alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Lydia M.G., Respondent, v Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent, and Miguel P., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 222]

In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGowan, J.), entered April 20, 2011, as, without a hearing, and upon granting the mother’s petition for an award of sole custody of the parties’ child Alyssa, failed to award him visitation with the child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“The determination of whether to award visitation to a noncustodial parent lies within the sound discretion of the hearing court, and must be based upon the best interests of the child” *(Matter of David V. v Rosalind W.,*62 AD3d 717, 717 [2009]; *see Matter of Ciccone v Ciccone,*74 AD3d 1337 [2010]). The Family Court’s determination should not be disturbed on appeal unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Smith v Dawn F.B.,*88 AD3d 729 [2011]; *Matter of David V. v Rosalind W.,*62 AD3d 717 [2009]; *cf. Matter of Thompson v Yu-Thompson,*41 AD3d 487, 488 [2007]).

In related child protective proceedings, the father admitted to a finding of sexual abuse regarding the parties’ child Alyssa (hereinafter the child) and her sibling, pursuant to Family Court Act § 1051 (a). The child’s therapist, as well as the attorney for the child, strongly recommended that the father have no contact with the child at this time because the child was not ready, and any contact with him would be harmful to her emotional well-being. Indeed, in a companion appeal, this Court is, inter alia, affirming an order of protection prohibiting the father from having any contact with the child for a period of one year *(see Matter of Alyssa G. [Miguel P.],*94 AD3d 995 [2012] [decided herewith]). The record, therefore, contains a sound and substantial basis for the denial, in the child’s best interests, of the father’s request for visitation *(see Matter of David V. v Rosalind W.,*62 AD3d 717 [2009]; *Matter of Carmen L.,*37 AD3d 468 [2007]; *Matter of Sharon E.,*251 AD2d 663, 664 [1998]).

Accordingly, the Family Court properly declined to award the father visitation with the child. Mastro, A.EJ., Hall, Lott and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. GRIFFIN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 6, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Frank Griffin and another. No opinion. Judgment and order (71 Misc. Rep. 568, 128 N. Y. Supp. 946) affirmed, with costs.
#### TEPFER, Respondent, v. BURGER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action 'by Samuel Tepfer against Pinous Burger and others. M. D. Steuer, for appellants. L. Squires, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Exhibit 8



|                                   |  |                         
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Company                            |  | Country of Incorporation
|Oak Shipping Co. Ltd.              |  | Liberia                 
|Avra Trading Co. Ltd.              |  | Liberia                 
|Romeo Shipping Company Limited     |  | Liberia                 
|Figaro Shipping Company Limited    |  | Liberia                 
|Juliet Shipping Company Limited    |  | Liberia                 
|Rigoletto Shipping Company Limited |  | Liberia                 
|Essex Shipping Co. Ltd             |  | Liberia                 
|Grevia Marine Co. Ltd.             |  | Cyprus                  
|Seaport Shipping Corp.             |  | Liberia                 
|Kingsbridge Shipping Co. Ltd.      |  | Liberia                 
|Azimuth Shipping Company Ltd.      |  | Liberia                 
|Bosphorus Shipping Co. Ltd.        |  | Liberia                 
|Oceana Shipping Company Ltd.       |  | Liberia                 
|Horizana Shipping Co. Ltd.         |  | Malta                   
|Fortitude Shipping Co. Ltd.        |  | Malta                   
|Klera Navigation Co. Ltd.          |  | Cyprus                  
|Status Fame S.A.                   |  | Panama                  
|Magnum Faith S.A.                  |  | Panama                  
|Ergo Glory S.A.                    |  | Panama                  
|Sea Mayfair S.A.                   |  | Panama                  
|Jersey Shipping Co. Ltd.           |  | Cyprus                  
|Annapolis Shipping Co. Ltd.        |  | Cyprus                  
|World Excellence S.A.              |  | Panama                  
|Apollo Honour S.A.                 |  | Panama                  
|Apollo Glory S.A.                  |  | Panama                  
|Apollo Excellence S.A.             |  | Panama                  
|Activity Excellence S.A.           |  | Panama                  
|Worldwide Overseas S.A.            |  | Panama                  
|Sea Mentor S.A.                    |  | Panama                  
|Fortune Faith S.A.                 |  | Panama                  
|Victory Faith S.A.                 |  | Panama                  
|Victory Spirit S.A.                |  | Panama                  
|Victory Mare S.A.                  |  | Panama                  
|Universal Reserve S.A.             |  | Panama                  
|Sea Countess S.A.                  |  | Panama                  
|Global Triumph S.A.                |  | Panama                  
|Mercury Emerald S.A.               |  | Panama                  
|Powerful Shipping S.A.             |  | Panama                  
|Sea Optima S.A.                    |  | Panama
<TABLE> <S> <C>


 <ARTICLE> 5
 <LEGEND>
 This Schedule contains summary financial
 information extracted from the financial
 statements contained in the body of the
 accompanying Form 10-Q and is qualified in its
 entirety by reference to such financial
 statements.
 </LEGEND>
 <MULTIPLIER>                  1
        
 <S>                           <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>             OCT-31-1996
 <PERIOD-END>                  JAN-31-1997
 <CASH>                        19,546,294
 <SECURITIES>                  0
 <RECEIVABLES>                 0
 <ALLOWANCES>                  0
 <INVENTORY>                   0
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>              21,040,517
 <PP&E>                        1,760,009
 <DEPRECIATION>                879,955
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                23,082,530
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         1,472,407
 <BONDS>                       0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
 <PREFERRED>                   0
 <COMMON>                      574,787
 <OTHER-SE>                    21,035,336
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  23,082,530
 <SALES>                       0
 <TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
 <CGS>                         0
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,631,521
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>              (261,076)
 <LOSS-PROVISION>              0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
 <INCOME-PRETAX>               (1,370,445)
 <INCOME-TAX>                  0
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>           (1,370,445)
 <DISCONTINUED>                0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>               0
 <CHANGES>                     0
 <NET-INCOME>                  (1,370,455)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.02)
 <EPS-DILUTED>                 0
         

</TABLE>
#### Wilmer Alonso Correa COLORADO; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70648.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

*769Stephanie Thorpe, Rios-Cantor, P.S. Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners.

Gregory Michael Kelch, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Wilmer Alonso Correa Colorado and his family, natives and citizens of Colombia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Colorado contends he suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution by a paramilitary group or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. Contrary to his contention, the record supports the agency’s finding that these groups targeted Colorado in order to extort money from him. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Colorado did not establish he suffered past persecution or fears future persecution on account of a protected ground. *See id.; see also Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998) (criminal activity does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground); *see also Parussimova v. Mukasey,*555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir.2009) (“[t]he REAL ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because Colorado failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Colorado failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Colombia. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*770ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v John Buckmon, Also Known as John Brockmon, Respondent.

— Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), dated August *2,*1983, which granted that branch of defendant’s motion which sought dismissal of the indictment on the ground that he was denied a speedy trial *(People v Buckmon,*120 Misc 2d 355).

Order reversed, on the law, the aforenoted branch of defendant’s motion denied, indictment reinstated, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

Although approximately *8V2*months elapsed from the time of the felony complaint (July 22,1982) until the time of the instant motion (Apr. 14, 1983), our review of the record reveals that there has been no violation of defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial.

CPL 30.30 (1) (a) requires that the People be ready for trial within six months of filing of the accusatory instrument. However, this time period must be computed in light of CPL 30.30 (4) (a) which excludes reasonable periods of delay resulting from “pre-trial motions”.

The People have conceded that they are chargeable with 167 days; the period in dispute is the 34 days between defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss the original indictment for legal insufficiency of the evidence and the order granting that motion. Criminal Term held that this period is chargeable to the People because it was the People’s failure to present a proper case before the Grand Jury which necessitated defendant’s motion to dismiss. This was error. Neither CPL 30.30 nor any other provision contains such an exception to the rule that delays resulting from “pre-trial motions” are excludable. We thus conclude that the total time period chargeable to the People was within the statutory limit of CPL 30.30 and that the dismissal of the indictment on the ground of the denial of a speedy trial was improper.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Brown, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000, THE CONDENSED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,522
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        802
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,701
<PP&E>                                         188,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,830
<BONDS>                                        139,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           44,966
<PREFERRED>                                     25,057
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (31,268)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,156
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,493
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,235
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,258
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,258
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### SPILA, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. *&*H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Tomassina Spiia, as administratrix, etc., of John Spiia, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. For former opinion, see 147 App. Div. 666, 132 N. Y. Supp. 151. See, also, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1147.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order reversed upon reargument, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, on the ground that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law.

WOODWARD, J., dissents.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Max W. Hillman, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of The HillmanCompanies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e and 15d-15e) for the registrantand we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: 3/26/04     /s/ Max W. Hillman   Max W. Hillman Chief Executive Officer
[No. 19846-1-II.

Division Two.

August 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eric James Schauman, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-8-01186-9, Rosanne Buckner, J., entered July 31, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Armstrong, J.; Morgan, J., concurring in the result only.
**Exhibit 32 (i)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RonaldA. Walko, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)           the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/  Ronald A. Walko     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Ronald  A. Walko         |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                     |   |
| August 10, 2009     |   |

 

----
Presidential Documents

34591 

Federal Register 

Vol. 86, No. 123 

Wednesday, June 30, 2021 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of June 21, 2021 

Delegation of Certain Authorities and Functions Under Section 353 of the United States-Northern Triangle Enhanced 

Engagement Act 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State all authorities 

and functions vested in the President by section 353 of the United StatesNorthern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act (Subtitle F of Title III of Division FF of Public Law 116–260) (the ‘‘Act’’). 

Any reference herein to the Act related to the subject of this memorandum 

shall be deemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provisions 

of law that are the same or substantially the same as such provisions. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 21, 2021 

[FR Doc. 2021–14072 

Filed 6–29–21; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with MEMO_FRBIDEN.EPS</GPH>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,864
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   555
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,451
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             200
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               201
<LOANS>                                        180,053
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,457
<DEPOSITS>                                     213,570
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,126
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,076
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 253,457
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,018
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,463
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   180
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,661
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,029
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,379
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,282
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      289
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (28)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,888
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,888
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.48
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.72
<LOANS-NON>                                        457
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   867
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,010
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       48
<RECOVERIES>                                        51
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,302
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,302
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>