alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
461 A.2d 838

#### In re INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO SCOTT AND TOMMY. Appeal of C.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 26, 1983.

Filed June 10, 1983.

*145Wayne Fulton Shade, Carlisle, for appellant.

Ruth Duncan O’Brien, Carlisle, for appellees.

Ruby D. Weeks, Carlisle, for participating party.

Before ROWLEY, WIEAND and POPOVICH, JJ.

ROWLEY, Judge:

Appellant is the natural mother of nine-year-old Scott and eight-year-old Tommy. This appeal is from an order terminating her parental rights to her sons.

The termination order was entered on May 7, 1982, almost two months after the United States Supreme Court decided *Santosky v. Kramer,*455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, *14671 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). The evidentiary hearings, however, were held prior to that decision.

In *Santosky,*the Court held that the burden of proof required in involuntary termination of parental rights cases is “clear and convincing evidence”. The trial court’s opinion sets out in detail the extensive evidence which was presented at the hearings. However, no mention is made of the standard of proof which was used in evaluating that evidence. Therefore, it is impossible for us to determine if the correct standard, clear and convincing evidence, was applied in this case.

As an appellate court, we may not make our own initial determination of whether the evidence meets the clear and convincing standard. Such an evaluation is for the factfinder. *In re: Adoption of M.E.T,*313 Pa.Super. 316, 459 A.2d 1247 (1983). As the Supreme Court stated in *Santosky:*

> “Since the litigants and- the factfinder must know at the outset of a given proceeding how the risk of error will be allocated, the standard of proof necessarily must be calibrated in advance. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evi-dentiary standard.”

> 455 U.S. at 757, 102 S.Ct. at 1396,'71 L.Ed.2d at 609.

Therefore, we will remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings at which the clear and convincing evidence standard will be applied.

As pointed out by Judge Cavanaugh in *In re: Adoption of M.E.T., supra,*new evidentiary hearings may not be necessary in a case such as this. The trial court will determine, after hearing arguments of counsel, whether new evidentiary hearings are required. If the court concludes that counsel would have tried the case differently had it known that a clear and convincing standard would be applied or concludes that the evidence should be expanded, then it should schedule new evidentiary hearings. However, if the court concludes that new evidentiary hearings are not required, it need only reconsider its prior findings in *147light of the clear and convincing standard and modify those findings as necessary.

Order vacated and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction relinquished.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


       
<S>                                 <C>

<ARTICLE>                           6
<SERIES>
     <NUMBER>                       001
     <NAME>
                                    Federated Municipal
                                    Securities Fund, Inc.
                                    Class A Shares
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        Mar-31-1998
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>               694,344,458
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>              724,749,481
<RECEIVABLES>                       13,226,554
<ASSETS-OTHER>                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      737,976,035
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>            39,478,519
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>             0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>           2,267,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                 41,745,959
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                     0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>            672,001,933
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>               54,217,940
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>               57,773,220
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>           0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>              (3,851,364)
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>             (2,325,516)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>            0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>            30,405,023
<NET-ASSETS>                        591,310,325
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                   39,150,357
<OTHER-INCOME>                      0
<EXPENSES-NET>                      7,004,385
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>             32,145,972
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>            (664,845)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>           42,415,663
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>               73,896,790
<EQUALIZATION>                      0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>           28,187,919
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>            1,381,790
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>               446,648
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>             9,670,305
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>         15,033,250
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                 1,807,665
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>              2,635,228
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>             0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>           (34,795)
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>             (3,325,545)
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>          0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>               3,872,458
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                     7,845,975
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                702,466,607
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               10.310
<PER-SHARE-NII>                     0.460
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>             0.640
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                0.460
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>           0.030
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                0.010
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 10.910
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                     0.86
<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>              0
<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>                0.000
        



</TABLE>
**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 Annual Report of Voice Assist, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Silva, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

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

/s/ Michael Silva                  

Michael Silva

Chief Financial Officer 

August 15, 2011
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20834

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BETTY JORDAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-92-146-1

- - - - - - - - - -

August 20, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Betty Jordan appeals from her resentencing on remand. She argues that this court erred

by failing to order on remand either a new trial or a hearing in the district court to determine

whether a new trial should be granted and that the district court erred in resentencing her by

unreasonably departing upwards from the sentencing range. We have reviewed the record and
No. 95-20834

-2-

find no reversible error. Additionally, the first issue raised by Jordan is not properly before this

court on appeal. See Burroughs v. 

FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - - EN

*|*

#

**Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6207 — GESTAMP/TKMF) Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 243 , 20/08/2011 P. 0002 - 0002 *

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6207 — GESTAMP/TKMF)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 243/03

On 18 July 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

- in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

- in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6207. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

--------------------------------------------------
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUSA DOMINGO

- GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71919 Agency No. A206

- 799

- 754

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020 * *
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jesusa Domingo

- Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigr ation Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

* 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

APR 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71919

agency’s factual findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014)

. We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Domingo

Gonzalez failed to establish she was or would be persecuted in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ( a n applicant’s “ desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected groun d.”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Domingo

Gonzalez failed to establish a n objectively reasonable fear of future persecution as a member of a disfavored group

. See Halim v. Holder , 590 F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009) ( petitioner must demonstrate a “unique risk of persecution upon return that was distinct from the petitioner’s mere membership in a disfavored group.” (citation omitted)). Thus, Domingo

- Gonzalez’s asylum claim fail s
. In this case, b ecause Domingo

- Gonzalez failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she failed to establish eligibility for w ithholding of removal. See Zehatye
v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because3 19

- 71919

Domingo

- Gonzalez failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Garcia

- Milian , 755 F.3d at 1033

- 35 (concluding that petitioner did not
establi sh the necessary “ state action ” for CAT relief). Domingo

- Gonzalez’s opposed motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Wolfe Creek Mining, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kristen
Paul, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
5th day of August, 2009.


/s/ Kristen Paul
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2011140EN.01000101.xml

| 11.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6127 — Atos Origin/Siemens IT Solutions & Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 140/01

On 25 March 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6127. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6127. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

No. 23-30087

____________

Fucich Contracting, Incorporated; Kathleen Fucich; 

Clayton Fucich, 

Plaintiffs—Appellants,

versus

Shread-Kuyrkendall & Associates, Incorporated; St. 

Bernard Parish; XL Specialty Insurance Company; 

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, 

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CV-2885

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

*

AFFIRMED. Appellants have not identified any reversible error of 

law in either the district court’s denial of partial summary judgment or the 

court’s judgment following the bench trial. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30087 Document: 152-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2024
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

June 18, 2008.

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Greenstone Holdings, Inc. (“Greenstone”).

Greenstone is incorporated under the laws of Florida and has its primary headquarters in New York, New York. Questions have arisen regarding the adequacy and accuracy of press releases, financial statements, and statements on the company's Web site concerning the company's current financial condition, business and operations, and stock promoting activity.

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in Greenstone's securities.

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 18, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 1, 2008.

By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson, 

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 08-1373 Filed 6-18-08; 10:51 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 76

Teleconference Meeting

April 20, 2011; 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time 

Teleconference Phone: 866-659-0537 

Participant Code: 9933701 

11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) Start

• Roll-call – Mr. Katz, DFO

• Welcome – Dr. Melius, Chair

• Recording Absent Member Votes from February Meeting – Mr. Katz, DFO

• NIOSH 10 -Year Program Review Update – Dr. Wade, NIOSH

• Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status Update – Mr. Rutherford, DCAS

(Update on DCAS petition evaluations to be presented at the May 2011 Board meeting) 

• Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees (as necessary) – WG/SC Chairs

• Board Correspondence – Dr. Melius, Chair

• Future Plans/Suggestions for the May 2011 Board Meeting Agenda – All Members
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ASA HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         112,393
<SECURITIES>                                    71,487
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (295)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,770
<PP&E>                                         511,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                 231,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 505,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,792
<BONDS>                                         72,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,973
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   505,960
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               385,290
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,834
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 86,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,512
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.81


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7490

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus IVAN JULIAN STEVENSON, a/k/a Issac, a/k/a Ike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-93-30025-3, CA-01-495-7) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Julian Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Paul Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Ruth Elizabeth Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ivan Julian Stevenson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andorders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stevenson , Nos. CR-93- 30025-3; CA-01-495-7 (W.D. Va. July 9, 2001; Aug. 7, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED