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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,426
<SECURITIES>                                    43,734
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                       501
<INVENTORY>                                      8,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,127
<PP&E>                                           6,535
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,677
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,292
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,677
<SALES>                                         41,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,838
<CGS>                                           27,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,329
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,374)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (428)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,068)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Peter Muller, Appellant, v Lauren Muller, Respondent.

[64 NYS3d 561]

Appeal by the father from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay-McGuane, J.), entered July 14, 2016. The order denied the father’s objections to an order of that court (Latoya Stephens, S.M.) dated April 18, 2016, which, after a hearing, denied his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Ordered that the order entered July 14, 2016, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In December 2014, the father filed a petition seeking a downward modification of his child support obligation. He alleged that he was permanently disabled and unable to work in any capacity, and that his only sources of income were social security disability benefits and a small stipend that he received *645for serving on a town planning board. Following a hearing, in an order dated April 18, 2016, the Support Magistrate denied the father’s petition. Thereafter, in an order entered July 14, 2016, the Family Court denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order. The father appeals from the order entered July 14, 2016.

In order for a party to be entitled to a modification of a child support order, that party must show “a substantial change in circumstances” since the entry of the order (Family Ct Act § 451 [3] [a]; *see Matter of Pepe v Pepe,*128 AD3d 831, 834 [2015]). Although a petition for a downward modification of child support may be granted based on a parent’s loss of employment due to an injury or illness, it may be denied if the parent still has the ability to provide support through some other type of employment *(see Matter of Karagiannis v Karagiannis,*73 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2010]). A party seeking modification on the basis of loss of employment due to illness must show that he or she has made a good faith effort to obtain other employment commensurate with his or her abilities or qualifications *(see id.*at 1065). On appeal, credibility determinations of the hearing court are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed if supported by the record *(see id.).*

Here, the record supports the Support Magistrate’s determination that the father failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances since the entry of the prior child support order. The father failed to present any competent medical evidence in support of his testimony that he is permanently and completely disabled and unable to obtain gainful employment to meet his child support obligation *(see Matter of Hackett v Hackett,*154 AD3d 751 [2017]; *Matter of Cato v Cato,*134 AD3d 821, 822 [2015]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit or not properly before this Court.

Accordingly, the Family Court properly denied the father’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order denying his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation.

Hall, J.P., Hinds-Radix, Maltese and Iannacci, JJ., concur.
#### High Definition MRI, P.C., Appellant, v Mapfre Insurance Company of New York, Respondent.

[49 NYS3d 406]

*471Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered on or about July 14, 2016, which granted plaintiff’s motion for reargument of defendant’s motion to sever the breach of contract cause of action or, in the alternative, for a stay of the severance order pending appeal, only to the extent of extending plaintiff’s time to commence separate actions in Civil Court for the 198 claims asserted in the breach of contract cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Although the order on reargument purported to deny plaintiff’s motion to reargue defendant’s severance motion, it is appealable, because the court addressed the merits of the motion, in effect, granting it and adhering to the original determination (see *Jackson v Leung,*99 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2012]).

The court properly severed the breach of contract cause of action, since the 198 unrelated no-fault claims asserted therein raise no common issues of fact or law (see CPLR 603; *Radiology Resource Network, P.C. v Fireman’s Fund Ins.*Co., 12 AD3d 185 [1st Dept 2004]). Plaintiff’s contention that the defense of fraudulent incorporation presents common factual and legal issues that predominate is unavailing, since defendant has made clear that it does not intend to pursue that defense.

The court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for a stay, since adjudication of the separate breach of contract claims in Civil Court is not dependent on a determination of the declaratory judgment cause of action (see *Hunter v Hunter,*10 AD2d 937 [1st Dept 1960]).

Concur — Acosta, J.P, Renwick, Moskowitz, Feinman and Gesmer, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 19, 2016

p0216 

# Order

Clerk February 19, 2016

152905

In re STURGIS, Minors. SC: 152905

COA: 324127

Wayne CC Family Division:

13

- 514853

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 3, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the quest ion presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### People v Mostiller

4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1466 (Erie)

denied 3/20/17 (DiFiore, Ch. J.)
#### Malka Yerushalmi, Appellant, v Joseph Yerushalmi, Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 157]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Hope Schwartz Zimmerman, J.), dated April 1, 2016. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to disqualify Anthony A. Capetola from representing the defendant in this action and to release various sums of money being held in an escrow account.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to disqualify Anthony A. Capetola from representing the defendant in this action and to release the sum of $133,893 from the subject escrow account, and substituting therefor provisions granting those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In this divorce action, the defendant suffered a stroke in September 2015, prior to the completion of the continued hearing on his motion to terminate his temporary maintenance obligation. When the defendant appeared pro se for the continuation of the hearing on November 10, 2015, the Supreme Court determined that he was no longer competent, and directed the appointment of a guardian ad litem. By order dated November 13, 2015, a guardian ad litem was appointed *794on the defendant’s behalf. Three days later, however, the defendant retained attorney Anthony A. Capetola to represent him in the action. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to disqualify Capetola from representing the defendant and to release various sums of money being held in an escrow account.

The Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to disqualify Capetola from representing the defendant in this action. A party who has been deemed by the court to be incapable of defending his or her rights, and for whom a guardian ad litem has been appointed, may only appear in an action by that guardian ad litem *(see*CPLR 321 [a]; 1201; *Caruso v Caputo,*143 AD2d 795, 796 [1988]). Here, since a guardian ad litem had been appointed on behalf of the defendant on November 13, 2015, the defendant lacked authority to select and retain Capetola as his attorney.

The Supreme Court also erred in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was to release the sum of $133,893 from the subject escrow account, which holds the proceeds of a sale of real property, in order to enable the plaintiff to pay capital gains taxes on the profits from that sale.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiff’s cross motion which were to disqualify Anthony A. Capetola from representing the defendant in this action and to release the sum of $133,893 from the subject escrow account.

Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Miller and Barros, JJ., concur.
# C_2013226EN.01000201.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/2

---

Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

(Opinion 1/13)

(2013/C 226/02)

Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

Applicant

European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents)

Question submitted to the Court

Question submitted to the Court

Does the acceptance of the accession of a third country to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction fall within the exclusive competence of the Union?

---
yearID sourceTypeID sourceTypePopulation

2009 11 25886 2009 21 361617 2009 31 255661 2009 32 85412 2009 41 278 2009 42 158 2009 43 1891 2009 51 207 2009 52 13548 2009 53 1681 2009 54 3115 2009 61 2840 2009 62 3321
#### Com. v. Dancy

12/01/2015

627 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 459
# DLA Land and Maritime supports local community

/ Published Jan. 10, 2024
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime team has been continuing their efforts to support the community. A group stepped away from the workplace to volunteer with the Salvation Army of Central Ohio’s Christmas Cheer assistance program Dec. 20.

The event has become a tradition for DLA Land and Maritime, starting back in 2018 with the Class of 2020 Level III Mentoring Proteges. In between some intensive program required activities, the group was looking for ways to build relationships, learn from each other and have a positive impact. Community outreach was the answer and Christmas Cheer was just one of those events – one that has attracted others at DLA Land and Maritime to join in the volunteerism each year.

Coleen McCormick, who serves as deputy director for the Strategic Acquisition Programs Directorate, said that for her, the best way to feel gratitude is to serve others.

“If we complain about a circumstance, or a person in our life, or a situation that we are in, it is very easy to take the focus away from what we are fortunate enough to have in our lives and fill it with the annoyance of the hour or day,” she said. “Taking my eyes off myself and my circumstance and focusing on serving others always brings me joy. The gratitude flows from realizing how truly fortunate I am in all aspects of my life. If I am “other focused,” my gratitude and my contentment flow from there. And it’s really fun to serve with co-workers and friends.”

DLA Land and Maritime associates volunteered to act as cart runners and forklift drivers during the Christmas Cheer distribution at the Lausche Building on the Ohio State Fairgrounds. The group was able to give back, providing smiles, encouraging words, and exchanges of laughter and stories.

Christmas Cheer is one of the largest holiday aid programs in Central Ohio. The program helps hundreds of lower-income families with a holiday food box and gifts for children 14 years and under. Families in need of toys and food signup at one of the local Salvation Army centers prior to the event.

Lori Banfield, the Salvation Army of Central Ohio’s Christmas Cheer volunteer coordinator, said that this year’s event provided 33,249 gifts for families and a total of 4,712 families received food for holiday meals.

The DLA Land and Maritime team had lunch together after the event and the joy in everyone’s heart was evident. The consensus among the group is that the experience was both humbling and uplifting. It is an important reminder to focus on ones’ blessings.

Editor’s Note: This article was submitted as part of DLA Land and Maritime’s Public Affairs Liaison Program. Interested submitters may contact the Public Affairs Office at dla.land.and.maritime.public.affairs@dla.mil
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16366]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2839]


State Department Consultation With American Indigenous Groups

    The Department of State will hold a consultation between U.S. 
Government officials, federally recognized American Indian and Alaska 
Native Tribes, and other interested groups/parties to discuss issues of 
interest to indigenous groups and to provide tribal leaders with an 
update on progress on the United Nations (U.N.) and Organization of 
American States (OAS) draft declarations on the indigenous rights. This 
consultation is intended to build upon previous consultations held in 
1996 and 1997, providing a regular forum for discussions between the 
Department of State and federally recognized American Indian and Alaska 
Native Tribes. The consultation, which is open to the general public, 
is scheduled for Tuesday, July 14 from 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. and 
Wednesday, July 15, from 8:15 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Department of 
State in Washington, D.C. A reception will be held following the 
meeting from 5-7 p.m. at the Department.
    The consultation will take place in the Loy Henderson Auditorium, 
Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. Registration 
begins at 8:15 a.m, on both days, at the main entrance, 2201 C Street, 
of the Department of State. The public is invited to attend the 
meetings.
    Those interested in attending or seeking additional information 
should contact Karen Jo McIsaac (202-647-2362; fax: 202-647-9519) in 
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the Department of 
State. To ensure that your name is on the list of participants, please 
contact the Department of State no later than July 10, 1998.

    Dated: June 4, 1998.
John Shattuck,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 98-16366 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-18-M
# DLA Distribution Europe supports Turkey humanitarian mission virtually

/ Published Feb. 10, 2016
GERMERSHEIM, Germany, 

To facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies to millions ofSyrian refugees in Turkey and surrounding areas, DLA Distribution Europe,located in Germersheim, Germany, had to verify and receipt materiel virtually — afirst for DLA Distribution.  

When the U.S. Agency for International Development requested assistancefrom the U.S. Transportation Command in coordinating the delivery of criticalcommodities to millions of Syrian refugees fleeing civil war, ittasked its own U.S. Army Military Surface Deploymentand Distribution Command to set up an Intermediate Staging Base in Incirlik,Turkey, to receive and distribute the supplies, which included commodities suchas blankets, fans, gas cookers and hygiene kits.

SDDC successfully executed its mission and put a contractor in place torun the operation, but incoming materiel had to be accepted by a governmentparty.  As a result, SDDC needed to find anorganization that specialized in the receipt and issue of government materiel tofill this void.This iswhere DLA Distribution Europe stepped in to assist.

Because it was deemed too dangerous to put DLA Distribution Europeemployees on site in Turkey, the distribution center had to find a way toverify, both electronically and visually, that the correct materiel was receivedat the ISB or else the materiel couldn’t be officially received and distributedto those in desperate need.  

The process began with the distribution center accessing a centraldatabase, which was populated with all freight moving through Turkey. Once materiel was delivered to the ISB, thecontractor provided the paperwork for the items to DLA Distribution Europe,alongside photos for verification of count and condition.

Employees at DLA Distribution then identified the assets received againstthe assets shipped and listed in the database.  If all information was deemed correct, DLA Distribution Europe commanderArmy Lt. Col. Krista Hoffman signed for official receipt of the items so thatthey could be distributed.

Despite this being the first time any distribution center hadparticipated in any distribution mission virtually, DLA Distribution Europesuccessfully processed 176 total receipts, accounting for more than 537,500individual items.

“I am very proud of what my team accomplished in support of thishumanitarian mission.  Their ability to quicklyadapt to dynamic requirements from a location far from the supplies’ port ofentry shows what dedication and teamwork can do when DDDE gets the call,” saidHoffman.
#### Bank of New York Mellon, Formerly Known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee for Chase Mortgage Finance Trust Series 2006-S2, Appellant, v Arif Izmirligil, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted March 20, 2017;

decided March 30, 2017

Motion by appellant for permission to withdraw the appeal granted and appeal marked withdrawn.
2017-0642.

#### State v. Bennett.

Scioto App. No. 16CA3765, 2017-Ohio-574. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted. Appellant shall file a memorandum in support of jurisdiction within 30 days of the date of this entry.

O’Donnell, French, and DeWine, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 31.1

Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer

I,
James R. Bazet, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15(d)-15(f))for the registrant and have:



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



Date:
March 15, 2010

/s/ JAMES R. BAZETJames R. Bazet
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bennie Coger, Jr, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 673]

*1280Appeal from a judgment of Orleans County Court (Noonan, J.), entered April 27, 2000, upon a jury verdict convicting defendant of, inter alia, rape in the second degree (five counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of five counts each of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30 [1]), sexual abuse in the second degree (§ 130.60 [2]) and incest (§ 255.25). He was acquitted of four counts each of rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]) and sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [1]). Defendant’s sentence, reduced by operation of law to an aggregate indeterminate term of incarceration of 10 to 20 years *(see*§ 70.30 [1] [e] [ii] [B]), is neither unduly harsh nor severe. In addition, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]) and that defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Also contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court gave a proper curative instruction when it struck the victim’s testimony concerning defendant’s reaction to a confrontation between the victim and defendant *(see generally People v Daymon,*239 AD2d 907, 908 [1997], *lv denied*94 NY2d 821 [1999]). The court properly allowed the People to present evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts concerning forcible compulsion in their case-in-chief because that evidence was relevant to establish an element of two of the crimes charged *(see People v Chase,*277 AD2d 1045 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 733 [2001]).

Finally, we note that the District Attorney failed to file a brief in opposition to this appeal and thus failed “to perform his duty to the people of his county” *(People v Herman,*187 AD2d 1027, 1028 [1992], citing *People v Pacella,*47 AD2d 711 [1975]). The District Attorney is obligated to file a brief in opposition “unless the appeal is from a judgment which he concedes should be reversed” *(id.).*“ ‘This responsibility and duty of the District Attorney is in no way diminished or excused by reason of the fact that we have affirmed the conviction after a careful consideration of the record and law’ ” *(Pacella,*47 AD2d at 711, quoting *People v Holcombe,*34 AD2d 728, 728 [1970]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.