alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.7624 Overcharges and restrictions on enrollments. ( a ) *Overcharges.* VA may disapprove an educational institution for further enrollments when the educational institution charges or receives from a reservist tuition and fees that exceed the established charges which the educational institution requires from similarly circumstanced nonreservists enrolled in the same course. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2136; 38 U.S.C. 3690; sec. 705(a)(1), Pub. L. 98-525, 98 Stat. 2565, 2567; secs. 642 (c), (d), 645(a)(1), Pub. L. 101-189, 103 Stat. 1457-1458)
( b ) *Restriction on enrollments.* The provisions of § 21.4210(b) apply to any determination by VA as to whether to impose restrictions on approval of enrollments and whether to discontinue payments to reservists already enrolled at an educational institution.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2136; 38 U.S.C. 3690(b); sec. 705(a)(1), Pub. L. 98-525, 98 Stat. 2565, 2567; secs. 642 (c), (d), 645(a)(1), Pub. L. 101-189, 103 Stat. 1457-1458)
[61 FR 29304, June 10, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 35837, July 1, 1998]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

s0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

145878

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145878

COA: 308910

Oakland CC: 2010-233880-FH

REBECCA MARIE HINZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 24, 2012 

judgment 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.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 229 

To provide that no automatic pay adjustment for Members of Congress 

shall be made in the year following a fiscal year in which there is 

a Federal budget deficit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that no automatic pay adjustment for Members 

of Congress shall be made in the year following a fiscal 

year in which there is a Federal budget deficit. 

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 ‘‘Deficit Accountability 

5 Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EFFECT OF A BUDGET DEFICIT. 

7 Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act 

8 of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended— 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 229 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘Subject to 

2 subparagraph (B),’’ and inserting ‘‘Subject to sub3 paragraph (B) and paragraph (3),’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(3) An adjustment under paragraph (2) otherwise 

6 scheduled to take effect in a calendar year shall not be 

7 made if, as determined by the Office of Management and 

8 Budget, there was a deficit (as defined by section 3 of 

9 the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 

10 of 1974) in the preceding fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
41916.

#### SHEN et al. v. BRUCE.

Submitted April 4, 1966

Decided April 13, 1966.

*485*Hammond Johnson, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Reed & Dunn, Robert J. Reed,*for appellee.

Jordan, Judge.

1. It is contended by the defendant that the trial court properly sustained the general demurrer to the petition since the facts alleged therein did not show that the plaintiffs had made an unconditional tender of the purchase price in cash and by three post-dated checks as provided in the option contract. This contention is without merit.

“Where a vendee sues to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract by the vendor by refusing to make conveyance, the general rule is that a prerequisite to a recovery therefor is a tender of the purchase money. Such tender is waived, however, by the vendor’s proclaiming, by conduct or declaration, that, if a tender should be made, acceptance would be refused. *Emery v. Atlanta Real Estate Exchange,*88 Ga. 321, 327 [14 SE 556]; *Smith v. Tatum,*140 Ga. 719 (2) (79 SE 775); *Fraser v. Jarrett,*153 Ga. 441, 451 (3) (112 SE 487).” *Pritchett v. Dodd,*112 Ga. App. 453, 454 (145 SE2d 610). The plaintiffs had until October 1, 1962, to exercise their option to purchase the defendant’s property for a total consideration of $1,677 under the written contract executed by the parties; yet, according to the allegations of the petition, the defendant notified the plaintiffs on August 31, 1962, that the sale price would be $2,174 rather than the consideration set forth in the contract. Clearly, under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Nickelson v. Oweriby,*208 Ga. 352 (2) (66 SE2d 828), the allegation that the defendant informed the plaintiffs that he was ready to complete the sale but for the consideration of $2,174 rather than the price set forth in the option contract, was the equivalent of a statement that the tender of the contract price would be refused if made, and such allegation was sufficient to show a waiver of necessity for tender.

*486Count 1 set forth a cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract and count 2 set forth a cause of action to recover damages for money had and received and the trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition. *Pritchett v. Dodd,*112 Ga. App. 453, supra; *Woodruff v. Camp,*101 Ga. App. 124 (1) (112 SE2d 831).

2. The trial court also erred in sustaining the special demurrers to the petition. The allegations of the petition which disclosed that the defendant not only breached the terms of the written option contract by demanding more money for the subject property, but that he also refused to return the $150 paid to him as consideration for the option contract, were in our opinion sufficient to authorize the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of bad faith and presented a question for the jury on the issue of the recovery of attorneys’ fees. *Code*§ 20-1404; *Chambers & Co. v. Harper,*83 Ga. 382 (2) (9 SE 717); *Williams v. Harris,*207 Ga. 576 (3) (63 SE2d 386); *Bowman v. Poole,*212 Ga. 261 (3) (91 SE2d 770); *Whitaker v. Creedon,*97 Ga. App. 320, 329 (103 SE2d 175).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
§ 21.129 Home study course. ( a ) *Definition.* A *home study* course is a course conducted by mail, consisting of a series of written lesson assignments furnished by a school to the student for study and preparation of written answers, solutions to problems, and work projects which are corrected and graded by the school and returned to the trainee.
( b ) *Limitations on inclusion of home study courses, in rehabilitation plans.* A veteran and his or her case manager may include a home study course in a rehabilitation plan only when it supplements the major part of the program. The purpose of the home study course is to provide the veteran with theory or technical information directly related to the practice of the occupation for which the veteran is training.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(7))
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Putting Human Rights at the Center of U.S. Foreign Policy

# 									Putting Human Rights at the Center of U.S. Foreign Policy							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 24, 2021

The United States is committed to a world in which human rights are protected, their defenders are celebrated, and those who commit human rights abuses are held accountable. Promoting respect for human rights is not something we can do alone, but is best accomplished working with our allies and partners across the globe. President Biden is committed to a foreign policy that unites our democratic values with our diplomatic leadership, and one that is centered on the defense of democracy and the protection of human rights.

Today, the administration took an important step in that direction by announcing the U.S. intent to seek election to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council starting in January 2022. The United States has long been a champion of human rights. If elected to the Human Rights Council, we will use the opportunity to be a leading voice within the Council for promoting respect for human rights.

The Human Rights Council is an important multilateral venue dedicated to furthering international human rights efforts and has played a critical role in promoting accountability for human rights violations and abuses. From investigations into abuses in Syria and North Korea to promoting the human rights for women and LGBTQI persons and other minorities, and combatting racism and religious persecution, the Human Rights Council must support those fighting against injustice and tyranny.

We acknowledge challenges at the Council as well, including unacceptable bias against Israel and membership rules that allow countries with atrocious human rights records to occupy seats they do not merit. However, improving the Council and advancing its critical work is best done with a seat at the table.

We seek to return to the Human Rights Council to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies and partners to ensure that this important body lives up to its purpose. We do so with determination to listen, learn, and work toward a world in which human rights are universally respected.

Tags

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of International Organization AffairsDiversity and InclusionHuman RightsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateUnited Nations

Back to Top
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STANLEY PAUL SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, etal., ) ) Defendants. ) Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FI:.i3 24 20iO Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 

# 10 0290

This matter comes before the court onreview ofplaintiffs application to proceed in formapauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted bylawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Evenpro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard ofRule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).
1!$

The list ofdefendants exceeds 10 pages, and there appear to be so many factual allegations against so many defendants that the Court cannot discern what claim orclaims he brings against which defendant. The complaint is so vague, disorganized and confusing that it utterly fails to "give the defendant[s] fair notice ofwhat the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." 

### Conley v. 

### Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). Neitherthe court nor the defendants can discern the nature orbasis ofplaintiffs claim, the reliefplaintiffdemands, and the basis ofthe court'sjurisdiction. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for its failure to complywith Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Date: 

# f.J.**~** J. OlD

2
42084.

#### ISRAEL, Administrator v. WILSON.

Argued June 8, 1966

Decided June 20, 1966.

*847*H. A. Wilkinson, Smith & Undercofler,*for appellant.

*LeSueur & LeSueur, R. L. LeSueur, Sr.,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. The plaintiff expressly abandoned enumeration of error number 6.

2. Enumerations of error numbered 7 and 8 complain of the charge, but the record does not disclose that any objection to the charge as given was made before the jury returned its verdict. Under § 17 of the Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18), as amended (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 240, 244; *Code Ann.*§ 70-207), no question is presented for decision by these enumerations of error.

3. Enumerations of error numbered 1 and 2 complain that the trial court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to testify as to the location of an “agreed” line dividing the north half of the land lot from the south half, and enumeration of error numbered 3 complains that the trial court erred in ruling: “The rule of acquiescence is not applicable in this case. You haven’t laid the foundation to invoke the rule of acquiescence.”

In *Warwick v. Ocean Pond Fishing Club,*206 Ga. 680 (58 SE2d 383), the Supreme Court laid at rest the contention that a dividing line may be established by agreement or acquiescence where there has been no dispute as to the location of such line. It was there held: “Therefore we hold that the establishment of a dividing line by acquiescence is bottomed upon conclusive proof of an agreement, and stands upon the same basis as the establishment of such a line by express agreement, and that a prerequisite to either is that such a line be in dispute, uncertain or unascertained.”

The record discloses no dispute as to the location of the dividing line at any time. Therefore the exclusion of the evidence and the ruling of the trial court that the proper foundation'to invoke the rule of acquiescence had not been laid was not error.

4. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Georgia Power Co. v. Green,*207 Ga. 250, 252 (61 SE2d 146), the trial court did not err in admitting in evidence a plat identified and explained by a witness who participated in making the survey. *848Accordingly, no error is shown by the fourth enumeration of error.

5. No reversible error is shown by the admission of evidence over objection where similar evidence was admitted without objection. See *Kilgore v. National Life*&c. *Ins. Co.,*110 Ga. App. 280 (138 SE2d 397), and citations. Therefore, the fifth enumeration of error is without merit.

6. The evidence, while not without conflict, authorized the verdict for the defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 35.1



SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT



Re: Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA LLC in its capacity
as Servicer (the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2020, among Mercedes-Benz
Auto Receivables Trust 2020-1, as Issuer, Daimler Retail Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA
LLC, as Seller and Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”), for the period from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021 (the
“Reporting Period”).



I, Brian T. Stevens, certify that:



| | (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement
has been made under my supervision.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement
in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 24, 2022



| | /s/ Brian T. Stevens                 | 
| | ------------------------------------ | 
| | Name: Brian T. Stevens              
| | Title: Vice President and Controller
§ 21.3344 Special assistance for the educationally disadvantaged. ( a ) *Enrollment.* VA may approve the enrollment of an eligible person in an appropriate course or courses at the secondary school level. This approval may be made only if the eligible person— ( 1 ) Has not received a secondary school diploma (or an equivalency certificate);
( 2 ) Needs additional secondary school education, remedial, refresher, or deficiency courses, to qualify for admission to an appropriate educational institution in a State in order to pursue a program of education; and
( 3 ) Is to pursue the course or courses in a State. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3491(a), 3533)
( b ) *Measurement.* VA will measure remedial, deficiency, or refresher courses offered at the secondary school level as provided in §§ 21.4270(a)(2) and 21.4272(k). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3533)
( c ) *Educational assistance.* VA will authorize educational assistance at the monthly rates specified in § 21.3131. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3491(a), 3533)
( d ) *Entitlement charge.* The provisions of § 21.3045 will determine whether VA will make a charge against the period of the entitlement of the eligible person because of enrollment in a course under the provisions of this section. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3533)
( e ) *Certifications.* ( 1 ) Certifications of the eligible person's need for deficiency or remedial courses in basic English language skills and mathematics skills may be made by: ( i ) A VA counseling psychologist or vocational rehabilitation counselor in the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Division;
( ii ) The educational institution administering the course; or
( iii ) The educational institution where the student has applied for admission.
( 2 ) Certification of need for other refresher, remedial or deficiency course requirements are to be made by the educational institution— ( i ) Administering the course which the eligible person is planning to enter; or
( ii ) Where the eligible person has applied for admission. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3533)
( f ) *Basic skills.* Basic English language courses or mathematics courses will be authorized when it is found by accepted testing methods that the eligible person is lacking in basic reading, writing, speaking, or essential mathematics.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3533)
[61 FR 26112, May 24, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 2426, Jan. 15, 2008; 87 FR 8743, Feb. 16, 2022]
#### § 53.155 Modification of loans.

No official of the Department of Health and Human Services will approve any proposal to modify the terms of a loan guaranteed under title VI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 291 *et seq.*) and this subpart which would permit the use of the guaranteed loan (or the guarantee) as collateral for an issue of tax-exempt securities.

[48 FR 42984, Sept. 21, 1983]
SALE OE LAND.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

November Term, 1889.]

Swing, Cox and Smith, JJ.

#### ROBERT CRIGLER v. ROBERT BLAIR.

Title to Buyer’s Satisfaction — Buyer the Sole Judge.

When a contract is entered into for the purchase of land, “if on examination it prove to be as represented by the seller;” and after examining it, the purchaser expressed his satisfaction with the character of the land, and added that he would take it, provided “a satisfactory title and abstract be furnished,” to which the seller agreed; held, that' this became part of the original contract, and was upheld by the same consideration, and that the purchaser will not be compelled to take the property unless “the title and abstract are satisfactory” to him. By the terms of the contract the parties have made him the sole judge as to that matter.

On Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.

Cox, J.

These parties entered into an agreement, whereby Crigler was to exchange property in Birmingham, Ala., for property in this city belonging to Blair. The agreement was conditioned upon the property in Birmingham proving upon inspection by Blair to be as represented by Crigler. The inspection satisfied Blair as to the character of the property, and he so stated upon his return, but he then added a second condition to the agreement for an exchange, which provided that “a satisfactory title and abstract be furnished.” To this further condition the plaintiff acceded. In suing for a specific performance of the contract, the plaintiff, set up the claim that the agreement for an exchange was completed on the day when defendant contracted to make the exchange on condition that he found the property, upon inspection,' to be as represented. For the subsequent condition, requiring that “a satisfactory title and abstract be furnished,” it was claimed that the plaintiff received no consideration, and was therefore not bound.

*574Milton Sater and J. A. Jordan, for plaintiff.

Sayler *Si*Sayler, for defendant.

The court finds that a contract was concluded on the date claimed by thcH plaintiff, but as the subsequent condition as to the title was assented to by the plaintiff, it became part of the original contract, and there was consideration foi it. We find, also, that no satisfactory abstract of title was furnished the plaintiff, and the one which was furnished does not show such a title in him as the defendant was bound to accept.

The purchaser was by the parties made the judge as to the satisfactory character of the title and abstract, and if not satisfactory to him he cannot be compelled to take it. Wharton on Contracts, 593; 27 Am. Law Reg., 576 and note on 578; Sargent v. Sibley, 6 Dec. R., 1219 (s. c., 13 Am. Law Rec., 33; 11 B., 177); 113 Mass., 136; 39 Mich., 49; 45 Mo., 80-82; 8 Ch. Div., 670, *et seq.;*44 Conn., 218.
HomeNuclear Energy Recent Actions...Nuclear – IAEA Statute (Article VI Amendment) – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Uzbekistan, July 26, 2023

# 									Nuclear – IAEA Statute (Article VI Amendment) – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Uzbekistan, July 26, 2023							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [108 KB]

Tags

Nuclear EnergyUzbekistan

Back to Top
§ 20.702 Rule 702. Methods by which hearings are conducted. A hearing on appeal before the Board may be held by one of the following methods: ( a ) In person at the Board's principal location in Washington, DC, or
( b ) By electronic hearing, through picture and voice transmission, with the appellant appearing at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7105(a), 7107)
[84 FR 186, Jan. 18, 2019]
#### § 23.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.