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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH AMERICAN TOY VENDING, INC.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             MAR-10-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,295                   6,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,295                   6,900
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,295                   6,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        10,985                  16,900
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,690)                (10,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,295                   6,900
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,605                  10,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,605)                (10,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,605)                (10,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,605)                (10,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00                     .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00                     .00


</TABLE>
#### Henry Homes *& al. versus*Edward Smith *& al.*

Where the third day of grace falls on the Lord’s day, by the Statute of 1824, o. 272, the maker of a promissory note is entitled to a grace of two days only ; and in such case, a presentment for payment on the Lord’s day, is made too late to charge the indorser.

The suit was against the defendants as indorsers of a promissory note, given by William Smith to the defendants, or order, and by them indorsed, bearing date May 4, 1835, and *265payable in two years with interest annually. The note was left, before it became payable, at a bank in Bangor, where the defendants resided, for collection. On *Sunday,*the seventh day of May, 1837, the third day after the note by its terms fell due, a demand was made upon the maker, and notice given to the defendants; and on the next day a like demand was made, and notice given.

The trial was before Weston C. J. and a nonsuit was entered, to be confirmed, or set aside, according to the opinion of the Court upon the law of the case.

*W. L. Appleton*argued for the plaintiffs,

and cited St. 1824, c. 272; *WMtwell*v. *Johnson,*17 Mass. R. *449; Berkshire Bank*v. Jones, 6 Mass. R. 524; *Woodbridge*v. *Brigham,*13 Mass. R. 556; 3 Cowen, 252; 2 Caines, 343 ; 1 Johns. Cas. 131; 3 B. & P. 599; Chilly on Bills, 401.

*Rogers*argued for the defendants,

citing 2 Caines, 343; 12 Johns. 423; 15 Johns. 470; *Jones*v. *Foies,*4 Mass. R. 245; *Farmmi*v. *Fowle,*12 Mass. R. 89; 6 Wheat. 102; Chitty on Bills, (8tli ed.) 401.

The opinion of the Court was by

Shepley J.

It is provided by St. 1824, c. 272, that the maker of a promissory note payable at a future day, when it is discounted or left in a bank for collection, shall be entitled to a grace of thee days, unless the third day happens on the Lord’s day, or on a day of public fast or thanksgiving ; and in that case to a grace of two days only.

The third day after this note, without grace, became due being the Lord’s day, the maker was entitled to a grace of two days only; and a presentment on the Lord’s day would be like one in other cases on the day after, the thee days of grace had elapsed, and it was too late.

*Nonsuit confirmed.*
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

In connection with theAnnual Report of GeoPetro Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Stuart J. Doshi, Chief Executive Officer, and J. Chris Steinhauser, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to hisknowledge, that:

(1)      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Dated: March 30, 2007 |   | /s/ Stuart J. Doshi                                           |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Stuart J. Doshi                                               |
|                  |   | President, Chief Executive Officer  and Chairman of the Board |
|                  |   |                                                          |
| Dated: March 30, 2007 |   | /s/ J. Chris Steinhauser                                      |
|                  |   | J. Chris Steinhauser                                          |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer                                       |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to GeoPetro ResourcesCompany and will be retained by GeoPetro Resources Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

*                 Thiscertification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after thedate hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

----
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11512

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE AUBIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:93-CR-057-T)

January 12, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Aubin appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial under

Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. His motion to file a corrected reply brief is GRANTED.

Aubin maintains that newly-discovered evidence, the government’s
1

 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

2 See United States v. Aubin, No. 3:93-CR-0057-T (N.D.Tex. Nov. 25, 1996).

2

suppression of such evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland,1and the

government’s use of false evidence entitle him to a new trial. He also contends that

the district court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion.

Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment

appealed is AFFIRMED for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Martin Kelly, Chief Executive 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/ R. MARTIN KELLY

R. Martin Kelly
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003

                                       22
# C_2022361EN.01004101.xml

| 20.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/41

---

P9_TA(2022)0095

Automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in Greece *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 March 2022 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data in Greece (14839/2021 — C9-0005/2022 — 2021/0809(CNS))

(Consultation)

(2022/C 361/15)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Council draft (14839/2021), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Council draft (14839/2021),

| — | having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0005/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0005/2022),

| — | having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0049/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0049/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Council draft; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

TYREE WATKINGS

Respondent

Docket Number 2023-0082

Enforcement Activity No. 7 633973

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: March 20. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judge: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearances:

Paul Ledoux

USCG Sector Virginia

For the Coast Guard

Tyree Watkings, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSE NT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about March9,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of

settlement Agreement and Entry ofconsent order to be approved as a settlement of the case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby oRDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constiturE

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated March20,2023, at

Alameda, Califomia

TimothY G. Srueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
#### GENOVESE v. MATELLI et al.

(No. 2.)

(City *Court*of New *York,*General Term.

May 18, 1894.)

Appeal from special term.

Action by Desiderio Genovese against Rizieri Matelli and another. From an order denying a motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer, defendant Virgilio Del Genovese appeals. Reversed. _

_ Argued before EHRLICH, C. L, and VAN WYCK and MCCARTHY, JJ.

F. H. Wilson, for appellant.

Gilbert Elliott, for respondents.

McCARTHY, J.

The facts being identical with those set out in action No. 1 (see opinion), 28 N. Y. Supp. 754, the order appealed from herein is reversed, with costs, and the defendant allowed to serve a supplemental answer, on payment of $10 costs. All concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                              FIRST VIRTUAL HOLDINGS INCORPORATED

                         STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   YEAR ENDED           YEAR ENDED
                                                                  DECEMBER 31,         DECEMBER 31,
                                                                      1995                 1996
                                                                  ------------         ------------
<S>                                                                <C>                  <C>
Net loss........................................................   (2,269,981)          (10,689,940)
Common Stock....................................................    4,170,154             4,558,262
Conversion of Redeemable Preferred Stock into Common Stock......      361,287             1,820,422
Shares related to SAB No. 83....................................    3,610,518             2,145,384
                                                                   -----------           -----------
Shares used in computing pro forma net loss per share...........    8,141,959             8,524,068
                                                                   ===========           ===========
Pro forma net loss per share....................................       $(0.28)               $(1.25)
                                                                   ===========           ===========
</TABLE>
(9 Misc. Rep. 89.)

#### MYERS v. ROSENBACK.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

June 4, 1894.)

Plead mo—Amendment—Supplemental Matter.

A supplemental pleading cannot be filed' in a district court of New York City, and therefore supplemental matter may be inserted in an answer by amendment. 28 N. Y. Supp. 9, affirmed.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Frederick S. Myers against Moses S. Rosenback, brought in a district court, and removed to the court of common pleas. From an order allowing matter of supplemental pleading to be incorporated in the answer by amendment (28 N. Y. Supp.), plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ. '

Hamilton R. Squier, for appellant.

Otto Horwitz, for respondent.

PRYOR, J.

The distinction between an amended and a supplemental answer is only in the time when the matter of the defense -occurred, or came to the knowledge of the pleader. But time does mot affect the substance of the defense. If good in an amended, it •is good in a supplemental, answer; and, if good in a supplemental, "it is good in an amended, answer. To incorporate in an answer sup■plemental matter, by way of amendment, violates only a technical rule of pleading, and is without effect upon the substantial rights of the parties. It is the distribution of substantial justice, however, ¡irrespective of formal rules of procedure, that is the function of -district courts, in disposing of the litigation before them. Were $they to be fettered by all the technical and recondite rules of practice with which judges and counselors in courts of record are pre: sumed to he conversant, they would surely miscarry in the attainment of that “cheap and speedy justice” which is the end of their institution. We are content to affirm the order on the opinion at special term. 28 N. Y. Supp. 9. Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2379 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2379

 To prohibit the transportation of certain volatile crude oil by rail.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2015

  Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mr. Garamendi) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the transportation of certain volatile crude oil by rail.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSPORTATION OF CRUDE OIL BY RAIL.

    (a) Amendment.--Subchapter II of chapter 201 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 20168. Transportation of crude oil.
    ``(a) Initial Rule.--Effective on the date of enactment of this 
section, no crude oil with a Reid vapor pressure level greater than 8.5 
psi may be transported by rail in interstate commerce.
    ``(b) Maximum Volatility Standard.--The Secretary of 
Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall 
establish an appropriate national standard for the maximum volatility 
of crude oil to be permitted to be shipped by rail.
    ``(c) Subsequent Rule.--After a standard is established under 
subsection (b), no crude oil with a volatility level greater than that 
standard may be transported by rail in interstate commerce, and the 
rule under subsection (a) shall expire.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections of such subchapter 
is amended by adding after the item relating to section 20167 the 
following:

``20168. Transportation of crude oil.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021459EN.01002801.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/28

---

EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR CYBERSECURITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/28)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/about-enisa/accounting-finance

---
#### HULL v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al. (two cases).

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Elevated Rau/roads— Damages to Abutters—Release or Mortgage.

Payment of a judgment against an elevated railroad for fee damages to abutting premises will be conditioned on the release of a mortgage on such premises.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Two actions by John Henry Hull against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and another for an injunction, and to recover damages to plaintiff’s houses and lots known as “Nos. 244 .and 246 East Thirty-Fourth Street.” From a judgment awarding an injunction unless defendants pay $3,000 as fee damages, and $1,500 rental damages, to each of the houses, defendants appeal. Judgment in action No. 1 modified, and judgment in action No. 2 affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

J. C. Thomson, for appellant.

J. H. Hull, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

The main question involved in this case is a •question of fact,—as to whether the award was justified by the •evidence. We are of opinion that it was, and do not think it neces*114sary to rehearse the evidence, but merely give our conclusion, as derived from the argument and examination of the case. It is, however, claimed that one of the mortgagees was not required by the decree to release the mortgage in respect to the piece of property described in the action which is called “No. 1.” It is urged upon the part of the respondent that such release is not necessary, as the mortgage in question has become merged. We do not think, in view of the condition of this record, that the defendants should be required to depend upon such merger, but that the decree in action No. 1 should be modified by requiring a release from the mortgage as a condition of payment, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. In action No. 2 no such question exists, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.