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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MAY 31, 1998 AND AUGUST 31, 1998, THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDERS' DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1998 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED AUGUST 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      429
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,995
<PP&E>                                          87,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                (19,227)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,964
<BONDS>                                         97,178
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,530
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,065)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,731
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (102)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (176)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (176)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### SIRE, Respondent, v. BROWNING, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Meyer L. Sire against Edward F. Browning. C. E. Thornall, for appellant. H. B. Johnson, for respondent. No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion, granted, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, supra.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anatolis Fominas, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (De Lury, J.), rendered January 20, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree and hindering prosecution in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The prosecution called Pasquale Simone to testify regarding certain statements that defendant allegedly made to him regarding the abuse and subsequent death and dismemberment of defendant’s wife’s three-year-old daughter. Simone testified on both direct and cross-examination that he had been convicted after trial in 1978 of conspiracy to commit murder. At the time of the instant trial, an appeal in connection with Simone’s conviction was pending. Simone invoked his privilege against self-incrimination as to two questions asked by defense counsel on cross-examination regarding the facts underlying his conviction.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it allowed Simone to invoke his 5th Amendment rights on cross-examination. He maintains that Simone was not justified in invoking the privilege and that his invocation of the privilege prejudiced defendant. We disagree.

The court properly limited defense counsel’s cross-examination of Simone regarding the facts underlying his criminal conviction, as to which an appeal was still pending, since his appeal could have resulted in a new trial *(see, Matter of Jaime*
      *869
      *T.,*96 Misc 2d 173; *Knight v Maybee,*44 Misc 2d 152; *Klein v Harris,*667 F2d 274; *Prentice v Hsu,*280 F Supp 384). The court properly allowed Simone’s testimony to stand because the two questions he refused to answer about his prior conviction related only to the collateral matter of his credibility *(Matter of Ryder v Harris,*93 AD2d 971; *Klein v Harris, supra),*and did not pertain at all to the facts surrounding the charged crimes. Since the unanswered questions were collateral, allowing Simone to refrain from answering them did not violate defendant’s right to confront witnesses *(People v Jones,*99 AD2d 471; *accord, People v Acomb,*87 AD2d 1, *lv dismissed*56 NY2d 1034).

The evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty, both as a principal and as an accessory, of depraved indifference murder (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; *People v Brathwaite,*63 NY2d 839; *People v Register,*60 NY2d 270, *cert denied*— US —, 104 S Ct 2159; *People v Poplis,*30 NY2d 85; *People v Kanelos,*107 AD2d 764; *People v McNeeley,*77 AD2d 205; *People v Lilly,*71 AD2d 393).

We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 35263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14196]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 2113]


Approval of Expansion and Modification of Subzone 149C; Phillips 
66 Company; Brazoria County, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Act provides for ``. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the 
establishment of subzones for specific uses;
    Whereas, Port Freeport, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 149, has made 
application to the Board to expand and modify Subzone 149C on behalf of 
Phillips 66 Company to include an additional 490 acres at Site 1 and to 
remove 220 acres from Site 1 (FTZ Docket B-25-2021, docketed March 22, 
2021);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (86 FR 16183-16184, March 26, 2021) and the 
application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's 
regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations are satisfied;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the expansion and 
modification of Subzone 149C on behalf of Phillips 66 Company, as 
described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to 
the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Dated: June 28, 2021.
Christian B. Marsh,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-14196 Filed 7-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
[Cite as State v. Lindsay, 2015-Ohio-3284.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2015-03-050 

 CA2015-03-052 

 : 

 - vs - D E C I S I O N

 : 8/17/2015 

WILLIAM F. LINDSAY : 

aka WILLIAM F. LINDSEY, 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

 : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2013-06-0957 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee 

John T. Willard, P.O. Box 35, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, William Lindsay, has filed a brief with this 

court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 
Butler CA2015-03-050 

 CA2915-03-052

 - 2 - 

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any 

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of 

error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," 

Anders, at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently 

to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement 

of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for 

appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both 

the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based upon our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: March 30, 2009 /s/ David Seton   David Seton   Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Ronald Davidson, Appellant, v Charles Scully, as Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility that petitioner was guilty of unauthorized use of a telephone, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Nicolai, J.), dated May 20, 1983, which dismissed the proceeding. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated December 21, 1983, which denied his motion for renewal.

Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, and judgment and order vacated. Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

Upon a de novo review of the record *(see, Matter of Perez v Wilmot,*111 AD2d 757), we find that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the challenged determination. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32 (ii)**

 

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, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Brian L. Knepp, Chief Financial 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/  Brian L. Knepp      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Brian  L. Knepp          |
| Chief  Financial Officer |
|                     |
| August 9,  2010     |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LAURENTHIA BOSWELL, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 13 C 700

)

vs. ) Judge Jon E. DeGuilio

) Magistrate Judge Christopher A.

JEFFREY CHESTER, and ) Nuechterlein 

CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF NO OBJECTION

Plaintiff, through counsel, does not object to Defendants’ Motion to Amend/Correct

Clerk’s Judgment (Dkt. 16). 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Sara Garber

Counsel for Plaintiff

Jackowiak Law Offices

20 North Clark Street, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 795-9595

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00700-JD-CAN document 17 filed 01/07/14 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sara Garber, certify that on Tuesday, January 7, 2014, this notice was filed through the

District Court’s CM/ECF automated docketing system thereby causing service upon all counsel

of record. 

/s/ Sara Garber

Counsel for Plaintiff

Jackowiak Law Offices

20 North Clark Street, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 795-9595

USDC IN/ND case 3:13-cv-00700-JD-CAN document 17 filed 01/07/14 page 2 of 2
### ------------------

Tyrone Julius, Plaintiff,
v. Judge Vince, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED OCT 1 7 :211 Clerk, 

### u.s. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the Dlstrltt of Columbia 

# Ll 

# lbi.!3

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs

### pro se complaint and application to proceed 

### informapauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. 

### See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matterjurisdiction is wanting). Plaintiff, a District ofColumbia resident, purports to sue ajudge ofthe Superior Court of the District ofColumbia for monetary damages exceeding $999 million. The cryptic "Complaint," consisting mostly ofnonsensical racial statements, presents "the sort ofpatently insubstantial claim[]" that is subject to dismissal for want ofsubject matterjurisdiction. 

### Tooley
v. 

### Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); 

### see Caldwell v. 

### Kagan, 777 F. Supp.2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) ("A district court lacks subject matterjurisdiction when the complaint 'is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.' ") 

### (quoting Tooley, 

### 586 F.3d at 1009). A separate Order ofdismissal acco p;ies this Mernzz**~ion.**

Date:

# October~, 2011 

# 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**ROBERT C. MCCULLIGAN,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE AND,**
**CHARLES STEINMETZ, PSP STATETROOPER, INDIVIDUAL AND**  **OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND, MICHAEL J. MINANNO, PSP STATE TROOPER,** 

**INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND, ANTHONY J. SPAGNOLETTI,**  **MONTGOMERY COUNTY DETECTIVE,**

**INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AND, WALTER ZDUNOWSKI,**  **MONTGOMERY COUNTY DETECTIVE,**

**INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY**
**AND, ERICK ECHEVARRIA, MONTGOMERY COUNTY DETECTIVE,**  **INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY,**

**Appellees :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 79 MAP 2015** 

**Appeal from the Order of the**

**Commonwealth Court at No. 670 MD 2014 dated September 10, 2015.** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 25, 2016

AND NOW, **this 25 th**  **day of April, 2016, the order of the Commonwealth C ourt is** 

**AFFIRMED.**
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Innovative Fruit Production, Improvement, and Protection: Kearneysville, WV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Upcoming Events
                    Recent Events
                        International Workshop The Fruit Microbiome: A New Frontier
                                    Open House 2019Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Site Pageheadline bar Open House October 2019
               Improving Fruit Crop Traits Through Advanced Genomic, Breeding, and Management Technologies


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### WHITMAN, Respondent, v. MORRIS et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Walter M. Whitman against Harry S. Morris and others. G. P. Breckenridge, for appellants. J. B. Leavitt, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
gfed20150303_8k.htm




 

Exhibit 10.2

 

 

 

Written Description of 

2015 Executive Incentive Compensation Annual Plan – 

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

The following is a description of the material terms of the 2015 Executive Incentive Compensation Annual Plan (the “Plan”) that was adopted by the Compensation Committee (the “Committee”) of the Board of Directors of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) with respect to the bonus payable to Carter Peters, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer (the "Executive"), for 2015:

 

The Plan will pay a maximum of $72,000 of which fifty percent (50%) of the bonus amount will be paid in cash and fifty percent (50%) will be paid in the form of restricted stock grants. There are three possible levels of incentive awards: threshold (25%); target (50%); and maximum (100%). For any bonus amount to be paid, the threshold level of performance must be achieved. The bonus amount will be prorated for performance achievements between the threshold and target levels and between the target and maximum levels. The four performance measurements of the Company (and the weight given to each measurement) applicable to each award level are as follows: (i) revenue growth (30%); (ii) net interest margin (20%); (iii) efficiency ratio (20%); and (iv) pre-tax net income (30%). The following minimum criteria must all be satisfied before an award is paid under the Plan: (i) net income of the Company for calendar year 2015 of at least 75% of approved budget to receive full performance incentive and incentive will be reduced by 50% if Company achieves between 50% and 74.99% of budget net income; No incentive will be paid if net income is below 50% of budget; (ii) satisfactory audits as determined by the Board of Directors of the Company after review of findings from regulatory examination reports and applicable audits and reviews; (iii) the bank’s tier 1 leverage capital and total risk-based capital ratios must not fall below 9% and 12%, respectively, and adversely classified assets to tier 1 capital and allowance for loan losses must not exceed 35%; and (iv) satisfactory performance appraisal, actively employed by Guaranty Bank, and in good standing at the time the bonus is paid, which will not be prior to the public release of earnings in 2016 for the calendar year 2015. The Board of Directors of the Company retains the right to make the final determination of the bonus payment and amount, if any, and may consider other pertinent facts prior to making an award of restricted stock. All incentive payments shall be subject to the Company’s Compensation Clawback Policy.

 

The Plan also includes vesting and holding periods for the restricted stock grants. The vesting period for these grants shall be three (3) years from the date of grant. Also, the Executive agrees not to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of such shares for a period of three (3) years from the date of the award. Exceptions to such restriction on sale, transfer or disposition may be granted for hardship circumstances to be determined by the Committee.
#### NOURSE, Appellant, v. L E X I N G T O N DIME SAVINGS & LOAN ASS’N et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Claim of Oliver W. Nourse against the Lexington Dime Savings & Loan Association and another.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

KRUSE, J., dissents.