alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rome Bancorp, Inc

Form 10-QSB

For the quarter ended June 30, 2004

EXHIBIT 32.1

Statement furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, Charles M. Sprock, is the Chief Executive Officer of Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



August 9, 2004						/s/Charles M. Sprock

Dated								Charles M. Sprock

Rome Bancorp, Inc.

Form 10-QSB

For the quarter ended June 30, 2004

Statement furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, David C. Nolan, is the Chief Financial Officer of Rome Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



August 9, 2004					/s/David C. Nolan 
Dated							David C. Nolan
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,092)
<INVENTORY>                                     89,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,851
<PP&E>                                         146,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,077)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 220,039
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          539,405
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,834
<OTHER-SE>                                   (327,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   220,039
<SALES>                                          5,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,311
<CGS>                                            2,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  400,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (395,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (395,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (395,441)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)


</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

GABRIEL VAQUERA NAVA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50270

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01199-WQH-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 6, 2013** 

Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Gabriel Vaquera Nava timely appeals his conviction for one

count of being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a) and (b). On appeal, Defendant challenges the district court’s denial of

his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the underlying deportation

FILED

NOV 08 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

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

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

without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
was invalid. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Lopez-Velasquez, 629 F.3d 894,

896–97 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), we affirm.

Defendant fails to demonstrate that the removal order underlying his

conviction was "fundamentally unfair" for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). 

United States v. Cisneros-Resendiz, 656 F.3d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Assuming, without deciding, that the immigration judge’s ("IJ") duty to inform,

under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.11(a)(2), includes such relief as withdrawal of an

application for admission, Defendant has failed to show prejudice, that is, that the

IJ would have plausibly granted Defendant’s withdrawal. Cisneros-Resendiz, 656

F.3d at 1019. In particular, Defendant fails to establish that factors "directly

relating to the issue of inadmissibility indicate that the granting of the withdrawal

would be in the interest of justice." 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(d); see In re Gutierrez, 19 I.

& N. Dec. 562, 564–65 (B.I.A. 1988) (holding that equitable factors, such as lack

of a criminal record and lawful permanent resident status, are not directly related to

the issue of inadmissibility). The record before the IJ included evidence that

Defendant had attempted to enter the United States on a false claim of citizenship

and had engaged in intentional smuggling of a non-family member for

compensation. In consideration of these factors, "it is not plausible that the IJ

would have granted [Defendant] permission to withdraw his application for

2
admission." Cisneros-Resendiz, 656 F.3d at 1023. Accordingly, Defendant was

not prejudiced by the IJ’s failure to inform him of that relief, and Defendant’s

underlying deportation order was not invalid. The district court did not err in

denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. 

AFFIRMED.

3
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

464 

KA 10-01872 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSE LATORRE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (STEPHEN J. DILORENZO

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County

(Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered September 8, 2010. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a

jury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20

[1]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to

support the conviction and that the verdict is against the weight of

the evidence. The issue of legal sufficiency is preserved for our

review regarding the evidence of identification because that was the

basis of defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal after the

People presented their proof. Defendant failed, however, to preserve

for our review his further contention concerning the alleged legal

insufficiency of the evidence of intent, inasmuch as defense counsel

did not address the issue of intent in his motion for a trial order of

dismissal (see generally People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). With respect

to the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence, we note that

reversal is warranted “where the testimony is incredible and

unbelievable, that is, impossible of belief because it is manifestly

untrue, physically impossible, contrary to experience, or selfcontradictory” (People v Wallace, 306 AD2d 802, 802-803 [internal

quotation marks omitted]). We conclude that the evidence of

identification in this case, although largely circumstantial, is

legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v

Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). In addition, viewing the evidence in

light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People

v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not

against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 NY2d at
-2- 464 

KA 10-01872 

495; People v Flagg, 59 AD3d 1003, 1004, lv denied 12 NY3d 853). We

further reject defendant’s contention that defense counsel was

ineffective for failing to request that Supreme Court charge a lesser

included offense (see People v Calderon, 66 AD3d 314, 320, lv denied

13 NY3d 858). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION, Appellant, and AT & T Mobility LLC, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee. In re AT & T Mobility LLC, Petitioner.

Nos. 2008-1301, 2008-1302.

Misc. No. 873.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 17, 2008.

*977Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

ON MOTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

BRYSON, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

AT & T Mobility LLC (ATTM) (1) petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling the International Trade Commission (ITC) to rule immediately on ATTM’s petition for review of Order No. 62, which denied ATTM’s motion for leave to intervene, (2) moves for a stay, pending appeal, of enforcement proceedings before the ITC, (3) moves for a stay, pending the mandamus petition, of enforcement proceedings before the ITC until two business days after ATTM receives notice of the ITC disposition of ATTM’s petition for review, and (4) moves to expedite briefing and oral argument.

The ITC initiated an investigation and determined that certain baseband processor chipsets made by Qualcomm Incorporated violate Broadcom Corporation’s patent. Qualcomm subsequently developed redesigned chipsets. In response to a complaint filed by Broadcom, the ITC instituted an enforcement proceeding concerning the redesigned chipsets. ATTM and several other companies moved for leave to intervene in the enforcement proceeding. The administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the motions. ATTM petitioned the ITC for review of the ALJ’s order and requested that the ITC stay proceedings pending review. ATTM states that the ITC has not yet ruled on its petition for review. On April 16, 2008, ATTM appealed the ALJ’s order denying its motion for leave to intervene and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the ITC to rule on its petition for review no later than April 18, 2008. ATTM further requests that the court stay the ITC proceedings pending appeal and pending the mandamus petition.

Essentially, ATTM’s motions to stay request that the court enjoin the ITC from proceeding in the underlying case. The court is satisfied that ATTM has not made a showing sufficient to justify that extraordinary relief. Furthermore, the court determines that ATTM has not shown that mandamus relief is warranted.

ATTM’s motion to expedite is premised on the court granting the motion to stay the ITC’s enforcement proceedings. Because the court denies that motion, expediting this appeal is not warranted. ATTM may, of course, self-expedite by filing its briefs prior to the due date.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

(2) The motion for a stay, pending disposition of the mandamus petition, is denied.

(3) The motion for a stay, pending appeal, is denied.

(4) The motion to expedite is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

P.J.A., 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

H.C.N., 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 211 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 5th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent
------

PVF Capital Corp.


                                             State or Other
                                             Jurisdiction of     Percentage
Subsidiaries (1)                             Incorporation       Ownership
------------------                           --------------      ---------
Park View Federal Savings Bank               Ohio                100%

PVF Service Corporation                      Ohio                100%

PVF Mortgage Corp.                           Ohio                100%

PVF Community Development Corp.              Ohio                100%

Mid Pines Land Co.                           Ohio                100%


------------------------
(1)  The assets, liabilities and operations of the subsidiaries are included in
     the consolidated financial statements contained in the Annual Report to
     Stockholders attached hereto as an exhibit.
[No. 67903-1-I.

Division One.

November 5, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Faivafale K. Timali, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 11-1-02272-9, Hollis R. Hill, J., entered October 7, 2011. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Cox, J.,

concurred in by Appelwick and Schindler, JJ.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15348 and #15349; Idaho Disaster Number ID-00071]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Idaho (FEMA-4342-DR), dated 10/07/2017. *Incident:*
                         Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         03/29/2017 through 06/15/2017.
 DATES: Issued on 10/07/2017.
                        ( print page 48563) *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/06/2017. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/09/2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 10/07/2017, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Ada, Canyon The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 153488 and for economic injury is 153490. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2017-22520 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 23.1








                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



        We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statement of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company on Form S-3 (File No. 33-60549)
and Form S-8 (File Nos.  33-60849,  33-60851 and  333-02803) of our report dated
January 23, 1998,  on our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements  of
MidAmerican  Energy  Holdings  Company as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for
the years ended December 31, 1997,  1996, and 1995,  which report is included in
this Form 10-K.





                                             /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                            -----------------------------
                                                 COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.





Kansas City, Missouri
March 20, 1998
---

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  REQUIRED BY RULE
13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)

I, Adam Radly, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inova
Technology Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and
I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: March 22, 2011 | /s/
      Adam Radly   
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Chief Executive Officer

---