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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Financial Data Schedule contains summary information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements for the three month period ended May
31, 1997.  Information contained in this Financial Data Schedule is qualified in
its entirety by reference  to such unaudited financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,860
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,696
<PP&E>                                         302,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,530
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 378,640
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          567,205
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,397
<OTHER-SE>                                   (201,962)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   378,640
<SALES>                                        978,762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               978,762
<CGS>                                          302,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,338,182
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (359,419)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (359,419)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (359,419)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Erhard Oehlhof, Respondent, *v.*Herman Solomon et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York upon verdict and order denying motion for a new trial.

Louis Lowenstein, for appellants.

Bennet & Silverman (William S. Bennet, of counsel), for respondent.

Hascall, J.

This action was brought, as alleged, to recover damages for a breach of contract upon the purchase by the plaintiff from the defendants of a certain butcher shop and fixtures in the city of New York, together with an unexpired lease of the premises, having about three years to run; and also special damages for alleged false representations concerning the defendants’ ability to procure an assignment of their lease to be made to the plaintiff at the time of his purchase of their business. For these three elements of damage, the plaintiff sought to recover back the sum of $700, paid by him at the time of purchase, and also $500 as damages for the false representations, $1,200 in all. The plaintiff alleged that he had been compelled to remove from the premises, shortly after he had entered into possession and enjoyment under his contract of purchase. It does not appear that the defendants procured an assignment of their lease to be made to the plaintiff. The landlord would not recognize and accept plaintiff as tenant, but actually began proceedings for dispossession.

It seems that the charge, upon which the whole case was left with the jury, strictly conformed with the ruling set forth in Voltz v. Blackmar, 64 N. Y. 444; and, even though the trial justice might have deemed it a case where a smaller amount than was awarded would have done better justice between the parties, yet, the limit, in his opinion, being less than excessive, he had the right and thought it proper not to set aside the verdict, since so well within the peculiar province of the jury. Kiff v. Youmans, 20 Hun, 125. We think this view correct.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### William Messer, Respondent, *v.*Nathan Hutkoff, Appellant.

Appeal from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

P. Hellinger, for appellant.

J. Greenberg, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The trial justice decided this case upon conflicting evidence. It was peculiarly his province so to do, and unless against the weight of evidence, which after an examination of the proofs we cannot assert, the judgment must be affirmed.

Our attention is called, however, to an item of the recovery amounting to one dollar and a half, as to which no proof whatsoever was given, and which, doubtless, through inadvertence, was included by the trial justice in the judgment.

The judgment will, therefore, be modified by deducting then from the item in question, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the respondent.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment modified, and as modified affirmed, with costs, to respondent.
Filed 1/26/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 9

Vernon Ashley, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent

No. 20160238

Appeal from the District Court of Sargent County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel D. Narum, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Vernon E. Ashley, self-represented, P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, ND 58506, petitioner and appellant; on brief.

State of North Dakota, respondent; no appearance.

Ashley v. State

No. 20160238

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Vernon Ashley appealed a district court’s order denying his motion for post- conviction relief. In his motion, Ashley argued the district court should reduce his sentence for a multitude of reasons. The district court determined Ashley’s motion was simply a renewed motion to reduce his sentence which the district court had denied in 2015 for being untimely. The district court denied Ashley’s post-conviction relief motion for being meritless. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1). 

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom, S.J.

[¶3]The Honorable Jerod E. Tufte was not a member of the Court when this case was heard and did not participate in this decision.  Surrogate Judge Dale V. Sandstrom, sitting.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Vietnam

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Vietnam			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Vietnam 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Vietnam

During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report accessible to the public, including online.Information on debt obligations of state-owned enterprises was not publicly available.Publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue, including natural resource revenue, but the government maintained off-budget accounts.Budget information was considered generally reliable, although budget documents were not fully prepared according to internationally accepted principles.While the supreme audit institution lacked independence that met international standards, it did review the government’s accounts, made its report publicly available, and followed up on its findings.The government specified in law or regulation and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not always publicly available.

Vietnam’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

-  Publishing information on major state-owned enterprise debt obligations;
-  Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate audit and oversight;
-  Fully preparing budget documents according to internationally accepted principles;
-  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence; and
-  Publishing basic information on natural resource extraction awards.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Vietnam 

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentVietnam

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
# C_2022211EN.01000401.xml

| 30.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 May 2022

(2022/C 211/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0656 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,34 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4405 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85295 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5419 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0269 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 138,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,2704 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,648 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 388,25 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6210 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9416 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 17,3954 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5126 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3720 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3647 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6539 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4676 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 354,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,7628 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1334 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5355 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 587,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6833 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,787 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,550 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,1736 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2213 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,6666 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0656

JPY

Japanese yen

135,34

DKK

Danish krone

7,4405

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85295

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5419

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0269

ISK

Iceland króna

138,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,2704

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,648

HUF

Hungarian forint

388,25

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6210

RON

Romanian leu

4,9416

TRY

Turkish lira

17,3954

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5126

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3720

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3647

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6539

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4676

KRW

South Korean won

1 354,61

ZAR

South African rand

16,7628

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1334

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5355

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 587,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6833

PHP

Philippine peso

55,787

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,550

BRL

Brazilian real

5,1736

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2213

INR

Indian rupee

82,6666

---

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

---
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6416

ANTHONY LORENZO COLEMAN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 00046

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : July 20, 2017 Decided: July 25, 2017

Before DUNCAN and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Anthony Lorenzo Coleman , Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Kiernan Fitzgerald , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Anthony Lorenzo Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition , and its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for
reconsi deration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutio nal right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is de batable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322,
336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at
484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we den y a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not ai d the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Virginia Macchi *v.*Glow’s Restaurant, Inc.

Maltbie, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued October 13

decided November 15, 1949.

*Robert I. Ellis,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Francis P. Rohrmayer,*with whom, on the brief, were *Leon RisCassi*and *Harry Q. Kaminsky,*for the defendant in error.

Dickenson, J.

The issue, raised by demurrer in the trial court, is whether a criminal conviction of officers of the defendant corporation is a criminal conviction of the corporation.

The plaintiff brought an action of summary process against the corporation to the City Court of Hartford under General Statutes, § 8281, which provides that when the lessee or tenant of any house, room or tenement shall be convicted of a violation therein of any law against gaming, the lease or contract for letting shall be void and the lessor may recover possession by summary process. The allegations of the complaint, perforce admitted by the demurrer, are: The defend*157ant corporation occupied a building of the plaintiff under a lease in which the defendant agreed to comply with the laws of the state; Edward Kozyra was the president of the corporation and Benjamin Kozyra the secretary; the corporation operated a restaurant and grill on the premises; the Kozyras were convicted of pool selling at the restaurant.

There is no allegation that the corporation was convicted of a violation of the gaming laws and none that its president and secretary were acting for it at the time the offense was committed. The claim of the plaintiff, as appears from the cases cited in her brief, is that the trial court could “pierce the corporate veil” and rule that the Kozyras and the corporation were one. *Hoffman Wall Paper Co.*v. *Hartford,*114 Conn. 531, 534, 159 A. 346; *New Haven Metal & Heating Supply Co.*v. *Danaher,*128 Conn. 213, 222, 21 A. 2d 383. No facts are alleged which make the principle of these cases applicable. The criminal prosecution was not on this basis. It was against the Kozyras, individually.

The trial court correctly sustained the demurrer.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Section 302 Officer Certification

I, Jorge Tagle, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Madeco;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; 

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report; 

4.	The Company's other certifying officers 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 Company and have:

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

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure control 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 Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.	The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company'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 Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

- any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting; and

6.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

Date: June 29, 2005

/s/ Jorge Tagle Ovalle 

Chief Financial Officer
#### PIQUA HOSIERY CO. v. UNITED STATES

[58 C. Cls. 722; 269 U. S. 592]

On appeal. *Dismissed*by the Supreme Court October 8, 1925, per stipulation.
#### § 1072.110 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the Bureau shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as implemented in 41 CFR 101-19.600 through 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
42226.

#### DEEMS v. WILSON.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. An accommodation party is one who signs the instrument in any capacity for the purpose of lending his name to another party to it. Where there has been no negotiation of the instrument an accommodation party may show by parol what the understanding or agreement had been as to his capacity in signing. *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—415; *Bank of Lumpkin County v. Justus,*150 Ga. 286 (2) (103 SE 794); *Seymour v. Bank of Thomasville,*157 Ga. 99 (121 SE 578).

2. Where the accommodation party testified that she was requested by the payee to sign as a witness to the signature of her son-in-law, who was under age and who had signed the note as maker, and that her signature on the note, ostensibly as maker, was placed there for no other reason than as a witness, a question of fact was raised as to what her capacity had been in signing, the resolution of which by the judge trying the case without a jury will not be disturbed.

3. Where the payee of a note testified that the maker, having damaged his truck, had agreed to give him a note for $600, the amount of the agreed damage, and that the note sued on and introduced in evidence was that which the maker had given him for the truck damage, and that the maker’s mother-in-law had agreed to and did sign the note as comaker with her son-in-law, and the note, prepared by payee’s attorney, had written into the face of it the notation: “It is agreed that *342this note is conditional and does not settle out any claim or demand payee has against the maker,” it appears that the note was without consideration. *Gibson v. Kyle,*46 Ga. App. 295 (167 SE 547). Under the plaintiff’s testimony the consideration was a. settlement of his claim against the maker for damages to the truck, but by the very terms of the note it appears that the payee did not relinquish or surrender up his claim against the son-in-law in accepting the note. Cf. *Powell & Co. v. Subers,*67 Ga. 448.

Submitted September 6, 1966

Decided September 23, 1966.

*Preston L. Holland,*for appellant.

*Miles Sams,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
XV Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
86-A, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
86-A,  Inc.,   each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  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 results of operations of the Partnership.


                              /s/ Robert P Johnson
                                  Robert P. Johnson, President
                                  AEI Fund Management 86-A, Inc.
                                  Managing General Partner
                                  November 11, 2003



                              /s/ Patrick W Keene
                                  Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                                  AEI Fund Management 86-A, Inc.
                                  Managing General Partner
                                  November 11, 2003