alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John K. Rishel et al., Respondents, *v.*August Weil et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

March, 1900.)

Defense — Account stated must be pleaded.

The defense of an account stated is affirmative in its nature and is not available unless pleaded.

Rishel v. Weil, 30 Mise. Rep. 809, affirmed.

*71Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the city of Hew York, affirming the judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of plaintiffs.

Alexander *&*Colby (John Quinn, of counsel), for appellants.

!A. Kling, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The defense contained in the answer was in effect an affirmative defense, namely, that of payment. Defendants having admitted by their answer the sale and delivery of the goods, and having plead payment, the motion to dismiss the complaint at ¡the close of plaintiffs’ case was rightly denied. The fifth allegation in the complaint is simply a conclusion of law drawn from the third and fourth allegations of the complaint, and is unnecessary. The defendants requested the court to charge that a statement of account showing a balance due, accompanied by a check for that balance, if retained by the plaintiffs beyond a reasonable time without exception or disclaimer as to its correctness, became an account stated, and committed the person to whom such account was rendered to the correctness of the items therein contained. This the court refused to charge, and to this refusal the defendants duly excepted. The refusal of the court to charge as requested was not error, because there was no such defense set up in the answer. A defense of the kind suggested by the request is an affirmative defense and-must be pleaded. If it had been pleaded, plaintiffs then could have shown mistake or error in the account rendered. Lockwood v. Thorne, 11 N. Y. 170. Hot having been apprised by the pleading of such a defense, plaintiffs were not bound to anticipate it.

- The trial judge did not err in refusing the defendants’ request to go to the jury on the question of the amount the defendants should have been credited with on the return of the Richardson goods. As between plaintiffs and defendants, the plaintiffs should be charged for the goods above mentioned, only the sum that they had been allowed for them.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.11 Homicide.

Any person who has intentionally and wrongfully caused the death of another person is not entitled to pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation or increased pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation by reason of such death. For the purpose of this section the term *dependency and indemnity compensation* includes benefits at dependency and indemnity compensation rates paid under 38 U.S.C. 1318.

[44 FR 22718, Apr. 17, 1979, as amended at 54 FR 31829, Aug. 2, 1989]
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                      ----------

          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned have executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007. The undersigned hereby certify
that to our knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.


Dated:   August 13, 2007            /s/Raul S. McQuivey
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    Raul S. McQuivey
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)




Dated:   August 13, 2007            /s/Sidney C. Hooper
                                    -----------------------------------------
                                    Sidney C. Hooper
                                    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                    (Principal Accounting Officer)
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Sudan

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Sudan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Sudan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Sudan

The review period covered the first full year in power for Sudan’s Civilian-Led Transitional Government.  The government made significant progress by publishing the budget within three months of enactment.  It also made significant progress by breaking down expenditures by ministry and for the office of the president for the first time.  It made significant progress because budget documents were prepared according to international standards, made public, and included information on debt obligations for the first time.  Finally, although budget estimates deviated from budget execution, the government made significant progress by producing and publicly issuing revised budget estimates.  However, budget documents were not substantially complete because they did not include off-budget revenue from military-owned enterprises and military expenditures continue to be under reported and opaque.  The supreme audit institution, which meets international standards of independence, conducted audits that covered the entire annual executed budget, but did not publish them in a reasonable period of time.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awarded contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were outlined in law but did not appear to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available. Sudan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate audit and oversight;
- establishing greater civilian oversight over military and intelligence budgets;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution audits the government’s executed budget within a reasonable period time and publishes its reports;
- adhering to the process for awarding natural resources extraction contracts and licenses as set out in law; and
- making information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Sudan 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSudan

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                     TO THE

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                  ALPHARMA INC.

         Pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, the undersigned, being the Secretary of Alpharma Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Corporation") does hereby certify the following:

         FIRST:   The name of the Corporation is Alpharma Inc.

         SECOND:  The original Certificate of Incorporation was filed with the
Secretary of State of Delaware on September 6, 1983.

         THIRD: The Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to effect a
change in Article Fourth hereof, relating to the shares of stock of the
Corporation, accordingly the first paragraph of Article Fourth of the
Certificate of Incorporation shall be amended as follows:

                                 ARTICLE FOURTH

         FOURTH: The total number of shares which the Corporation shall have
         authority to issue shall be 65,500,00 shares, divided into three
         classes, namely: 500,000 shares of Preferred Stock of the par value of
         $1.00 per share; 50,000,000 shares of Class A Common Stock of the par
         value of $.20; and 15,000,000 shares of Class B Common Stock of the par
         value of $.20.

         FOURTH: The amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation effected hereby was approved by the Board of Directors of the
Corporation, which declared its advisability to the stockholders and,
thereafter, the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of common stock,
namely, the holders of Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock voting
together as a single class duly approved said amendment.


<PAGE>   2

         FIFTH:  The amendment reflected herein only amends the first paragraph
of Article Fourth and the remainder of Article Fourth and other provisions of
the Certificate of Incorporation remain unaffected.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned affirms as true the foregoing under
penalties of perjury, as his act and deed and the act and deed of Alpharma Inc.
on this 2nd day of July, 1999.

                                                     Alpharma Inc.

                                                     By: /s/ ROBERT F. WROBELL
                                                        ------------------------
                                                     Name:  Robert F. Wrobel
                                                     Title: Secretary
# Official Journal L 418/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 418 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6311 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 418

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6311 December 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2020/2011 of the European Central Bank of 1 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1409/2013 on payments statistics (ECB/2013/43) (ECB/2020/59)

(ECB/2020/59)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
§ 68.13 What will happen if an individual does not comply with the terms and conditions of participation in the NIH LRPs? Program participants who breach their Loan Repayment Program Contracts will be subject to the applicable monetary payment provisions set forth at section 338E of the Act (42 U.S.C. 254o). Payment of any amount owed under section 338E of the Act shall be made within one year of the date the participant breached his or her Loan Repayment Program Contract, unless the NIH specifically authorizes a longer period. Terminations will not be considered a breach of contract in cases where such terminations are beyond the control of the participant as follows: ( a ) Terminations for convenience of the government will not be considered a breach of contract and monetary damages will not be assessed.
( b ) Occasionally, a participant's research assignment or funding may evolve and change to the extent that the individual is no longer engaged in approved research. Similarly, the research needs and priorities of the IC and/or the NIH may change to the extent that a determination is made that a health professional's skills may be better utilized in a nonresearch assignment. Normally, job changes of this nature will not be considered a breach of contract on the part of either the NIH or the participant. Under these circumstances, the following will apply: ( 1 ) Program participation will cease as of the date an individual is no longer engaged in approved research;
( 2 ) Based on the approval of the NIH, the participant will be released from the remainder of his or her service obligation without assessment of damages or monetary penalties. The participant in this case will be permitted to retain all Program benefits made or owed by the NIH on his/her behalf up to the date the individual is no longer engaged in research, less the pro rata portion of any benefits advanced beyond the period of completed service.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FREDRICK LEE AVERETTE, A.K.A

. FREDRICK LEE AVERETTE, JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 1

- 00 06 7

- C R

Appeal from the

405th District Court

of Galveston County, Texas 1

(TC# 13CR2940 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Fredrick Lee Averette is attempting to appeal his conviction for sexual assault of a child

.

Finding that Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court ’ s jurisdiction. Olivo v. Sta te

,

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (en banc). In a criminal case, a defendant ’ s notice of

appeal is due within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed in open court, or ninety days

1 We hear this case on transfer from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 41.3

.2

after the sentence is imposed in open court if the defenda nt timely files a motion for new trial. See

T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.2(a)(1), (2). While a court of appeals may extend the time to file the notice of

appeal, both the notice of appeal and the extension motion must be filed within fifteen days after

the deadline f

or filing the notice of appeal. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.3. In the absence of a timely

filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the

appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss th e appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).

Here, the trial court entered the judgment of conviction on April 7, 2015

. Appellant filed

this notice of appeal on March 9, 2021

. The notice of appeal was not timely filed, meaning that

this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from his conviction at this point

in time. 2 To the extent Averette is requesting the remedy of an out

- of

- time appeal, only the Texas

Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction to grant Appellant an out

- of

- time appeal of his felony

convictions. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (orig.

p roceeding) (en banc) (explaining that writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure governs out

- of

- time appeals from felony convictions).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

June 22, 2021

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

2 The clerk’s record does show that Averette filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on October 6, 2020. However,

there is no indication the trial c ourt ever ruled on this application. As such, the judgment of conviction is the only

final appealable judgment appearing before us in the record.
#### Frederick C. Cotta et al., Respondents, *v.*Edward T. Carr, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1899.)

Lien — Custody of a horse, wagon and harness.

An agreement under which the defendant was to take care of the plaintiffs’ team, the latter to have the use of it in their business every day, accompanied by proof that besides boarding the horse the defendant occasionally of his own motion washed the wagon and cleaned the harness, affords no basis for a lien upon his part, either by agreement, or by statute as ah artisan for the betterment of personal property; or for the storage of the goods, within sections 70 and 73, art. VI, chap. 418 of the Laws of 1897.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court, third district, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.

John P. Everett, for appellant.

Smith & Cochrane; for respondents.

MacLean, J.

The complaint is *“*to recover the possession of personal property.” The answer “ general denial; bailee’s lien as livery-stable keeper.” From the evidence which is not contradictory, it appears that it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the latter should take care of a horse, wagon and harness belonging to the plaintiffs, who were to have possession and use of the. horse, wagon and harness every day in their business. Under this agreement the defendant boarded the horse, occasionally washed the wagon and cleaned the harness, though *546these latter were- not stipulated services. Being in arrears on December 1, 1898,.the plaintiffs were notified by the defendant that they could not remove the horse, wagon and harness from the stable until his charges were paid. Nine days after this notice the plaintiffs made a written demand for the return- of the horse, wagon and harness, which was refused.. These facts and the value of the articles having been shown, the justice rendered judgment that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the possession of the wagon and harness or their value, adjudged to be $142, .and that the defendant had a lien upon the horse for the sum of $60 for the keep of the animal, and was entitled to retain said animal until such indebtedness was paid. From so much of the judgment as awarded the possession of the Value of the wagon and harness to the plaintiffs, comes the present appeal. The defendant failed to establish any lien either by agreement or by statute as an artisan for'the betterment of personal property, or .for storage of the goods,within sections 70 and'73, art. VI, chap. 418, Laws of 1897. The judgment should he affirmed.

Freebmah, P. J., and Levektritt, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VI Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730013
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          53,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,711)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         25,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,564
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,268
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,170
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       390
<EPS-BASIC>                                     9.12<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Sao Tome and Principe

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Sao Tome and Principe			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe

The government made significant progress by producing and publicly issuing a revised budget when budget projections did not reasonably correspond to projected revenues and expenditures.  During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  Budget documents were not prepared according to internationally accepted principles, and audit reports from the supreme audit institution were not published within a reasonable period of time.  The institution lacks sufficient financial and human resources to meet international standards.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available, except for information on state-owned enterprise debt, which was not disclosed.  While public budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues, they did not include earnings from or allocations to state-owned enterprises.  Military and intelligence budgets were not subject to civilian oversight.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available. Sao Tome and Principe’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- including allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in budget documents,
- subjecting military and intelligence to civilian oversight;
- improving the reliability of budget estimates;
- preparing budget documents using internationally accepted principles;
- providing the supreme audit institution with sufficient resources to carry out its work; and
- making audit reports widely and easily accessible to the public within a reasonable period of time.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSao Tome and Principe

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future