alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeBiographies

# Biographies

 Rear Admiral John W. MaugerFirst District Commander (D1)

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bobby Richardson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mazzei, J.), rendered June 20, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The *785appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The statement of an accomplice which implicated the defendant in criminal activity provided the police with probable cause for the defendant’s arrest. Thus, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s ominbus motion which was to suppress testimony of the postarrest lineup identification at the precinct *(see, People v Berzups,*49 NY2d 417; *People v White,*109 AD2d 859).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must, we find, based on the complainant’s ability to see the defendant during the robbery, and based on his subsequent lineup and in-court identifications, that the evidence is sufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                            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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jason
W. Rees, Chief Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ JASON W. REES

Jason W. Rees
Chief Accounting Officer
May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pyramid Breweries Inc. and will be retained by Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### McDonald *et al.,*Appellants, *v.*Heineman *et al.,*Respondents.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

June 6, 1890.)

Appeal from circuit court, New York county.

Action by Robert McDonald and others against Simon D. Heineman and others. Plaintiffs moved to vacate a default entered on their failure to prosecute when the case was called. The motion was denied, and plaintiffs appeal.

Argued before Van Brdnt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*Blumenstiel*<6 *Hirsh,*for appellants. *Benno Loeioy,*for respondents.

Brady, J.

The plaintiffs, having answered “Ready” on the call of this action for trial several times, when it was finally reached, moved for leave to discontinue without costs, but did not present any affidavits bearing upon that motion before the case was again called and judgment entered by default. The plaintiffs, with an apparent design of procuring a vacation of the default, procured a stay, which the respondents’ counsel says was obtained to enable the appellants’ counsel to go on a fishing excursion, a source of pleasure which, while it is an innocent and exciting pastime, and should be encouraged for its gratifying results, though not always truthfully told, should not be made to depend upon the exercise of judicial power. Some more serious objection, though not of greater depth, should have been presented. It was apparent, *946however, that the attempt to open the default was fanciful, not real. The proposition to try a cause to save the payment of costs, except in cases of the absolute insolvency of the adverse party, is too novel to be impressive, and the learned justice presiding at the trial term no doubt so regarded it, and perhaps, as well, that thel-e was an under-current of professional pique prompting the effort, and which, no doubt, resulted in this appeal. There is really nothing to sustain it, and therefore nothing to consider here now. The default was regular, and the subsequent proceedings by the plaintiffs destitute of merit, in any sense. The cause of action was a failure from the time of the demurrer; so felt by the plaintiffs’ counsel, and, substantially, so conceded on this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants know this thoroughly. The appeal must therefore fail, and the order and judgment appealed from be affirmed; but as the appeal was presented as one from a motion, and is so treated, costs of such a proceeding only will be allowed, namely, $10 costs and the disbursements of the appeal. Ordered accordingly. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITIED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,403
<SECURITIES>                                     9,001
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,942
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,383
<PP&E>                                          28,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,290
<BONDS>                                            111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            4,688
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,191
<OTHER-SE>                                    (61,898)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,268
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,977
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  110,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   636<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,005
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (678)<F3>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Accumulated deficit
<F2>Other income, net of expenses
<F3>Loss on early retirement of debt, net of income taxes
<F4>Includes dividends and accretion on mandatorily redeemable preferred stock
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.2 


 


DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY’S COMMON
STOCK


 


The following description of the Company’s
Common Stock is based upon the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation (“Certificate of Incorporation”), the Company’s
Amended Bylaws (“Bylaws”) and applicable provisions of law. We have summarized certain portions of the Certificate
of Incorporation and Bylaws below. The summary is not complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by express reference
to, the provisions of our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws, each of which is filed as an exhibit to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of which this Exhibit 4.2 is a part.


 


Authorized Capital Shares


 


Our authorized capital shares consist of 200,000,000 shares
of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share (“Common Stock”).


 


Voting Rights


 


Holders of our common stock are entitled to one vote for each
share of Common Stock held of record for the election of directors and on all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. All
elections for directors shall be decided by plurality vote; all other questions shall be decided by majority vote except as otherwise
provided by the Certificate of Incorporation or the law of the State of Delaware.


 


Dividend Rights


 


Holders of our Common Stock are also entitled to receive dividends
ratably, if any, as may be declared by our board of directors out of legally available funds.


 






     


     


    

 


Creditor Arrangement


 


The Certificate of Incorporation provides that whenever a compromise
or arrangement is proposed between the Company and its creditors or any class of them and/or between the Company and its stockholders
or any class of them, any court of equitable jurisdiction within the State of Delaware may, on the application in a summary way
of the Company or any creditor or stockholder thereof or on the application of any receiver or receivers appointed for the Company
under the provision of Section 291 of Title 8 of the Delaware Code order a meeting of creditors or class of creditors, and/or of
the stockholders or class of stockholders of the Company, as the case may be, to be summoned in such manner as the said court directs.
If a majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors or class of creditors, and/or of the stockholders
of the Company, as the case may be, agree to any compromise or arrangement and to any reorganization of the Company as a consequence
of such compromise or arrangement, the said compromise or arrangement and the said reorganization shall, if sanctioned by the court
to which the said application has been made, be binding on all the creditors or class of creditors, and/or on all the stockholders
or class of stockholders, of the Company, as the case may be, and also on the Company.


 


Other Rights and Preferences


 


Holders of our Common Stock have no subscription, preemptive,
redemption or conversion rights.


 


Trading Symbol


 


The Company’s Common Stock trades on the OTCBB under the
trading symbol “BZYR.”
#### REMSEN et al. v. METROPOLITAN EL. R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Ac*1133tion by Charles Remsen and others against the Metropolitan Elevated Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted. See 41 N. Y. Supp. 593.
# C_2022099EN.01024401.xml

| 1.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/244 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/244

---

P9_TA(2021)0326

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 2021-2027 ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution of 6 July 2021 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (06486/2/2021 — C9-0225/2021 — 2018/0248(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

(2022/C 99/35)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council position at first reading (06486/2/2021 — C9-0225/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council position at first reading (06486/2/2021 — C9-0225/2021),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 17 October 2018 (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 17 October 2018 (1),

| — | having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0471), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to its position at first reading (2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0471),

| — | having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

| — | having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0224/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0224/2021),

| 1. | Approves the Council position at first reading; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---

(1)  OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 184.

(2)  OJ C 23, 21.1.2021, p. 356.

---
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 25, 2015 520062

________________________________ In the Matter of SAMUEL WEEKES, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Program, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 5, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Samuel Weekes, Marcy, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in St. Lawrence County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with committing an unhygienic act after a search of his cell allegedly uncovered the fingertip of a latex glove filled with urine. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. The misbehavior report and testimony from the correction officer that petitioner, in fact, admitted that the liquid was-2- 520062

urine provides substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Haughey v Artus, 108 AD3d 956, 956 [2013]; Matter of Dushane v Fischer, 102 AD3d 1043, 1043 [2013]). Although petitioner testified that the substance was water and denied that he made any incriminating admission to the correction officer, this created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Silverstein v Bezio, 65 AD3d 1424, 1425 [2009]). To the extent that petitioner asserts that there was a violation of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Directive No. 4910A (VII) (c) because the substance was improperly destroyed before the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner has failed to preserve this issue for this Court's review by not raising it at the hearing or on administrative appeal (see Matter of Cayenne v Goord, 16 AD3d 782, 783 [2005]). Were we to consider such issue, we would find petitioner's reliance on Matter of Clark v Fischer (114 AD3d 1116 [2014]) to be misplaced, as the correction officer here testified that petitioner admitted that the liquid was urine. Peters, P.J., Lahtinen, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9678]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than May 3, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Sara J. Harrison, Little Rock, Arkansas; to retain voting shares 
of Southern State Bancshares, Inc., Malvern, Arkansas, and thereby 
indirectly retain voting shares of Southern State Bank, Malvern, 
Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 13, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-9678 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk December 26, 2012

t1217 

# Order

December 26, 2012

145787

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145787

COA: 310558

Oakland CC: 2011

- 235491

- FC

RAYMONE DARQUINE ROGERS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.