alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 748
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 748 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 748.0 Security program. ( a ) Each federally insured credit union will develop a written security program within 90 days of the effective date of insurance.
( b ) The security program will be designed to: ( 1 ) Protect each credit union office from robberies, burglaries, larcenies, and embezzlement;
( 2 ) Ensure the security and confidentiality of member records, protect against the anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records, and protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records that could result in substantial harm or serious inconvenience to a member;
( 3 ) Respond to incidents of unauthorized access to or use of member information that could result in substantial harm or serious inconvenience to a member;
( 4 ) Assist in the identification of persons who commit or attempt such actions and crimes, and
( 5 ) Prevent destruction of vital records, as defined in 12 CFR part 749.
( c ) Each Federal credit union, as part of its information security program, must properly dispose of any consumer information the Federal credit union maintains or otherwise possesses, as required under § 717.83 of this chapter.
[50 FR 53295, Dec. 31, 1985, as amended at 53 FR 4845, Feb. 18, 1988; 66 FR 8161, Jan. 30, 2001; 69 FR 69274, Nov. 29, 2004; 70 FR 22778, May 2, 2005]
**EXHIBIT 7.1**
 
 **FIXED CHARGE COVERAGE RATIO**
 
 **Year ended April 30****2004**

**2003 (1)**

**2002 (1)**

**2001 (1)**

**2000 (1)**Earnings (2)

$
42.3

$
61.0

$
55.5

$
28.3

$
21.9Fixed chargesInterest expense


35.4


34.1


47.9


56.6


51.2Portion of rent expense representative of interest factor


17.2


18.6


17.7


19.2


13.5Earnings as adjusted

$
94.9

$
113.7

$
121.1

$
104.1

$
86.6Fixed chargesInterest expense

$
35.4

$
34.1

$
47.9

$
56.6

$
51.2Portion of rent expense representative of interest factor


17.2


18.6


17.7


19.2


13.5Fixed charges, as adjusted

$
52.6

$
52.7

$
65.6

$
75.8

$
64.7Fixed charge coverage ratio


1.8x


2.2x


1.8x


1.4x


1.3x  (1)
Restated - See Notes 4(a) and 5 to our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report.(2)
For the purpose of this calculation, earnings is defined as earnings before income taxes and undistributed earnings from equity investees.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I**,**Bill D. Stewart, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Naturade, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 14, 2005           /s/ Bill D. Stewart       Bill D. Stewart    *Chief Executive Officer*
46
Editorial Note on Part 710
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 710.4 Transaction of business during liquidation. ( a ) Immediately upon decision by the board of directors to present the question of liquidation to the members, payments on shares, withdrawal of shares (except for transfer of shares to loans and interest), transfer of shares to another share account, granting of loans, and making of investments other than short-term investments shall be suspended pending action by the members on the proposal to liquidate. Collection of loans and interest, payment of necessary expenses, clearing of share drafts and credit card charges will continue.
( b ) Upon approval of the members, payments on shares, withdrawal of shares (except for transfer of shares to loans and interest), transfer of shares to another share account, granting of loans, and making of investments other than short-term investments shall be discontinued permanently. Collection of loans and interest and payment of necessary expenses will continue during the period of liquidation. Members will be notified to discontinue the use of share drafts and credit cards, and items will not be cleared 15 days from the liquidation date.
( c ) Approval of the Regional Director must be obtained prior to consummating any sale of assets which would not provide sufficient funds to pay shareholders at par.
#### Commonwealth v. McClimans

*John Q. Stranahan,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth.

*Michael Holliday,*for defendant.

October 1, 1957.

McKay, J.,

Defendant in this case has moved to quash two informations charging him with violations of The Vehicle Code of May 1,1929, P. L. 905, as amended, on July 4,1957. The first alleged violation is failing to have in his possession the registration card for his vehicle, and the second is passing another vehicle at a railway grade crossing.

Both informations show on their face that Mary Courtney, the justice of the peace before whom they were made, is a resident of the Borough of Jamestown whereas the information alleges that the violation occurred in Green Township. There is no averment in the information which would show why the justice of the *478peace had jurisdiction of the case other than the words after her name and residence, “being the nearest available Magistrate to the place of the violation”. The Vehicle Code of May 1, 1929, P: L. 905, as amended, sec. 1201, 75 PS §731 (a) reads:

> “Informations, charging violations of any of the summary provisions of this act, shall be brought before the nearest available magistrate within the city, borough, incorporated town, or township in the county where the alleged violation occurred; ... if there is no person holding the office of magistrate in such . . . township, then such information shall bé brought before such nearest available magistrate in any adjoining . . . borough ... in the county”.

Construing this section in a case essentially identical with that at bar, the court, in Commonwealth v. Williams, 62 Montg. 123 (1946), held that when an information is brought before a justice of a different borough or township than that in which the offenses are alleged to have occurred, the information should set forth the jurisdictional fact that no person held the office of justice of the peace in the borough or township in which the offenses are alleged to have occurred.

In our opinion this decision is sound and applicable to the present case, for in the absence of the jurisdictional fact that no person holds the office of justice of the peace in Green Township, a justice of the peace in the Borough of Jamestown would have no jurisdiction over the offense committed in this case. Since the information fails to contain this necessary jurisdictional averment, it must be quashed.

*Order*

Now, October 1, 1957, the motion to quash the informations in the above entitled case is allowed and defendant is discharged: the costs to be paid by the County of Mercer.
Exhibit  32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the Quarterly Report of APA Optics, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David R. Peters, Chief
Financial  Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Sec.  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

1.   The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d)
     of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

2.   The  information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Signature:  /s/  David  R.  Peters
            ----------------------
Print  Name:  David  R.  Peters
              -----------------
Print  Title:  Chief  Financial  Officer
               -------------------------


                                       26
<PAGE>
#### Western Union Telegraph Company, *Plaintiff in Error,*v. J. D. Hiscock and F. H. Bowe, *Defendants in Error.*

Opinion Filed April 28, 1923.

1. Under the statute regulating the service of summons on prL vate corporations, where the return shows service upon a mere, agent of the defendant company, without showing the absence of all the officers of the company of the superior classes designated by the statute as those. upon whom service shall be' made, before resort is had to service upon ¡one of an inferior class, the service is unauthorized and ineffectual to give the court jurisdiction of the defendant company in the cause.

*2.*Where in the praecipe for summons and the summons a sole plaintiff is named and the declaration is by tw'o plaintiffs and' a default judgment is in favor of the sole plaintiff, a judgment1 in favor of two plaintiffs on an illegal service of summons and no appearance by the defendant corporation will be reversed.-

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Palm Beach: County; E. C. Davis, Judge.

Reversed.

*John E.*and *Julian Hartridge,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Blackwell, Donnell & McCracken,*for Defendants in Error.

Whitfield, J.

In the praecipe for summons *ad res'.*filed herein, J. D. Hiscock was the sole plaintiff. The summons issued on the praecipe was the only summons attempted to be served on the defendant corporation. The return is fatally defective in that it shows service on the “manager” of the defendant without showing the ab*481sence of superior officers. Drew Lumber Co. v. Walter, 45 Fla. 252, 34 South. Rep. 244.

Under the statute regulating- the service of summons on private corporations, where the return shows service upon a mere agent of the defendant company, without showing the absence of all the officers of the company of the superior classes designated by the statute as those upon whom service shall be made, before resort is had to service upon one of an inferior class, -the service is unauthorized and ineffectual to give the court jurisdiction of the defendant company in the cause. Milton Land & Inv. Co. v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 81 Fla. 227, 87 South. Rep. 636; Seacoast Lumber Co. v. R. J. & B. F. Camp Lumber Co., 63 Fla. 604, 59 South. Rep. 13.

The declaration wherein J. D. Hiscock and F. H. Bowe are plaintiffs, alleges a failure to transmit $150.00 delivered to the defendant company for transmission, and a bill of particulars contains two items only, *viz,*$150.00 delivered for transmission, and $6.10 charges paid, making a total of $156.10.

A default judgment was entered against the defendant in favor of J. D. Hiscock only. .Apparently there was no appearance in the case by or for the defendant.

A jury returned a verdict for $2,843.90 in favor of J. D. Hiscock and F. H. Bowe plaintiffs. Judgment was rendered for $2,843.90, and costs, in favor of J. D. Hiscock and F. H. Bowe,, and the defendant took writ of error.

On the transcript of the record as it is-filed in this court, the judgment is manifestly erroneous, and it is reversed.

Taylor;, C, J., and Ellis, Browne and West, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. TAJI J. LEE, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 123 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 20th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
ALTIRA ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT


         THIS  AGREEMENT  dated this 25th day of May, 2001 between Argo,  Inc. a
Israeli   corporation   ("Assignor");   Safetek  Acquisition  Corp.  a  Delaware
corporation ("Assignee"); and Altira Capital & Consulting, LLC. ("Altira").

                             W I T N E S S E S T H :

         WHEREAS,  Assignor is a party to that  certain  contract  (the  "Altira
Consulting  Agreement") dated ____________ _____, 2001, between Argo and Altira,
Inc;

         WHEREAS,   Assignor  wishes  to  assign  its  interest  in  the  Altira
Consulting  Agreement  to  Assignee,  and  Assignee  is willing  to accept  such
assignment;

         WHEREAS,  Altira  is also a party to the  Altira  Consulting  Agreement
between Argo and Altira,  and Altira is willing to consent to the  Assignment by
Assignor to Asignee of Assignor's interest in the Altira Consulting Agreement.

                           N O W   T H E R E F O R E ,

         In  consideration  of the  Premises  and for  other  good and  valuable
consideration, the Parties hereto agree that:

         1. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby irrevocably
and unconditionally assumes, all of the rights,  conditions,  and obligations of
Assignor in the Altira Consulting Agreement between Argo and Altira.

         2.  Altira hereby consents to the foregoing Assignment.




Argo, Inc.                                    Safetek Acquisition, Inc.
(Assignor)                                    (Assignee)

By: ______________________________            By: ______________________________
    Zvi Nachum, President                         Shmuel M. Shneibalg, President



Altira, Inc.

By: ______________________________
    Rob Shorr, President
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 1607, Feb. 5, 2019.

#### § 710.9 Federally insured state-chartered credit unions.

A federal insured state credit union will notify the Regional Director in writing within three days after the board of directors' decision to liquidate is made. A balance sheet and income statement as of the previous month-end and a copy of any liquidation plan will be included with the notification to the Regional Director.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23285-6 Filed:01/19/23 Entered:01/19/23 16:05:10 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23285-6 Filed:01/19/23 Entered:01/19/23 16:05:10 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23285-6 Filed:01/19/23 Entered:01/19/23 16:05:10 Desc:

Exhibit F Page 3 of 3
#### Joe J. Blalock, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of Blalock Brothers, *Appellant,*v. Jessee McDuffy, J. H. Spencer, and W .R. Pedrick, Copartners Doing Business as Spencer-Pedrick Motor Company, *Appellees.*

Decision Filed January 23, 1923.

Petition for Rehearing Denied June 12, 1923,

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

W. *E. Smith,*for Appellant;

*H. M. Hampton,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.

Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                    $ 7,438,780
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,070,203
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            9,793,158
<PP&E>                                     18,359,042
<DEPRECIATION>                             10,680,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             17,995,154
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,497,190
<BONDS>                                     1,080,537
<COMMON>                                   13,615,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,117,066)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               17,995,154
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            5,473,698
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,202,605
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              192,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                79,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                   84,001
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,913)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,913)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
§ 4.18 How to track a FOIA request. ( a ) *Tracking number* — ( 1 ) *Internet requests.* The OCC will issue a tracking number to all FOIA requesters automatically upon receipt of the request (as described in § 4.15(g)) by the OCC's Communications Division via the OCC's Freedom of Information Request Portal, *https://foia-pal.occ.gov/palMain.aspx .* The tracking number will be sent via electronic mail to the requester.
( 2 ) *If a requester does not have Internet access.* The OCC will issue a tracking number to FOIA requesters without Internet access within 5 days of the receipt of the request (as described in § 4.15(g)) in the OCC's Communications Division. The OCC will mail the tracking number to the requester's physical address, as provided in the FOIA request.
( b ) *Status of request.* FOIA requesters may track the progress of their requests via the OCC's Freedom of Information Request Portal, *https://foia-pal.occ.gov/palMain.aspx .* Requesters without Internet access may continue to contact the Chief FOIA Officer, Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, at (202) 649-6700 to check the status of their FOIA request(s).
[76 FR 43562, July 21, 2011, as amended at 79 FR 15641, Mar. 21, 2014; 80 FR 28414, May 18, 2015; 81 FR 94246, Dec. 23, 2016]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VERONICA SANCHEZ TORRES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73008 

Agency No. A201-212-091 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Veronica Sanchez Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for cancellation of 

removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73008 

Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations in 

immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 

2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Sanchez Torres’s convictions for 

petty theft under California Penal Code sections 484 and 666 are crimes involving 

moral turpitude that render her ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(1)(C); Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 710, 717 (9th Cir. 2021)

(California theft constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude).

We do not address Sanchez Torres’s contentions as to exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship or other eligibility requirements for cancellation of 

removal because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See SantiagoRodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision 

of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Sanchez Torres’s contention that she is 

eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection because she failed 

to raise these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 

(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the BIA).

To the extent Sanchez Torres contends that the BIA violated due process,

she has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez, 770 F.3d at 830 (“To prevail on a 
3 17-73008 

due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and 

prejudice.”).

We do not consider the materials Sanchez Torres references and attaches to

her opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 

79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.