alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Listen

# U.S. Virgin Islands

U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee Community Forum
EventPublished: March 28, 2024Event Date: April 10, 2024

U.S. Virgin Islands Advisory Committee Releases Report on the Status of Civil Rights in the U.S. Virgin Islands
NewsPublished: February 21, 2024

The Status of Civil Rights in the U.S. Virgin Islands
ReportsPublished: February 21, 2024

Web Briefing on Voting Rights in the Virgin Islands
EventPublished: January 17, 2023Event Date: January 23, 2023

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Announce the Appointments of Advisory Committee Members for the U.S. Virgin Islands
NewsPublished: July 25, 2022

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Establishes New Advisory Committee in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Seeks Nominations for Bipartisan Candidates
NewsPublished: February 14, 2022

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Establishes New Advisory Committees in U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and Seeks Nominations of Bipartisan Candidates
NewsPublished: May 6, 2021
  Subscribe to U.S. Virgin Islands
Exhibit 32

    Written Statement of Paul E. Menzel (Chairman of the Board, President and
    Chief Executive Officer) and William R. Hayes (Senior Vice President and
                  Treasurer) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Senior Vice
President and Treasurer, respectively, of Ridgestone Financial Services, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


/s/ Paul E. Menzel
------------------
Paul E. Menzel
Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ William R. Hayes
--------------------
William R. Hayes
Senior Vice President and
Treasurer

Date:  August 13, 2003
THE LETTER OF WARNING FROM THE HEARING OFFICER 

Written By Alicia Scott

The Coast Guard Hearing Office Detachment also receives many 

calls from field units advising us that a mariner has contacted them 

because the mariner received notice of civil penalty action from a 

Hearing Officer. 

Field units and personnel are reminded that if a mariner has 

received a letter from a Hearing Officer the party should respond in 

writing to the Hearing Officer. If the party has questions about the 

process, they can be advised to contact the Hearing Office 

Detachment at 202-493-6870 and the Administrative Support Staff 

will assist them with questions they have regarding the civil penalty 

letter and how to respond. Personnel can also refer the mariner to 

our website www.uscg.mil/legal/cgho. The website offers information 

as to options available to the party and how to respond to the 

Preliminary Assessment Letter (PAL) . There is also guidance 

regarding the conduct of hearings and where to send evidence in 

defense, extenuation and mitigation. Our website also offers 

important information on how to make a payment should they 

choose to pay their penalty in full or set up a payment plan. The 

website offers some background information about our mission.
The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on March 28,

2023, seeking Revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On May 9, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as

This mafter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date. The

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter.

Done and Dated May 15,2023 at

Baltimore, MD

/.-d/r"tr%. 7/4rrLauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge

UNITID STATES OF AMER]CA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURJTY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Addrcss of Administratrve Law Judge Docketing Center:

ALJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 21 202-4022

Email: alidockctcenterlrt uscq.nil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 612-7524 [6IA-SKCG]

F ax: (410) 962-1746

Toll Free Fax: (877) 243-3453 [CGE-FILEI

COMPLAINANT:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

RESPONDENT: Thomas Robert Barrou. DOCKET NIJMBER ]O]]-O I ]O

WITHDRA\\'AL FROM DOCKET CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NTIMBER

7613991

The Respondent signed a Voluntary Sunender Agreement under 46 CFR $5.203.
(8 Misc. Rep. 26.)

#### VAN TASSEL v. BEECHER.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

April 2, 1894.)

Pleading—Motion to Make more Definite and Certain.

The denial of a motion to make a complaint more definite and certain does not prejudice defendant where the alleged uncertainty was the doubt as to whether plaintiff intended to proceed on one cause of action or another, and plaintiff, by stipulation in open court, specified the cause of action on which he intended to rely.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Emory M.. Van Tassel against Henry Barton Beecher. Prom an order denying a motion to make the complaint more definite and certain, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before SEDGWICK, C. J., and DUGRO and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

George Richards, for appellant.

C. N. Bovee, for respondent.

SEDGWICK, C. J.

The defendant moved that the complaint be made more definite and certain. The order made, and now appealed from, is as follows:

“Plaintiff, by his said counsel, having stipulated in open court that plaintiff relies upon the employment of defendants as insurance brokers, and the acceptance of said employment by said defendants, and the undertaking of said defendants as insurance brokers, to obtain insurance covering the plaintiff’s property, described in the complaint, and not upon an absolute agreement upon the part of the defendants to renew the insurance, or to obtain insurance, it is hereby ordered that said motion be denied.”

The defendant was not aggrieved by this order, and is not entitled to succeed here. It is admitted that the only contract set forth in the complaint is an absolute agreement by the defendant to procure insurance. The defendant is relieved from prosecution upon it by the plaintiff by the stipulation of the order that the plaintiff does not rely upon an absolute agreement upon the part of the defendant. This destroys the efficacy of the part of the complaint referred to, and the defendant need pay no further attention to it.

It is further argued that, if the allegations of that contract in the complaint be stricken out, not enough is left to constitute any cause of action at all; that without the addition of the unverified *74stipulation contained in the order, which the defendant cannot ■take cognizance of, the complaint is hopelessly insufficient and obscure, and in fact demurrable. It is not the office of a motion of this kind to determine whether a pleading is demurrable. But a party cannot be aggrieved by a pleading being left in a state as to which he will have a full remedy. In reality the uncertainty ■complained of was the doubt as to whether plaintiff intended to proceed upon one possible cause of action or another. The order made settled that doubt. The order can never be a part of the pleadings, but can be referred to, even upon the trial of an issue •of law, to determine what the issue is. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne McDermott, Appellant.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered August 12, 1985, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

Defendant, then an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility, was charged with promoting prison contraband in the first degree based on allegations that he possessed a homemade weapon. He pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s guilty plea operates as a waiver of his claim that the failure to file with the Secretary of State the standards of inmate behavior, which prohibited possession of the homemade weapon, rendered the indictment defective *(see, People v Motley,*69 NY2d 870). Further, defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel since his attorney failed to move, prior to the guilty plea, for dismissal of the indictment on this ground is without merit. This court has already rejected this argument on the merits *(People v Rodriguez,*126 AD2d 896; *People v Simms,*124 AD2d 349). Thus, the failure to raise the issue did not prejudice defendant.

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1987-CR-5143, styled State of Texas v. Juan Molina, in the 290th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sharon MacRae presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00526-CR

IN RE Juan MOLINA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2009 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 21, 2009, relator Juan Molina filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining

of the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion for DNA testing. However, on October 15, 2009, the

trial court granted relator’s motion for DNA testing. Accordingly, the petition is DENIED AS

MOOT. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Barrington Young, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered July 15, 1981, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain statements made by him to law enforcement officers and an Assistant District Attorney.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant raises numerous issues, many of which we considered and ruled upon on the appeal of his codefendant Paul Ford *(see, People v Ford,*106 AD2d 399). We adhere to our determination therein.

The additional errors claimed by the defendant in the trial court’s charge to the jury and the instances of alleged misconduct engaged in by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, lack merit *(see, People v Ingram,*67 NY2d 897, 899; *People v Canty,*60 NY2d 830, 832; *People v Green,*50 NY2d 891, 893; *People v Martinez,*118 AD2d 661, 662).

The defendant’s challenge to the denial of his suppression motion turns on an issue of credibility which is primarily for the determination of the hearing court *(see, People v Armstead,*98 AD2d 726). The hearing court, which, in its determination, credited the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses, was not clearly erroneous, and therefore, we decline to disturb it *(see, People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759; *People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561; *People v Armstead, supra).*

We further find no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed by the trial court and decline to substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court as the defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and are either without merit or do not require reversal. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2021484EN.01000801.xml

| 2.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 484/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 484/8

---

Corrigendum to Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10474 – NESTE / RAVAGO / JV)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 480 of 29 November 2021
  )

(2021/C 484/08)

Publication (2021/C 480/04) on page 4 is to be considered null and void.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 No. 333-24789, 333-70831, 333-81089 and 333-86735) pertaining to the
1994 Incentive and Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Stock Plan, the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, options granted outside of any plan and the
Decisive Technology Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan of MessageMedia, Inc. and
in the Registration Statements (Forms S-3 No. 333-42855, 333-70959, 333-42855,
333-70959, 333-81081, 333-86731, and 333-89967) of MessageMedia, Inc. and the
related Prospectus of our report dated February 4, 2000 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedules of MessageMedia, Inc. included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                       ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 29, 2000
# C_2021402EN.01000101.xml

| 5.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10392 — H.I.G. Capital/Cesar/SDA/VDM)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 402/01)

On 27 September 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10392. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10392. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2643 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To direct the Attorney General to provide State officials 

with access to criminal history information with respect 

to certain financial service providers required to undergo 

State criminal background checks, and for other purposes. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2643 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Licensing Effi3 ciency Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. BACKGROUND CHECKS. 

5 Section 1511(a) of the S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing 

6 Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5110(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting after ‘‘State-licensed loan origi8 nators’’ the following: ‘‘and other financial service 

9 providers’’; and 

10 (2) by inserting before the period the following: 

11 ‘‘or other financial service providers’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 28, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



The Board of Directors
Petsec Energy Ltd


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-6128) of Petsec Energy Ltd of our report dated April 15,
2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Petsec Energy Ltd and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1999 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each
of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1999, which report
appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 20-F of Petsec Energy
Ltd.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company and
its wholly owned subsidiary have suffered losses from operations and have net
capital deficiencies, which raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability
to continue as a going concern. Furthermore, subsequent to December 31, 1999,
the wholly owned subsidiary filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. Finally,
due to the significance of the aforementioned uncertainty, we are unable to
express an opinion the 1999 consolidated financial statements.



/s/ KPMG



Sydney, Australia
June 30, 2000
UNITED STATES OT' AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HONIELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant,

VS

JAMES MICHAEL SULLIVAN, III,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023 -0052

Enforcement Activity No. 763037 4

CONSENT ORDER

Issued Bv: Honorable Georqe J. Jordan. Administrative Law Judge

Issued: Nlarch 16.2023

Appearanccs:

Mr. Lee \Yillett

USCG MSU Savannah

For the Coast Guard

James Michael Sullivan, lll, pro se
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On February 10,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against James Michael

Sullivan (Respondent) alleging one count ofUse of, or addiction to the Use of, or

Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of 46 C.F.R. $ 16.201(b) and 46

U.S.C. $ 7704(b). The Coast Guard alleged that Respondent failed a chemical test for

dangerous drugs, raising the presumption ofuse.

On or about February 10,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for

Approval of Settlement Agreement and Entry of Consent Order to be approved as a

settlement of the case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

After carefully reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I find that it is

fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. S

20.502.

l
OR-DER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement

Agreement is APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential is

REVOKED. However, the revocation is stayed until May 10, 2024, to permit

Respondent to complete a rehabilitation program and prove cure in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent complete the terms of the

Settlement Agreement prior to the termination of the stay. If Respondeni satisfies the

requirements, this order will reflect an outright suspension for the period ofdeposit to

permit Respondenl to complete and prove cure in accordance with the stipulated order

contained in the Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Consent Order shall constitute [ull, hnal,

and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. GEORCE J. JORDAN

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Done and dated March 16. 2023,

at Seattle, WA

l

-4.'L/
Order entered September 5 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 13 - 00882 - CV IN RE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Relator Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. 2013 - 1 - 0007 

### O RDER In accordance with the Court’s opinion issued this date, the petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally GRANTED . The Court ORDERS the trial judge, the Honorable James C. Henderson, Judge of the County Court at Law No. 1, Gr ayson County, Texas, to VACATE his January 31, 2013 “Protective Order Regarding Certain Evidence, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Relative Thereto” to the extent it relates to any evidence in the possession of relator. Should the trial judge fa il to comply with this order, the writ will issue. The Court ORDERS the trial judge to file with this Court, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order , a certified copy of its order issued in compliance with this order. We ORDER that relator reco ver its costs of this original proceeding from real party in interest.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
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.                  

###### Northeast Dairy Compact Commission

# AGENCY:

Northeast Dairy Compact Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

The Compact Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the price regulation, including the reports and recommendations of the Commission's standing Committees. The Commission will also hold its deliberative meeting to consider whether to implement a supply management program. 

# DATES:

The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 3, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at The Centennial Inn, Armenia White Room, 96 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire (I-93 Exit 14). 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth M. Becker, Executive Director, Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 34 Barre Street, Suite 2, Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941. 

Authority:7 U.S.C. 7256. 

Dated: April 11, 2000.

Kenneth M. Becker, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 00-9461 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1650-01-P