alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Morris Berkowitz, Respondent, *v.*The Congregation Stropkower Chebra Joseph Chaim Anshei Sephard, Appellant.

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

Max Brown, for appellant.

Paul Hellinger (Maurice S. Hyman, of counsel), for respondent.

Conlan, J.

The action was to recover the value of certain alterations and repairs to a building. Certain things which were to be done under the original contract were varied by a subsequent contract, and it is claimed by the plaintiff that, under a still further agreement, there were certain extras called for, and which were required to be done in compliance with certain rules and regulations fixed by law.

The defendant pleads non-performance and alleges a counterclaim. The evidence is conflicting upon the question of extra work, and upon the question of performance. In the charge to the jury, the whole case was presented to them under all of the contracts and on all of the evidence, and the claims of the respective parties were fully explained. That the charge was eminently satisfactory to the parties is evidenced by the fact that no exception broad enough to cover any portion of the same was taken, and only reached to the form of language employed in certain requests made by the defendant. Upon an examination of the record, we do not find any errors which call for an interference with the result reached by the jury, and the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., and Hascall, J., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
----

Appeal brought on 10 October 2005 by Bart Nijs against the order made on 26 May 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-377/04 between Bart Nijs and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Case C-373/05 P)

(2005/C 330/16)

Language of the case: French

An appeal against the order made on 26 May 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Case T-377/04 between Bart Nijs and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 2005 by Bart Nijs, represented by Fränk Rollinger, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly found that Bart Nijs's application was inadmissible, while he maintains that the pre-litigation procedure, and more specifically Article 90(2) of the Statute, was complied with.

----
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Palestinian Authority

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Palestinian Authority			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Palestinian Authority 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Palestinian Authority

During the review period, the Palestinian Authority made its enacted budget public, but not within a reasonable period, and the data was incomplete.  The budget was not approved by the legislature.  It published monthly budget execution reports that provided a substantially full picture of expenditures and revenue streams.  The information in the reports was considered reliable and reasonably accurate, but information on debt obligations was incomplete.  The supreme audit institution lacked independence, and its audit reports were not publicly available within a reasonable period and did not cover the entire annual executed budget.

The Palestinian Authority’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing its executive budget proposal, complete enacted budget, and end-of-year report in a timely manner;
- Providing complete and timely information on debt obligations;
- Ensuring the independence of the supreme audit institution; and
- Publishing supreme audit institution reports of the entire annual executed budget within a reasonable period.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Palestinian Authority 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentPalestinian Territories

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
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>
               Electronic Retailing Systems International, Inc.
                   Computation of Net Loss Per Common Share

<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months
                                              Ended         Year Ended
                                          December 31, 1996 December 31, 1996
                                          ----------------- -----------------
<S>                                       <C>               <C>
Net loss                                  ($2,884,000)      ($9,412,000)

Dividends on preferred stock                    --             (231,000)

                                          -----------       ------------
Earnings (loss) available to common
 shareholders                             ($2,884,000)      ($9,643,000)
                                          ===========       ===========

Weighted average common shares
 outstanding                               21,038,379        16,168,794
                                          ===========       ===========
Earnings (loss) per common share               ($0.14)           ($0.60)
                                          ===========       ===========

Calculation of weighted average
 shares outstanding
-------------------------------

Shares issued and outstanding at
 Dec. 31, 1995                             11,748,232        11,748,232

Shares issued in Reg. S offering            4,963,500         2,352,563

Shares issued in US private placement         911,657           432,100

Shares issued to investment broker            218,957           103,780

Shares issued upon conversion of
 Series A preferred stock                   3,138,900         1,487,753

Issuance of shares pursuant to
 stock option plan                             57,133            44,366
                                          -----------       -----------
Weighted average common shares
 outstanding                               21,038,379        16,168,794
                                          ===========       ===========

</TABLE>
§ 1209.33 Interlocutory review. ( a ) *General rule.* The Director may review a ruling of the presiding officer prior to the certification of the record to the Director only in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section.
( b ) *Scope of review.* The Director may exercise interlocutory review of a ruling of the presiding officer if the Director finds that: ( 1 ) The ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy as to which substantial grounds exist for a difference of opinion;
( 2 ) Immediate review of the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the proceeding;
( 3 ) Subsequent modification of the ruling at the conclusion of the proceeding would be an inadequate remedy; or
( 4 ) Subsequent modification of the ruling would cause unusual delay or expense.
( c ) *Procedure.* Any motion for interlocutory review shall be filed by a party with the presiding officer within 10 days of his or her ruling. Upon the expiration of the time for filing all responses, the presiding officer shall refer the matter to the Director for final disposition. In referring the matter to the Director, the presiding officer may indicate agreement or disagreement with the asserted grounds for interlocutory review of the ruling in question.
( d ) *Suspension of proceeding.* Neither a request for interlocutory review nor any disposition of such a request by the Director under this section suspends or stays the proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer or the Director.
#### Edward F. Kienle, Respondent, v. Caspar Strobel, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan. Ashley, Emley & Rubino, for appellant; Phillips & Avery, f- r respondent. - Judgment affirmed, with costs.

No opinion.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129806 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129806 

 COA: 264838 

Macomb CC: 03-003566-FC 

BRIAN DAVID FOSSETT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
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.

§ 3.1712 Effect of forfeiture on payment of burial benefits. ( a ) *Forfeiture for fraud.* VA will pay burial benefits, if otherwise in order, based on a deceased veteran who forfeited his or her right to receive benefits due to fraud under § 3.901, Fraud. However, VA will not pay burial benefits to a claimant who participated in fraudulent activity that resulted in forfeiture under § 3.901.
( b ) *Forfeiture for treasonable acts or for subversive activity.* VA will not pay burial benefits based on a period of service commencing before the date of commission of the offense if either the veteran or the claimant has forfeited the right to all benefits except insurance payments under § 3.902, Forfeiture for treasonable acts, or § 3.903, Forfeiture for subversive activities, because of a treasonable act or subversive activities, unless the offense was pardoned by the President of the U.S.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103, 6104, 6105)
Cross Reference: § 3.1(aa), for the definition of “fraud.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       				
<S>          			<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                        68,989
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 6,887
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   870,260
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,419,319
<PP&E>                        553,279
<DEPRECIATION>                194,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,957,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         231,507
<BONDS>                       8,079,100
<COMMON>                      268,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         435,594
<PREFERRED>                   0
<OTHER-SE>                    (7,057,401)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  1,957,675
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,167
<CGS>                         (20,436)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 373,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            170,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (563,212)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (563,212)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (563,212)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2704 

To give the consent of Congress to an agreement or compact between Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas for the purpose of 

establishing an all-hazard mitigation, readiness, response, and recovery 

plan, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 13, 2007 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself and Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To give the consent of Congress to an agreement or compact 

between Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas for the purpose of establishing an all-hazard mitigation, readiness, response, and recovery plan, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gulf Coast All-Hazard 

5 Readiness Act of 2007’’. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2704 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONSENT OF CONGRESS. 

2 (a) CONSENT.—The consent of Congress is given to 

3 any number of the Gulf Coast States to negotiate and 

4 enter into an agreement or compact that meets the fol5 lowing requirements: 

6 (1) The agreement or compact is consented to 

7 by the legislatures of each of the participating Gulf 

8 Coast States through legislation enacted not later 

9 than December 31, 2010. 

10 (2) The agreement or compact is entered into 

11 primarily for the purpose of establishing a plan for 

12 all-hazard mitigation, readiness, response, and recov13 ery. 

14 (3) The agreement or compact establishes a 

15 multi-state all-hazard fund generated by partici16 pating Gulf Coast States to be utilized when a dis17 aster affects those States. 

18 (4) The agreement or compact requires each of 

19 the participating Gulf Coast States to appoint a 

20 commissioner to organize the operation, manage21 ment, and disbursement of the multi-state all-hazard 

22 fund in coordination with the other commissioners. 

23 (5) The agreement or compact prohibits partici24 pating Gulf Coast States from taking an action pro25 hibited by Federal law at the time of such action. 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2704 IH

1 (b) GULF COAST STATES DEFINED.—As used in this 

2 section, the term ‘‘Gulf Coast States’’ means Alabama, 

3 Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC60 with BILLS
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Laos

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Laos			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Laos  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Laos 

During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal publicly available online, but not within a reasonable period.It did not publish its enacted budget or end-of-year report.The completeness and reliability of budget information could not be evaluated due to the lack of publicly available documents.Limited information on debt obligations was publicly available, but not for major state-owned enterprise debt.Publicly available budget documents were not prepared according to internationally accepted principles.Military and intelligence budgets were not subject to parliamentary or civilian public oversight.The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence.It reviewed only a portion of the government’s accounts and did not make its reports publicly available.The government specified in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.A moratorium on natural resource extraction awards has been in effect since 2012.

Laos’ fiscal transparency would be improved by:

-  Making its enacted budget and end-of-year report publicly available within a reasonable period;
-  Preparing budget documents according to internationally accepted principles;
-  Including in budget documents allocations to, earnings from, and debt information of major state-owned enterprises;
-  Publishing comprehensive information on debt obligations;
-  Subjecting military and intelligence budgets to parliamentary or civilian public oversight; and
-  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence, audits the entire annual executed budget, and publishes its reports within a reasonable period.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Laos  

Tags

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

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
#### GREENBRIER, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 99-1577.

Supreme Court of the United States.

June 29, 2000.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
January 13, 1997 

       Securities and Exchange Commission 
       450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
       Washington, D.C. 20549 

            Re:  Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. 
                    Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ending April 30, 1996
                    SEC file no.  0-17378 

       Dear Sir or Madam:

       Transmitted herewith through the EDGAR system is Form 10-QSB for the 
quarter ended April  30, 1996 for Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.  Should you have any 
questions or comments concerning this matter please contact the undersigned at 
303-794-2000.



       Sincerely, 



       Roger Hurst 
       President 


<PAGE>                                                                 32
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROMAINE HENRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-1151

[April 9, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Joseph George Marx, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502018CF001618AXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ikram Ally, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anesha Worthy, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 1268.2 Authorization for acquired member assets. ( a ) *General.* Each Bank is authorized to invest in assets that qualify as AMA, subject to the requirements of this part and part 1272 of this chapter.
( b ) *Grandfathered transactions.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a Bank may continue to hold as AMA assets that were previously authorized by the Federal Housing Finance Board or FHFA for purchase as AMA, provided that the assets were purchased, and continue to be held, in compliance with that authorization.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10028

Conference Calendar

 

CARL WAYNE SIMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM G. SMITH; ROCKY L. 

STEWART; R. WHITE; K.J. REAGANS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:97-CV-211

- - - - - - - - - -

August 19, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Carl Wayne Sims, Texas prisoner # 536044, filed a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint against several employees of the Texas

Department of Corrections, Institutional Division. Sims alleged

that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs and retaliated against him for reporting his injury

as the result of a dangerous condition. The district court

dismissed the complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a
No. 98-10028

-2-

** Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980),

aff'd in part and vacated in part, 679 F.2d 1115, amended in part

and vacated in part, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied,

460 U.S. 1042 (1983).

claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and

(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

On appeal, Sims argues that the unsafe work condition in the

kitchen violates the Ruiz** decree, that he was given a work

assignment in the fields because he filed grievances, that he was

wrongly exposed to a known dangerous condition in the prison

kitchen, and that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to

his injured knee. We have reviewed the record and perceive no

error by the district court. Sims v. Smith et al., No. 2:97-CV0211 (N.D. Tex. December 23, 1997).

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,

219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

A previous civil rights suit filed by Sims was dismissed as

frivolous. Sims v. Scott et al., USDC No. H-95-5311 (S.D. Tex.

Aug. 13, 1996). The district court's dismissal of the present

case and our dismissal of the appeal constitute strikes two and

three against Sims for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Sims has

three strikes, he may not bring a civil action or appeal as a

prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis unless he is under imminent

danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 
No. 98-10028

-3-

 APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. SANCTION IMPOSED UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).