alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. Terry, Appellant.

Motion for permission to proceed as a poor person and for assignment of counsel denied on the ground no appeal lies from an order revoking probation. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
#### 45.601 [Reserved]
#### Chisholm-Ryder Company, Inc., Respondent, v. State of New York et al., Appellants.

Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to the Trial Judge for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: This matter was remitted to the trial court for the purpose of fixing the amount of each element of damage *(Chisholm-Ryder Co.*v. *State of New York,*21 A D 2d 748). This has been done.by a supplemental decision. An allowance of $18,491.78 was made for reimbursement of taxes which was agreed upon by the parties. The reasonable rental value for the period of the occupancy was fixed at $18,500 and is amply supported by the proof. The sum of $15,000 was allowed for the reduced value of the property by reason of the installations left thereon by the State. The claimant offered no proof as to reduced value but only proof as to the cost of removal of all installations left by the State without any showing that such removal was necessary for the highest and best use of the property. One of the State’s experts expressed the opinion that the value of the property was not reduced while another was of the opinion it was enhanced by the installations. Thus it is apparent that the award for this element cannot be supported because of failure of proof. The matter is remitted only to allow further exploration as to this item of damage (CPLR 5522; 7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 5522.05) and the filing of a supplemental decision thereon. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims for claimant on a claim for damages resulting from temporary appropriation of realty.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veeehio, JJ.
432.407 Interest. ( a ) The HCA is designated as the individual who may authorize, on a case by case basis, advance payments without interest for the contract types described in FAR 32.407(d)(1), (2), (3), and (4). The signed determination and findings supporting these authorizations shall be included in the contract files.
( b ) The SPE is designated as the individual who may authorize advance payments without interest other than those described in paragraph (a) of this section.
#### Gretchen Dehncke, Respondent, v. Karl Dehncke, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal by defendant husband from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term which denied his application to open his default in pleading and for leave to interpose an answer alleging a counterclaim for an annulment of the marriage on the ground that a Mexican decree of divorce terminating plaintiff’s prior marriage was void. The motion was made on the day before the interlocutory decree of divorce granted plaintiff would have become final as of course. The parties having lived together for about two prior years were married in Connecticut on August 3, 1945 following the grant of the foreign decree. Defendant’s explanation for the default is that the wife’s prior divorce was a nullity because, of an alleged *“*mail-order ” characteristic of which he was unaware. It is undisputed that he induced and arranged the procurement of the Mexican decree and paid all expenses, including legal fees, incurred in obtaining it. After the entry of the interlocutory judgment in this action and before it had achieved finality defendant contracted a marriage with an 18-year-old girl. It appears that after the suit was instituted the parties entered into a stipulation whereby they divided their jointly owned real property and household furniture, provided for certain parental custodial rights and fixed the amount of defendant’s weekly liability for plaintiff’s future support. An affidavit by the attorney who represented plaintiff in the divorce action states that after the interlocutory decree had been granted and defendant given a copy of it, appropriate deeds to effectuate the real estate transfers contemplated by the agreement were executed and delivered by the parties. The assertions made to gain the favor of the court are palpably false and the conclusion is inescapable that defendant’s default was deliberate and intentional. It is a fair inference that the legal stratagem attempted was convicted by defendant to evade the support obligations which he had assumed. The liberal policy which generally obtains in relieving parties of defaults in matrimonial actions has no application in a case where, as here, the default was calculated. On this record the discretion residing in Special Term was not abused. *(Little*v. *Merrill,*1 A D 2d 724.) Order affirmed, with $25 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
STUDENT SERVICE

Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) Program State Assignment List

1/24/2024

# image1.jpeg
# C_2020032EN.01001801.xml

| 31.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/18

---

SIT 2020 — Call for proposals

Ideas that change the world: the EIBI’s 2020 Social Innovation Tournament

(2020/C 32/08)

EIB Institute organises its ninth Social Innovation Tournament

The SIT promotes innovative ideas and rewards initiatives that create social and environmental impact, covering projects in a wide range of fields — from education, healthcare and job creation, to new technologies, systems and processes. All projects compete for two prizes in a General Category, and projects addressing this year’s topic of environment (with special emphasis on biodiversity and ecosystem conservation) will also compete for two prizes in the Special Category. Winning projects in both categories will be awarded a 1st or 2nd Prize of EUR 50 000 or EUR 20 000 respectively.

Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/EibInstitute

For further information on this tournament and how to submit an innovative proposal, go to: http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/

---
# C_2021113EN.01000701.xml

| 31.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

30 March 2021

(2021/C 113/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1741 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,48 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4369 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85378 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2473 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1057 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 148,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0613 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,122 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 363,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6582 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9210 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,7800 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5419 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4814 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1283 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6794 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5815 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 331,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5396 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7154 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5698 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 063,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8737 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,015 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 89,1591 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,714 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,7685 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,2262 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,2540 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1741

JPY

Japanese yen

129,48

DKK

Danish krone

7,4369

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85378

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2473

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1057

ISK

Iceland króna

148,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0613

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,122

HUF

Hungarian forint

363,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6582

RON

Romanian leu

4,9210

TRY

Turkish lira

9,7800

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5419

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4814

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1283

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6794

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5815

KRW

South Korean won

1 331,35

ZAR

South African rand

17,5396

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7154

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5698

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 063,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8737

PHP

Philippine peso

57,015

RUB

Russian rouble

89,1591

THB

Thai baht

36,714

BRL

Brazilian real

6,7685

MXN

Mexican peso

24,2262

INR

Indian rupee

86,2540

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
35.008 Evaluation for award. ( a ) Generally, an R&D contract should be awarded to that organization, including any educational institution, that proposes the best ideas or concepts and has the highest competence in the specific field of science or technology involved. However, an award should not be made to obtain capabilities that exceed those needed for successful performance of the work.
( b ) In R&D contracting, precise specifications are ordinarily not available. The contracting officer should therefore take special care in reviewing the solicitation evaluation factors to assure that they are properly presented and consistent with the solicitation.
( c ) When a small business concern would otherwise be selected for award but is considered not responsible, the SBA Certificate of Competency procedure shall be followed (see subpart 19.6).
( d ) The contracting officer should use the procedures in subpart 15.5 to notify and debrief offerors.
( e ) It is important to evaluate a proposed contractor's cost or price estimate, not only to determine whether the estimate is reasonable but also to provide valuable insight into the offeror's understanding of the project, perception of risks, and ability to organize and perform the work. Cost or price analysis, as appropriate (see 15.404-1(c)), is a useful tool.
[48 FR 42352, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 51271, Sept. 30, 1997]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         570,060
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               612,277
<PP&E>                                          34,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (581)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,348,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          438,668
<BONDS>                                        870,120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,348,980
<SALES>                                         13,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,641
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,378
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,808)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,808)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                           
                                      EXHIBIT 11
                            CHATTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                (Unaudited and in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                           
                                           
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      AUGUST 31,                 AUGUST 31,
                                            --------------------------  -------------------------
                                                1996          1995         1996           1995
                                                ----          ----         ----           ----
<S><C><C><C><C>
NET INCOME (LOSS):
  Continuing operations  ..........           $2,131         $1,673       $4,104        $ 1,732
  Discontinued operations .........               --             --           --         10,538
  Extraordinary loss ..............               --             --         (532)          (367)
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------
    Net Income (loss) .............           $2,131         $1,673       $3,572        $11,903
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE
 NUMBER OF COMMON
 AND COMMON
 EQUIVALENT SHARES
 OUTSTANDING  .....................            8,808          7,292        7,934          7,292
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------
NET INCOME (LOSS) PER
 COMMON SHARE:
  Continuing operations ...........           $ 0.24         $ 0.23       $ 0.52        $  0.24
  Discontinued operations .........               --             --           --           1.44
  Extraordinary loss ..............               --             --        (0.07)         (0.05)
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------

  Net income (loss) per
   common share ...................           $ 0.24         $ 0.23       $ 0.45        $  1.63
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------
                                              ------         ------       ------        -------
</TABLE>
#### 252.219-7012 Competition for Religious-Related Services.

As prescribed in 219.270-3, use the following provision:

# Competition for Religious-Related Services (APR 2018)

(a) *Definition.* As used in this provision—

*Nonprofit organization* means any organization that is—

(1) Described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and

(2) Exempt from tax under section 501(a) of that Code.

(b) A nonprofit organization is not precluded from competing for a contract for religious-related services to be performed on a U.S. military installation notwithstanding that a nonprofit organization is not a small business concern as identified in FAR 19.000(a)(3).

(c) If the apparently successful offeror has not represented in its offer or quotation that it is a small business concern identified in FAR 19.000(a)(3), as appropriate to the solicitation, the Contracting Officer will verify that the offeror is registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) database as a nonprofit organization.

(End of provision)

[83 FR 16003, Apr. 13, 2018]
#### JACKSON v. LURIE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 2, 1906.)

1. Justices of the Peace—Appeal—Decisions Reviewable—Default Judgment.

An appeal lies from a default judgment in a justice’s court, taken after proper service of process.

2. Same—Reversal.

Where a return on appeal from a default judgment does' not show that any- evidence or proof of any kind was taken by the justice as a foundation for the judgment, it will be set aside.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.

Action by Joseph L. Jackson against Alexander Lurie. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order refusing to open a default, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

*1041Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and GIEGERICH and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.

Geo. W. Simpson, for appellant.

Abraham Goldfarb, for respondent.

SCOTT, P. J.

We find no occasion to review the decision of the justice below respecting the due service of the summons, even if that question is properly before us. There is nothing in the record to sustain the plaintiff’s judgment. The complaint was oral, and, of course, unverified. It does not appear from the return that any evidence or proof of any kind was taken by the justice as a foundation for his judgment, and there is absolutely nothing to sustain it. Even if we assume that the defendant was properly served, and that the judgment was taken upon his default (the most favorable assumption possible for the plaintiff), still an appeal lies from the judgment, and, as there was no proof of the plaintiff’s claim, a reversal must follow. Hurry v. Coffin, 11 Daly, 180.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

The appeal from the order need not be considered, and it will be dismissed, without costs to either party. All concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

 

I,            Charles W. Fischer, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nexen Inc., a Canadian            Corporation (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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the                        quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and                        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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 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. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 
| Date: May 1, 2008 |   |   | /s/ Charles W. Fischer                                    |
|-------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|              |   |   | Charles W. Fischer

President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1709. TERRY USHER v. THE STATE.

A jury found Terry Usher guilty of multiple offenses, including armed robbery,

aggravated assault and kidnapping. Usher appealed following the denial of hismotion

for new trial, and this Court affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion. See

Usher v. State, Case Number A11A0705, decided June 20, 2011. Several years later,

Usher filed a pro se motion to vacate a void sentence, arguing the trial court

improperly sentenced him as a recidivist. Specifically, Usher asserted that two earlier

cocaine convictions should have been considered a single offense for purposes of

recidivist sentencing. The trial court denied the motion, and Usher appeals.

 Under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f), a court may modify a sentence during the year

after its imposition or within 120 days after remittitur following a direct appeal,

whichever is later. Frazier v. State, 302 Ga. App. 346, 347-348 (691 SE2d 247)

(2010); Burg v. State, 297 Ga. App. 118, 118 (676 SE2d 465) (2009). Once this

statutory period expires, as it had when Usher filed his motion, a trial court may

modify a sentence only if it is void. Jones v. State, 278 Ga. 669, 670 (604 SE2d 483)

(2004). A sentence is void only if it imposes punishment that the law does not allow. 

von Thomas v. State, 293 Ga. 569, 571 (2) (748 SE2d 446) (2013). “Motionsto vacate

a void sentence generally are limited to claimsthat – even assuming the existence and

validity of the conviction for which the sentence was imposed – the law does not

authorize thatsentence, most typically because it exceedsthe mostsevere punishment

for which the applicable penal statute provides.” Id. at 572 (2).

Here, Usher has failed to raise a valid void sentence claim. As noted by the

trial court, Usher had five previous felonies used in aggravation of sentencing.

June 03, 2015
Accordingly, the trial court was authorized to sentence him as a recidivist

notwithstanding any alleged error in failing to consolidate two of the convictions. See

OCGA § 17-10-7 (c) (holding that a person having been convicted of three or more

felonies shall be sentenced to serve the maximum time provided). Thus, the trial

court’s dismissal of his motion is not subject to direct appeal. Under these

circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/03/2015