alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Harris Linden, Respondent, *v.*Harry Goodman, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

April, 1900.)

Payment — Of check, in the hands of payee after it had been negotiated — Evidence.

Where the maker of a check in suit shows that it was in the, possession of the payee subsequent to the time when it is alleged to *249have been transferred to other parties, the maker is entitled to prove that he paid the amount of the check to the payee while he was the holder of it.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff, upon a trial had before the court without a jury.

The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion.

Charles L. Cohn, for appellant.

Isaac Marks, for respondent.

Giegebich, J.

The action is upon a check drawn by the defendant upon the German Exchange Bank, for the sum of $197.03, payable to the order of one S. Brinn, and bearing date the 11th day of April, 1898. The complaint, among other things, alleges, that the above-named payee indorsed the check to one S. Levy; that in the latter part of April, 1898, Levy indorsed it to one Mary Brinn, who, it is averred, assigned such check to the plaintiff before the commencement of this action. The defense, among others, was that the check in suit was paid to the payee while he was the holder thereof, and before the alleged assignment or transfer of the same to the plaintiff. The defendant testified that on or about June 25, 1898, he saw the check in question in the possession of the payee. He then sought to bring out evidence to the effect that he paid the amount of such check together with other sums to him while it was in his possession, but this was excluded upon the plaintiff’s objection to its materiality, competency and relevancy, and upon the further grounds that it was not binding upon the plaintiff, and called for a conclusion of law, and the defendant excepted. Having shown that the check in controversy was in the payee’s possession at a period subsequent to the alleged transfer to other parties, it was manifestly proper and relevant for the defendant to show payment of the check to him while he was the holder thereof. Hence, the exclusion of the evidence referred to was reversible error. It results from these views that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Beekmax, P.' J., and O’Goemax, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
§ 21.8282 Termination of a vocational training program. A case manager may terminate a vocational training program under this subpart for cause, including lack of cooperation, failure to pursue the individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation, fraud, administrative error, or finding that the child no longer has a covered birth defect. An eligible child for whom a vocational goal is reasonably feasible remains eligible for the program subject to the rules of this subpart unless the child's eligibility for or entitlement to a vocational training program under this subpart resulted from fraud or administrative error or unless VA finds the child no longer has a covered birth defect. The effective date of termination will be the earliest of the following applicable dates: ( a ) *Fraud.* If an eligible child establishes eligibility for or entitlement to benefits under this subpart through fraud, VA will terminate the award of vocational training and rehabilitation as of the date VA first began to pay benefits.
( b ) *Administrative error.* If an eligible child who is not entitled to benefits under this subpart receives those benefits through VA administrative error, VA will terminate the award of benefits as of the first day of the calendar month beginning at least 60 days after notifying the child of the proposed termination. This 60-day period may not result in the entrance of the child into a new quarter, semester, or other term of training unless VA has already obligated payment for the training.
( c ) *Change in status as an eligible child with a covered birth defect.* If VA finds that a child no longer has a covered birth defect, VA will terminate the award of benefits effective the last day of the month in which such determination becomes final.
( d ) *Lack of cooperation or failure to pursue individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation.* If reasonable VR&E efforts to motivate an eligible child do not resolve a lack of cooperation or failure to pursue an individualized written plan of vocational rehabilitation, VA will terminate the award of benefits as of the first day of the calendar month beginning at least 60 days after notifying the child of the proposed termination. This 60-day period may not result in the entrance of the child into a new quarter, semester, or other term of training. VA will deobligate payment for training in the new quarter, semester, or other term of training.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804, 1814)
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3082

_____________________________

T AVARES S PELLMAN

- F OLMAR ,
Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA ,
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Co urt for Escambia County

. John L. Miller , Judge

.
May 25, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences, but remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the written judgment. Appellant pleaded guilty to all five counts charged in t he information, and the trial court orally adjudicated him guilty of all five counts. C ount five was included on the fourth page of the written judgment, but omitted from the first page . On remand, the lower tribunal shall enter a corrected written judgmen t that conforms to the court’s oral pronouncement of guilt on all five
counts

. See King v. State

, 201 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (affirming an Anders appeal but remanding for correction of scrivener’s errors in the written judgment); Washington v. Stat e , 37 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (same).2 A FFIRMED and R EMANDED with instructions.

W OLF , B ILBREY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee

, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Guinea

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Guinea			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing its end-of-year budget report within a reasonable period of time.  During the review period, the government also published its enacted budget online.  However, it did not publish an executive budget proposal within a reasonable period of time.  Information on debt obligations was generally publicly available, although debt information for some major state-owned enterprises was not.  The enacted budget did not present a complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams and did not include allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.  Significant, large state-owned enterprises lacked publicly available audited financial statements.  Budget documents were considered generally reliable.  Guinea’s supreme audit institution met international standards of independence but did not publish reports on the government’s executed budget within a reasonable period of time.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law but appeared to be applied inconsistently in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available. Guinea’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing an executive budget proposal within a reasonable period of time;
- including allocations to, earnings from, and debt obligations of state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
- ensuring significant, large state-owned enterprises have publicly available audited financial statements;
- publishing audit reports of the government’s executed budget within a reasonable period of time; and
- applying laws on contracting and licensing for natural resource extraction consistently.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Guinea 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentGuinea

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
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

	I, **Ingrid Wiik**, Chief Executive Officer of Alpharma Inc., certify that:

	1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alpharma Inc.;

	2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

	3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

	4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

       (a)	   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly  report is being prepared;

       (b)	   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

       (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect , the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

	5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

       (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

       (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.

 

 

 

Date: August 5, 2004

/s/ Ingrid Wiik____
§ 18.511 Rules against age discrimination. The rules in this section are limited by the exceptions contained in §§ 18.513 and 18.514 of these regulations. ( a ) *General rule.* No person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( b ) *Specific rules.* A recipient may not, in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, directly or through contractual licensing, or other arrangements, use age distinctions or take any other actions which have the effect, on the basis of age, of: ( 1 ) Excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subjecting them to discrimination under, a program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or
( 2 ) Denying or limiting individuals in their opportunity to participate in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
( c ) The specific forms of age discrimination listed in paragraph (b) of this section do not necessarily constitute a complete list.
(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)
**1501 Lee Highway** ▪ **Suite 180** ▪ **Arlington, Virginia 22209**

**www.mcbreenkopko.com** December 10 , 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M

- 30

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Application of GoJet Airlines , LLC for Renewal of Exemption s (US

- Canada)

Docket s OST

- 20 09

- 0348 and OST

- 2012

- 0160

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter will confirm that GoJet Airlines, LLC has polled all carriers on the service list to the

above

- referenced Application filed on December 9 , 2014 and there are no objections. 1

Please contact me with any with any questions.

Very truly yours,

Lisa A. Harig

Counsel for GoJet Airlines, LLC

cc: Brett Kruger

1 We were unable to contact counsel for Evergreen International Airlines. We understand Evergreen is no longer

operating flights , has filed for bankruptcy (Chapter 7), and is, therefore, unlikely to object to this Application

.
# C_2012343EN.01002201.xml

| 10.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/22

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

(Case F-41/10) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Officials - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Right of disclosure - Reassignment - Interests of the service)

2012/C 343/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Echevarría Viñuela, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of a number of decisions terminating the applicant’s duties as Head of the Legal Service Unit with immediate effect, reassigning him to the Directorate for Logistics and rejecting his formal request for assistance, and application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 55.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2461 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2461

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit distributions from 
  individual retirement plans to be contributed to 529 plans without 
              including the distribution in gross income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2007

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit distributions from 
  individual retirement plans to be contributed to 529 plans without 
              including the distribution in gross income.

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

SECTION 1. CONTRIBUTIONS TO 529 PLANS FROM INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 408 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to individual retirement accounts) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(9) Transfers to 529 plans.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to 
                any amount paid or distributed out of an individual 
                retirement account or individual retirement annuity to 
                the individual for whose benefit the account or annuity 
                is maintained if such amount is contributed to a 
                qualified tuition program (as defined in section 
                529(b)).
                    ``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply 
                to any payment or distribution if such payment or 
                distribution would result in an excess contribution 
                described in section 529(b)(6).
                    ``(C) Rollover rules to apply.--For purposes of 
                subparagraph (A), rules similar to the rules of 
                paragraphs (3) shall apply.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to payments and distributions in taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 18b.90 Conduct.

Parties and their representatives are expected to conduct themselves with honor and dignity and observe judicial standards of practice and ethics in all proceedings. They should not indulge in offensive personalities, unseemly wrangling, or intemperate accusations or characterizations. A representative of any party whether or not a lawyer shall observe the traditional responsibilities of lawyers as officers of the court and use best efforts to restrain the principal represented from improprieties in connection with a proceeding.

[35 FR 10760, July 2, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 10387, Mar. 26, 1986]
§ 21.6410 Delegation of authority. ( a ) *General.* Authority is delegated to the Under Secretary for Benefits and to supervisory or non-supervisory personnel within the jurisdiction of the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Service, to make findings and decisions under 38 U.S.C. 1524 and the applicable regulations, precedents and instructions pertaining to this program. See § 2.6(b). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 512(a))
( b ) *Applicability of §§ 21.412 and 21.414 .* The provisions of §§ 21.412 and 21.414 (except for (d) and (e)) are applicable to this temporary program.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 512(a))
[53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at 87 FR 8744, Feb. 16, 2022]
NEW TRIAL.

#### KRUM v. STOLL

Evidence not to be Cumulative.

Newly discovered evidence as a ground for a new trial must not be cumulative.

J. H. Hardy and C. L. Fish, for plaintiff.

Willson & Sykora and Hessenmueller & Gallup, for defendant.

Where a new trial is sought on the ground of newly discovered evidence, that evidence should not be cumulative. Jones v. Voorhees, 10 O., 147; W., 548; Stevens v. Hey, 15 O., 313; 1 D., 115; Loeffner v. State, 10 O. S., 598.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Ma y 21, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00196

- CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JAMES E. FAIRLEY,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PC

- 1068

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice (not participating)

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On May 6, 2019, Appellant Juliette Fairley filed her appellant’s brief. In her brief,

appellant explains that Chief Justice Marion, w hen she was a probate court judge, signed an

administrative order that is at issue in this appeal. A ppellant moves for Chief Justice Marion and

the entire Fourth Court of Appeals to recuse from this appeal. Chief Justice Marion has

voluntarily recused herself from this appeal. Thus, the recusal motion with respect to Chief

Justice Marion is moot.

Each of t he remaining justices have declined to recuse themselves and , in accordance

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3 (b), have certified the m a tter of their respective

recusal to the other remaining justices. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 16.3(b). Without vot ing on their own

recusal, t he remaining justices sitting en banc DENY appellant’s motion to recuse all members

of the Fourth Court besides Chief Justice Marion.

I t is so ORDERED on this 21st day of May, 2019

.PER CURIAM

A TTESTED TO:

_____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
#### § 21.7130 Educational assistance.

VA will pay educational assistance to an eligible veteran or servicemember while he or she is pursuing approved courses in a program of education at the rates specified in §§ 21.7136, 21.7137 and 21.7139 of this part.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3015, 3022, 3032; Pub. L. 98-525)
Order entered July 20 , 2018

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01484

- CV

PNC MORTGAGE, A DIVI SION OF PNC BANK, N. A. SUCCESOR TO

NATIONAL CITY BANK A ND NATIONAL CITY MORTGAGE,

A DIVISION OF NATION AL CITY BANK OF INDI ANA, Appellant s

V.

JOHN HOWARD AND AMY HOWARD, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199

- 01559

- 2010



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant s’ July 19, 2018 unopposed motion for an extension of time

to file a reply brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 17, 2018

.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
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.

§ 3.707 Dependents' educational assistance. ( a ) *Child.* The conditions applicable to the bar to payment of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation for a child concurrently with educational assistance allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 35 are set forth in § 21.3023 of this chapter.
( b ) *Spouse or surviving spouse.* There is no bar to the payment of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation to a spouse concurrently with educational assistance allowance under 38 U.S.C. ch. 35.

Cross References:
Discontinuance. See § 3.503(a)(8). Certification. See § 3.807. [34 FR 840, Jan. 18, 1969, as amended at 41 FR 29120, July 15, 1976]