term, 1894.]

Bentley, Haynes and Scribner, JJ.

#### James Rooney v. City of Toledo.

Permitting Improvement to go on Not Estopped.

The owner of a corner lot is not estopped to dispute an assessment for the whole length of the side street by having permitted the improvement to go on under an ordinance, for such assessment.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas county.

Haynes, J.

Rooney brought suit to enjoin the collection of an assessment made by the city of Toledo upon a lot at the corner of Missouri street and Collingwood avenue. The lot had a frontage of nine feet on Missouri street, extending back along Collingwood avenue about 135 feet. There was a house built in part upon this lot, and extending over upon the adjoining lot. The assessment was for the improvement of Collingwood avenue, and was assessed by the foot front of said lot in length abutting on Collingwood avenue. The plaintiff claimed that under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Huviland*v. *Columbus,*50 O. S., 471, the lot could be assessed for only the extent of its frontage on Missouri street, to-wit: *24nine feet, and that the balance of the assessment was illegal. The city denied plaintiff’s conclusion, and set up that, plaintiff had full knowledge of the making of the improvement, and that it would be of benefit to the property, and of the making of the assessment», and that he was now estopped from alleging the illegality of said assessment.

*Pratt & Wilson,*for plaintiff.

*C. P. Watts,*City Solicitor, *contra.*

*Held,*that under the Haviland case, *supra,*plaintiff’s lot could not lawfully have been assessed upon a frontage of more than nine feet, being the foot frontage of the lot upon Missouri street. Also held, upon the authority of *Agler*v. *Columbns,*44 O. S., 485, that the plaintiff was not estopped from contesting the legality of the assessment.

Injunction against city from collecting more than the assessment properly made upon nine feet, being the frontage of the lot upon Missouri street.
EXHIBIT 4.1
                                   RESOLUTIONS

     WHEREAS, the Company is indebted Ralph McKittrick for consulting services
rendered and expenses incurred in connection with the business of the Company.


RESOLVED, that in payment for consulting services provided to the Company by
Ralph McKittrick, the Company grants 500,000 shares of the Company's common
stock to be registered in a registration statement on Form S-8 to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") promptly after the Company
becomes current in all if its filing obligations under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
H. R. 3059 

One Hundred Eighth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 304 West 

Michigan Street in Stuttgart, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Lloyd L. Burke Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

304 West Michigan Street in Stuttgart, Arkansas, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Lloyd L. Burke Post Office’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lloyd L. 

Burke Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with BILLS
SCWC-16-0000115

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MUSTAFA BAKER,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-16-0000115; CR. NO. 13-1-0078)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ

of certiorari, filed on April 4, 2018, is hereby accepted and

will be scheduled for oral argument. The parties will be

notified by the appellate clerk regarding scheduling. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 22, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-16-0000115

22-MAY-2018

07:53 AM