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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       9,585,132
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            14,800,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               200,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,465,370
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,686,484
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,609,061
<LOANS>                                    127,864,961
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,174,458
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             195,078,433
<DEPOSITS>                                 170,738,228
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,390,595
<LONG-TERM>                                    385,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,978,373
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,384,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             195,078,433
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,382,606
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,822,511
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               373,534
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            10,578,651
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,701,776
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,132
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        6,850,743
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,895,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,514,520
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,514,520
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,464,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.89
<LOANS-NON>                                    439,895
<LOANS-PAST>                                    22,412
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,197,694
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   42,896
<RECOVERIES>                                    19,750
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,174,458
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,557,398
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        617,060
        

</TABLE>
DENNIS EUGENE LONG

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3234

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 5, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Gail E. Anderson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR

, JAY

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### STATE ex rel. CARROLL, Guardian, Relator, *v.*DISTRICT COURT et al., Respondents.

(No. 3,655.)

(Submitted March 29, 1915.

Decided April 13, 1915.)

[148 Pac. 314.]

*Supervisory Control*— *Disqualification of District Judges*— De*privation of Bight*— *Abuse of Discretion.*

1. A proceeding looking to the removal of a guardian of the person and estate of an incompetent was transferred from one depart*511ment to another of a district court, ten minutes before the closing hour of the business day; the judge of the latter department on the next day made an order setting the hearing for 3 o’clock P. M. of the same day, service being made upon the guardian at 10:30 o’clock A. M. *Held,*under *State ex rel. Carroll*v. *District Court, ante,*p. 506, that the order setting the hearing for the hour at which it was fixed was an abuse of discretion,. and therefore void.

Original application for writ of supervisory control to review an order of the District Court of Lewis and Clark County, and J. M. Clements, a judge thereof, setting the day of hearing of a cause.

Order annulled.

*Messrs. Galen & Mettler*and *Mr. Ed. Phelan,*for Relator.

*Mr. Wellington D. Rankin,*for Respondents.

MR. JUSTICE SANNER

delivered the opinion of the court.

On March 3, 1915, a petition by Anna E. Nett was filed in department No. 2 of the district court of Lewis and Clark- county, Hon. J. Miller Smith, judge presiding, praying for the removal of Joseph J. Carroll as guardian of the person and estate of Mary Murphy, incompetent. Thereafter, and at 4:50 P. M. on March 24, she presented to Judge Smith an affidavit imputing bias and prejudice to him in the matter of said guardianship, whereupon the same was transferred to department No. 1, Hon. J. M. Clements, Judge. On March 25 Judge Clements made an order setting the hearing of the petition to remove the guardian for the same day at 3 o’clock P. M., directing notice of such hearing to be served before noon, and service was made upon the guardian at 10:30 o’clock in the morning. Thereafter, and before 3 o ’clock P. M. of that day, the guardian filed his affidavit seeking to disqualify Judge Clements, but this the judge has ignored and intends to ignore. This court is asked, under its supervisory power, to annul the order referred to as an abuse of discretion by Judge Clements, the specific contention being that the guardian was thereby deprived of his right of disqualification. Under the authority of *State ex rel. Carroll*v. *District*
      *512
      *Court, ante,*p. 506, 147 Pac. 312, the order complained of is annulled.

*Order annulled.*

Mr. Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.
Exhibit 13.1




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 G. Willi-Food International Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gil Hochboim, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, as amended; and




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




Date: April 30, 2014




By:

/s/ Gil Hochboim

Name: Gil Hochboim

Title: Chief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

without oral argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: AMR MOHSEN,

 Debtor,

AMR MOHSEN,

 Appellant,

 v.

CAROL WU, Chapter 7 Trustee,

 Appellee.

No. 11-60013

BAP No. 09-1159

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Hollowell, Kirscher, and Saltzman, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013**

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAY 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-60013

Amr Mohsen appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)

judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders denying Mohsen’s motion to set

aside the default judgment against corporate entity defendants and his motion for

reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de

novo BAP decisions, and apply the same standard of review that the BAP applied

to the bankruptcy court’s ruling. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian),

564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We review for an abuse of discretion a

denial of a motion for reconsideration, First Ave. W. Bldg. LLC v. James (In re

Onecast Media, Inc.), 439 F.3d 558, 561 (9th Cir. 2006), and a denial of a motion

to set aside default judgment, Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir.

2004). We affirm. 

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohsen’s

motions because Mohsen is not an attorney and therefore cannot represent the

named corporate entities. See D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc.,

366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is a longstanding rule that corporations

and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”

(alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Moreover, Mohsen lacks standing to defend against the complaint as a

shareholder or as an alter ego of the named corporate entities. See Moneymaker v.
3 11-60013

Coben (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 n.2 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he debtor’s assets

and claims pass to the trustee, making the trustee the proper party in interest and

the only party with standing to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)); Communist Party v. 522 Valencia, Inc., 41 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 618, 626 (Ct. App. 1995) (alter ego liability “is not a doctrine that allows

the persons who actually control the corporation to disregard the corporate form”);

see also Goodrich v. Briones (In re Schwarzkopf), 626 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.

2010) (state law determines whether alter ego liability applies). 

Mohsen’s contention that Wu lacks standing is unpersuasive. 

Mohsen’s motion to strike Wu’s answering brief is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,362
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,768
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     21,920
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          15,340
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,911
<LOANS>                                        100,737
<ALLOWANCE>                                        938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,956
<DEPOSITS>                                     136,389
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,177
<LONG-TERM>                                        800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,160
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 153,956
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,657
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,176
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   289
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,122
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,544
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,597
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,525
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      340
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   4
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,081
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,081
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,555
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.08
<LOANS-NON>                                         48
<LOANS-PAST>                                       388
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   877
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      471
<RECOVERIES>                                       192
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  938
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               938
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            493


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-61223 

Summary Calendar 

Jose German Hernandez Zepeda, 

Petitioner, 

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A205 877 458 

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jose German Hernandez-Zepeda, a native and citizen of Honduras, 

petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA) of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum and 

withholding of removal. Hernandez-Zepeda argues that the BIA erred by 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 28, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-61223 Document: 00516257180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 20-61223 

2 

dismissing his appeal, contending that he established that he suffered past 

persecution and that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution based 

on his membership in a particular social group comprised of men who are 

believed to be in an adulterous relationship. 

We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 

for substantial evidence. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517-18 (5th 

Cir. 2012). “Under the substantial evidence standard, reversal is improper 

unless we decide not only that the evidence supports a contrary conclusion, 

but also that the evidence compels it.” Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 

(5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision that HernandezZepeda failed to show that he suffered past persecution. See id. The harm 

suffered by Hernandez-Zepeda, which consisted of an altercation involving a 

single punch to the chest and the brandishing of a gun as well as numerous 

threats, does not rise to the level of past persecution. See Majd v. Gonzales, 

446 F.3d 590, 596 (5th Cir. 2006); see also Thuri v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 788, 

792-93 (5th Cir. 2004). Additionally, because the harm was motivated by 

purely personal reasons, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that 

he failed to establish a nexus between the harm and a protected ground. See 

Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182, 190 (5th Cir. 2004). That finding was fatal 

to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 

185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, the BIA was not required to address the 

cognizability of Hernandez-Zepeda’s proposed particular social group. See 

INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). Because Hernandez-Zepeda 

failed to satisfy the asylum standard, he cannot meet the more stringent 

standard for withholding of removal. See Gonzales-Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 

219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Case: 20-61223 Document: 00516257180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2028 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2028

 To make permanent the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom 
  Act as it applies to new, multiple, and discriminatory taxes on the 
                               Internet.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2000

   Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Abraham and Mr. Leahy) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To make permanent the moratorium enacted by the Internet Tax Freedom 
  Act as it applies to new, multiple, and discriminatory taxes on the 
                               Internet.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Non-discrimination Act''.

SEC. 2. REPLACEMENT OF MORATORIUM WITH PERMANENT BAN ON NEW, MULTIPLE, 
              AND DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON THE INTERNET.

    Section 1101(a) of title XI of division C of Public Law 105-277 is 
amended by striking ``during the period beginning on October 1, 1998, 
and ending 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act'' and 
inserting ``on or after October 1, 1998''.
                                 <all>
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1978

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery

for veterans in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, metropolitan area.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 19, 1999

Mr. DOMENICI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a

national cemetery for veterans in the Albuquerque, New

Mexico, metropolitan area.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CEMETERY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

5 shall establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38,

6 United States Code, a national cemetery in the Albu7 querque, New Mexico, metropolitan area to serve the

8 needs of veterans and their families.

9 (b) REPORT.—As soon as practicable after the date

10 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
2

•S 1978 IS

1 to Congress a report that sets forth a schedule for the

2 establishment of the national cemetery under subsection

3 (a) and an estimate of the costs associated with the estab4 lishment of the national cemetery.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2173 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2173

    To suspend temporarily the duty on PHBA (p-hydroxybenzoic acid).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2000

 Mr. Thompson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on PHBA (p-hydroxybenzoic acid).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``    9902.29.03    PHBA (p-          Free              Free              No change         On or before 12/
                     Hydroxybenzoic                                                          31/2002          ''
                     acid), of a                                                                               .
                     kind used for
                     production of
                     liquefied
                     crystal polymer
                     (LCP) (CAS No.
                     000099-96-7)
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     2918.29.22)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth v. Newport, Licking & Alexandria Turnpike Company.

(Decided January 4, 1912.)

Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.

The effect of a contract between a turnpike company and a city cannot be determined in the absence frrom the record of the contract.

WILLIAM A. BURCAMP, JAS. GARNETT, Attorney General and CHAS. ,H. MORRIS, Assistant Attorney General for appellant.

SAMUEL C. BAILEY for appellee.

EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF OPINION BY

JUDGE Carroll.

The opinion rendered herein on November 23, 1911. reported in 145 Ky., 490, is extended and modified as follows :

Under an act of the legislature that became a law on February 12, 1880 — Acts of 1879, Vol. 1, page 154 — it is provided in section six that:

> “Said turnpike company is authorized to contract with the city of Newport in reference to the use, improvement, change of grade, or control of that part of the road of the company lying within the corporate limits of said city, without in any way impairing the right of said company to charge for and collect tolls over the same.”

*82It is said in the brief of counsel for appellee with which we have been favored since the opinion was delivered, that as authorized by this act the appellee company entered into a contract with the City of Newport. But as stated in the opinion, the contract, if one was made, is not in the record; nor does the record disclose the character of contract, if any, that was entered into. In the absence of this contract we cannot determine the rights or liabilities of the turnpike company, and we decline to express any opinion upon what its rights or liabilities may be.

It is also said by counsel for the Commonwealth, in a petition for an extension of the Opinion, that as the turnpike company charges and collects toll upon that part of its road that is within the city limits, it is under a duty to keep it in repair, and we are asked to so rule. But we decline to express an opinion upon this subject in the absence from the record of the contract tetween the city and the turnpike company. The act of the legislature referred to by counsel and before quoted does not constitute any contract between the turnpike company and the city. It merely authorizes the making of a contract.

To further remove any doubt as to our purpose not to determine the rights of the parties in the absence of the contract, we withdraw so much of the opinion as reads:

> “If the turnpike company and the city entered into a valid contract or agreement, by which the turnpike company surrendered and the city assumed control of so much of the road as lies within the city limits, the city and not ■ the turnpike company is chargeable with the maintenance of so much of the road. On the other hand, although a part of the road is within the city limits, yet if it is a part of the turnpike road and the company charges and collects tolls for travel thereon, the turnpike company would be liable under the statute for failing to keep it in repair.”