alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01000801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/8

---

(2004/C 84 E/0008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1350/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject:   Cross-border investment

Subject:

Is the Commission of the view that the introduction of the euro has boosted cross-border investment for the participating Member States? Will it update those figures given in previous parliamentary answers to me that showed a sharp increase in cross-border investment in the euro area that was an order of magnitude greater than the increase for the EU members not participating in the euro? Will it also give the figures individually for the five largest Member States of the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

(22 May 2003)

Data on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows for EU-15, split between Eurozone and EU-15/non-Eurozone countries, together with shares of each aggregate in the total EU-15 are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. Data for the Eurozone are available as from 1997. Annual rates of growth are also shown (First set of tables).

Data for the five bigger Member States in terms of FDI inflows, the share of the United Kingdom in EU 15 and annual growth rates are also given (Second set of tables).

Available data for Foreign Direct Investment indicate that the introduction of the euro had a favourable effect on cross-border investment for the participating Member States.

FDI data compiled by Eurostat show a much larger increase of FDI inflows in 1999 and 2000 for the euro area than for other Member States. This can be interpreted as an evidence of a positive impact of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) on cross-border direct investment. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that EMU is only one of the factors that have affected euro-area FDI flows in recent years. In particular, FDI fluctuations have been clearly dominated by cyclical factors in the past two years. In 2001, the slowdown in merger activity and depressed economic conditions entailed a sharp drop in FDI inflows for both the euro area and other Member States.

---
#### § 21.8260 Training, services, and assistance costs.

The provisions of § 21.262 pertaining to reimbursement for training and other program costs apply, in a comparable manner as provided under the 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 program for veterans, to payments to facilities, vendors, and other providers for training, supplies, and other services they deliver under this subpart.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1804(c), 1814)
§ 1006.38 Disputes and requests for original-creditor information. ( a ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: ( 1 ) *Duplicative dispute* means a dispute submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period that: ( i ) Is substantially the same as a dispute previously submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period for which the debt collector already has satisfied the requirements of paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section; and
( ii ) Does not include new and material information to support the dispute.
( 2 ) *Validation period* has the same meaning given to it in § 1006.34(b)(5).
( b ) *Overshadowing of rights to dispute or request original-creditor information* — ( 1 ) *Prohibition.* During the validation period, a debt collector must not engage in any collection activities or communications that overshadow or are inconsistent with the disclosure of the consumer's rights to dispute the debt and to request the name and address of the original creditor.
( 2 ) *Safe harbor.* A debt collector who uses Model Form B-1 in appendix B to this part in a manner described in § 1006.34(d)(2) has not thereby violated paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Requests for original-creditor information.* Upon receipt of a request for the name and address of the original creditor submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period, a debt collector must cease collection of the debt until the debt collector: ( 1 ) *In general.* Sends the name and address of the original creditor to the consumer in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42; or
( 2 ) *Special rule if the current creditor and the original creditor are the same.* In lieu of taking the actions described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, reasonably determines that the original creditor is the same as the current creditor, notifies the consumer of that fact in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42, and refers the consumer to the validation information previously provided pursuant to § 1006.34(a)(1).
( d ) *Disputes* — ( 1 ) *Failure to dispute.* The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt does not constitute a legal admission of liability by the consumer.
( 2 ) *Response to disputes.* Upon receipt of a dispute submitted by the consumer in writing within the validation period, a debt collector must cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion of the debt, until the debt collector: ( i ) Sends a copy either of verification of the debt or of a judgment to the consumer in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42; or
( ii ) In the case of a dispute that the debt collector reasonably determines is a duplicative dispute, either: ( A ) Notifies the consumer in writing or electronically in the manner required by § 1006.42(a)(1) that the dispute is duplicative, provides a brief statement of the reasons for the determination, and refers the consumer to the debt collector's response to the earlier dispute; or
( B ) Satisfies paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
[85 FR 76887, Nov. 30, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 5856, Jan. 19, 2021]
#### PINSON V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 7, 1912.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

de Graffenried, J.

Affirmed on the record.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Burma

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Burma			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Burma 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Burma

During the review period, the government published its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report online within a reasonable period of time.  Information on debt obligations was available online, but it was out of date.  Budget documents were not complete and did not capture allocations to and earnings from military-owned enterprises falling under the Ministry of Defense.  It is unclear to what extent there was civilian oversight of military and intelligence budgets.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not issue publicly available audit reports of the government’s financial accounts.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were not sufficiently outlined in law or regulation.  Information on natural resource extraction awards in the mineral, jade, and gemstone industries was not always publicly available.  In 2016, the government suspended licensing for mining concessions to conduct a review of the relevant legal and regulatory framework to improve the transparency and implementation of laws guiding natural resource extraction. Burma’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- publishing substantially complete budget documents including allocations to and earnings from military-owned enterprises; making state-owned enterprise audited financial statements publicly available;
- including in the budget financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises;
- making comprehensive, state-owned enterprise debt information publicly available;
- disclosing major state-owned enterprise debt;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;
- making supreme audit institution reports publicly available;
- establishing greater civilian oversight over military and intelligence budgets; and
- specifying in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses;
- adhering to these laws and regulations in practice; and
- publishing basic information on all such awards.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Burma 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBurmaDivision for International Finance and Development

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
35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered
to you pursuant to Section 2.9 (c) of the 2020-3 Servicing Supplement dated as of August 24, 2020 (the “Agreement”) and Item
1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 2020-3 (the “Trust”),
the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by
AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and GMF Leasing LLC in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used
herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the
preceding period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under
the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AmeriCredit
Financial Services, Inc.



|By: | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 4, 2022
|--- | --------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|    | Connie Coffey                           |  |                     
|    | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                     
|    | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |                     
|    |                                         |  |
From: Polinski, Raymond [mailto:Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:36 PM 

To: Richard Parker; Jerry Schoen; Dave Millure; Brian Coffey; Dan Cohen; John Cymbalsky 

Cc: Bishop, Jamie A.; Davis, Elliot S.; Rakowski, Jim 

Subject: RE: Antitrust Issue 

Dear Richard,

We will discuss our position regarding an approach to develop transformer efficiency standards that

enable M‐3 and amorphous materials to be cost competitive choices for transformer producers with

Navigant directly rather than with AK or Metglas.  If AK and Metglas do the same, Navigant can

independently analyze the data.   

Raymond J. Polinski.

General Manager, Grain‐Oriented Electrical Steel (GOES)

ATI Allegheny Ludlum

585 Silicon Drive.

Leechburg, PA 15656‐1237

P: 724.845.0259

F: 724 845 0696

“This electronic message contains information from Allegheny Ludlum Corporation that may be privileged and

confidential.  The information is intended to be for the sole use of the intended recipients only.  If you are not an

intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.  Do not forward, copy, distribute, or use the

contents of this message without my permission.”

NOTICE: My email address has been changed to Raymond.Polinski@ATImetals.com  

From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:49 PM 

To: Jerry Schoen; Polinski, Raymond; Dave Millure; Brian Coffey; Dan Cohen; John Cymbalsky 

Subject: Antitrust Issue 

Greetings, 

I spoke with Bill Stallings in the Anti-trust Division of Justice Dept about our situation and 

received an informal assurance from him that there is no problem with our proceeding along the 

lines we are planning. So it is fine to meet to discuss price and weight impacts of different 

hypothetical energy standards with an eye to avoid undue competitive impacts in setting the final 

standard. 

All best, 

Richard Parker
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10679 Conference Calendar

RONALD J. HOLLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MICHAEL GILLETT; MARY LUDWIG; DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT; HENRY WADE Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-3320-G

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1997 Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Having reviewed Holleman’s arguments and the record on appeal, we hereby deny Holleman’s motion to amend his complaint. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Holleman’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for substantially the same reasons adopted by the district court. Holleman v. Gillett , 3:96-CV-3320-G (N.D. Tex. May 19, 1997).
41891.

#### BROWN v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

Eberhardt, Judge.

In this workmen’s compensation case the sole question is whether a judgment entered on behalf of the employee in the superior court upon application therefor under *Code*§ 114-711 can be amended or vacated at a subsequent term of court based upon a certified copy of an order from the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation diminishing or terminating compensation for the period upon which the judgment was based.

In this section it is provided that “upon presentation to the court of a certified copy of a decision of the Board ending, diminishing or increasing a weekly payment under the provisions of this Title, particularly of § 114-709, *the court shall revoke or modify*the order or decree to conform to such decision of the Board.” (Emphasis supplied). As was suggested in a footnote to *Continental Cos. Co. v. Bump,*106 Ga. App. 826 (128 SE2d 525), this statutory provision creates an exception to the rule that a judgment may not be vacated or modified after expiration of the term of the court during which it was entered.

Here judgment was entered on application of the employee during the November term, 1965. A certified copy of an award of the board, finding a change in condition to have occurred and upon which compensation was terminated from January 31, 1964 (the award not having been appealed from), was presented to the court during the December, 1965 term and on *491the basis thereof the judgment was vacated and modified. This is in full accord with the statute and is free of error.

Argued April 4, 1966

Decided April 14, 1966.

*Mitchell & Mitchell, James M. Barnes,*for appellant.

*Pittman & Kenney, L. Hugh Kemp,*for appellees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
Exhibit
32.2
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
 Date: May
9, 2005
 ****By:
    /s/ Colin DunnColin
      Dunn, Vice President of
      Finance
### -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 38 39 40 41 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/06 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 06 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.46 N 76.63 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■


## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ● ● ● ●


## ★ ● ● ● ●
42380.

#### MASONRY SALES *&*SERVICE, INC. v. HOPPER.

Eberhardt, Judge.

1. “When a motion for mistrial is made and the trial court instructs the jury not to consider the alleged error upon which the motion is based, and counsel neither requests further instruction nor renews the motion for mistrial, the assignment of error based on the denial of the motion for a mistrial is without merit.” *Kendrick v. Kendrick,*218 Ga. 460 (4) (128 SE2d 496).

*507Argued October 5, 1966

Decided October 24, 1966.

*Holden E. Sanders,*for appellant.

*Davis & Stringer, Robert H. Stringer,*for appellee.

2. Where defendant’s counsel requested the court to instruct the jury not to consider argument of plaintiff’s counsel relative to her source of income as a means of living and the court did so admonish the jury, error assigned upon the objectionable argument or upon the failure of the court to declare a mistrial because of it is not meritorious. “In no case will the trial judge’s ruling be reversed for not going further than requested.” *Brooks v. State,*183 Ga. 466, 469 (188 SE 711, 108 ALR 752).

3. Though the evidence was conflicting, the verdict was authorized. The general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
42367.

#### GASTON v. THE STATE.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant’s conviction for possessing more than one quart of tax-paid liquor in a dry county, in violation of Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., pp. 103, 123 *(Code Ann.*§ 58-1077), was not supported by testimony that on December 23 eight half-pint bottles of liquor were found in the kitchen pantry in the defendant’s house and eight half-pint bottles were found in a bedroom occupied by the defendant’s son and *570his wife, testimony of the defendant’s wife that the defendant bought four of the half-pint bottles found in the kitchen for her at her request when he went to the store to buy a quart for himself for Christmas, testimony of the defendant’s son and his wife that the eight bottles found in their bedroom were purchased by them when they went to the store and each bought a quart in individual half-pint packages, and testimony of the defendant that the only liquor that he knew was in the house was that found in the pantry. *Gibbs v. State,*66 Ga. App. 129 (17 SE2d 237). The case of *Cheek v. State,*98 Ga. App. 874 (107 SE2d 247), where a conviction for possessing whiskey was held to be supported by the evidence, is not controlling here. There testimony was introduced to prove that the whiskey found in the defendant’s house belonged to other persons, but the opinion states that the jury were authorized to disbelieve the witnesses under the evidence, showing that their testimony was contradicted or discredited.

Submitted October 3, 1966

Decided November 3, 1966.

*Marshall L. Fountain,*for appellant.

*James C. Abbot, Solicitor,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
§ 10.2 Filing requirements. ( a ) A national bank or Federal savings association shall use Form MSD-4 (Uniform Application for Municipal Securities Principal or Municipal Securities Representative Associated with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer) for obtaining the information required by MSRB Rule G-7(b) from a person identified in § 10.1(b). A national bank or Federal savings association receiving a completed MSD-4 form from a person identified in § 10.1(b) must submit this form to the OCC before permitting the person to be associated with it as a municipal securities principal or a municipal securities representative.
( b ) A national bank or Federal savings association shall submit Form MSD-5 (Uniform Termination Notice for Municipal Securities Principal or Municipal Securities Representative Associated with a Bank Municipal Securities Dealer) to the OCC within 30 days of terminating a person's association with the national bank or Federal savings association as a municipal securities principal or municipal securities representative.
( c ) Forms MSD-4 and MSD-5, with instructions, may be obtained at *http://www.banknet.gov/*.
[63 FR 29094, May 28, 1998, as amended at 63 FR 71343, Dec. 24, 1998; 79 FR 15641, Mar. 21, 2014; 82 FR 8105, Jan. 23, 2017]
§ 21.5050 Application requirements for participation. ( a ) An individual, who is otherwise eligible to become a participant, must apply to the Service Department under which he or she serves upon forms prescribed by the Service Department and/or Secretary of Defense.
( b ) No application to participate may be made before entry upon active duty.
( c ) Each application must be submitted in time to permit the Service Department to make the required deduction from the individual's military pay for at least 1 month before the applicant's discharge or release from active duty.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3221)
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-109 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Research and Development 

 Memorandum of Agreement 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and INDIA 

Signed at Washington and New Delhi 

December 6, 2005 and January 9, 2006 

 with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
INDIA 

Defense: Research and Development 

 Memorandum of agreement signed at 

 Washington and New Delhi 

 December 6, 2005 and January 9, 2006; 

 Entered into force January 9, 2006. 

 With annexes. 


NOTE: It is noted that from Article VIII on, the page numbers of the main agreement are off.







































NOTE: It is noted that the title for Article XI differs from what is listed in the Table of Contents for this Annex.



NOTE: It is noted that from 3.2.2 to 3.2.4, the subparagraph numbers are out of sequence.