alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42097.

#### DAILEY v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTA.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where, on December 17, 1965, a suit was instituted on a conditional sale contract given in the original sum of $1,396.56 payable in 24 monthly installments of $58.19 each beginning May 25, 1965, the suit being for $1,148.80 principal, it is obvious that some of the installments were past due. Whether or not the maturity of the other installments had been accelerated according to the terms of the contract, a recovery for some amount being authorized by the allegations of the petition, the petition was not subject to general demurrer on the ground that the entire debt sued on was not ■ past due.

2. Where a conditional sale contract sued upon was payable to Dave Millar Furniture Company as seller (which name imports a corporation, see *Holcomb v. Cable Co.,*119 Ga. 466 (46 SE 671)), and such contract has thereon a purported transfer to the plaintiff with the name “D. L. Millar” signed in ink below the typed name “Dave Millar Furniture Company” which typed name was above a line below which were the words “name of seller,” and below the line where the name signed in ink appeared were the words “authorized signature,” the signature of “D. L. Millar” purports to be a signature for the entity appearing above it, to wit: “Dave Millar Furniture Company.” Such transfer, therefore, does not show on its face that the “D. L. Millar” was not authorized to sign for and in behalf of the corporation so as to make the petition subject to general demurrer. If the signature of the corporation was unauthorized this would be matter for defense. *Sheffield v. Johnson County Bank,*2 Ga. App. 221 (1, 2) (58 SE 386).

3. Assuming, without deciding, that the mere filing of the suit in the present case might constitute an exercise of the option to declare all the installments due and payable (see *Pape v. Woolford Realty Co.,*35 Ga. App. 284 (2) (134 SE 174)), yet where, as here, the suit upon such contract seeking to recover attorney’s fees which does not affirmatively allege that the notice of attorney’s fees was given “after maturity,” a recovery of attorney’s fees is unauthorized. *Code*§ 20-506, as amended by Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 766; Ga. L. 1953, pp. 545, *249546; Ga. L. 1957, p. 264 *(Code Ann.*§ 20-506); *Walton v.*Johnson, 213 Ga. 108, 111 (3) (97 SE2d 310); *Stone v. Colonial Credit Co.,*93 Ga. App. 348, 349 (3) (91 SE2d 835).

Argued June 7, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966.

*Walter 0. Allanson,*for appellant.

*J. Norwood Jones, Jr., John W. Bland, Jr.,*for appellee.

The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant directed to the claim of attorney’s fees, but did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
41877.

#### WILSON et al. v. MONTGOMERY.

Argued March 7, 1966

Decided April 5, 1966.

Frankum, Judge.

The evidence supports the verdict. The enumeration of error that the “court erred in charging numerous Code sections” is insufficient to present any question for decision since no reason is advanced in the brief of appellant why any or all of the Code sections given in charge to the jury by the court were not pertinent and applicable under the facts of the case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*

*475*Atkins & Atkins, Ben S. Atkins,*for appellants.

*Greer, Morris ■& Murray, Richard G. Greer, Timothy H. McFalls,*for appellee.
EX-4.34



 Exhibit 4.34 

Summary in English of the Tenedora Ares Share Purchase Agreement 

The following are the main terms and conditions pursuant to which Arretis, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Arretis”) and San Ángel Telecom, S.A. de
C.V. acquired 5% of the capital stock of Tenedora Ares, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (“Tenedora Ares”),, which holds 51% of the capital stock of Grupo Cable TV, S.A. de C.V.. 

 

			
	PARTIES		 Sellers: Vamole Inversiones 2013, S.L., Sociedad Unipersonal and Thomas Stanley Heather Rodríguez

Buyers: Arretis, S.A.P.I. de C.V. and San Ángel Telecom, S.A. de C.V.

		
	DATE		August 13, 2014
		
	PURCHASED SHARES		The Sellers sold and transferred to the Buyers, and the Buyer purchased and acquired from the Sellers, common shares representing 5% of the capital stock of Tenedora Ares.
		
	PURCHASE PRICE		Ps.1,875,708,451.50
		
	JURISDICTION		Mexican federal courts sitting in Mexico City.
		
	GOVERNING LAW		The parties submitted to the applicable federal laws of Mexico.
§ 1016.10 Limits on disclosure of nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Conditions for disclosure.* Except as otherwise authorized in this part, you may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose any nonpublic personal information about a consumer to a nonaffiliated third party unless: ( i ) You have provided to the consumer an initial notice as required under § 1016.4 of this part;
( ii ) You have provided to the consumer an opt out notice as required in § 1016.7 of this part;
( iii ) You have given the consumer a reasonable opportunity, before you disclose the information to the nonaffiliated third party, to opt out of the disclosure; and
( iv ) The consumer does not opt out.
( 2 ) *Opt out definition.* Opt out means a direction by the consumer that you not disclose nonpublic personal information about that consumer to a nonaffiliated third party, other than as permitted by §§ 1016.13, 1016.14, and 1016.15.
( 3 ) *Examples of reasonable opportunity to opt out.* You provide a consumer with a reasonable opportunity to opt out if: ( i ) *By mail.* You mail the notices required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section to the consumer and allow the consumer to opt out by mailing a form, calling a toll-free telephone number, or any other reasonable means within 30 days from the date you mailed the notices.
( ii ) *By electronic means.* A customer opens an online account with you and agrees to receive the notices required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section electronically, and you allow the customer to opt out by any reasonable means within 30 days after the date that the customer acknowledges receipt of the notices in conjunction with opening the account.
( iii ) *Isolated transaction with consumer.* For an isolated transaction, such as the purchase of a cashier's check by a consumer, you provide the consumer with a reasonable opportunity to opt out if you provide the notices required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section at the time of the transaction and request that the consumer decide, as a necessary part of the transaction, whether to opt out before completing the transaction.
( b ) *Application of opt out to all consumers and all nonpublic personal information.* ( 1 ) You must comply with this section, regardless of whether you and the consumer have established a customer relationship.
( 2 ) Unless you comply with this section, you may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose any nonpublic personal information about a consumer that you have collected, regardless of whether you collected it before or after receiving the direction to opt out from the consumer.
( c ) *Partial opt out.* You may allow a consumer to select certain nonpublic personal information or certain nonaffiliated third parties with respect to which the consumer wishes to opt out.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Sao Tome and Principe

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Sao Tome and Principe			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe

During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  However, actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget, and the government did not publish a revised or supplemental budget.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and its reports were not published within a reasonable period.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available, except for information on state-owned enterprise debt, which was not disclosed.  While public budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues, they did not include earnings from or allocations to state-owned enterprises.  Military and intelligence budgets were not subject to civilian oversight.  The government specified in law 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 publicly available.

Sao Tome and Principe’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Including allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
- Publishing debt information, including for state-owned enterprises;
- Ensuring budget projects correspond to actual revenues and expenditure, or issuing a supplemental or revised budget when they do not;
- Subjecting military and intelligence to civilian oversight;
- Improving the reliability of budget estimates;
- Preparing budget documents using internationally accepted principles;
- Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence and has sufficient resources; and
- Making audit reports widely and easily accessible to the public within a reasonable period.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Sao Tome and Principe 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSao Tome and Principe

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - 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 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 14, 2021 (the “Agreement”) and Item
1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-2 (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 AFS SenSub Corp. 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 April 14, 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                       | 
|                                     | Connie Coffey                           | 
|                                     | Executive Vice President, Corporate     | 
|                                     | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We  hereby  consent  to the  use  in the  Prospectus  constituting  part  of the
Registration  Statement on Form SB-2 Post-Effective  Amendment No. 1 to be filed
by Alpha  Resources,  Inc. of our  Auditors'  Opinion  dated  January 28,  2000,
accompanying the Financial  Statements of Alpha  Resources,  Inc. as of December
31, 1999 and 1998, and to the use of our name under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus.


Pender Newkirk & Company
Certified Public Accountants
Tampa, Florida
June 23, 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1106

WALTER J. SLOCUM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-03714-CMC)

Submitted: October 25, 2011 Decided: November 15, 2011

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Cornelius J. Sullivan, SULLIVAN & WALSH, Mattapan, 

Massachusetts, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, Christie V. Newman, Assistant United States Attorney,

Columbia, South Carolina; David C. Belt, Acting Chief Counsel, 

Michael J. Elston, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter J. Slocum appeals the district court’s order 

finding in favor of Defendant on Slocum’s age discrimination 

claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Slocum v. Donahoe, No. 3:08-cv-03714-CMC 

(D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2011). Slocum also seeks to appeal the district 

court’s previous order granting summary judgment in favor of 

Defendant on Slocum’s disability discrimination claim. However, 

because Slocum limited the scope of his notice of appeal to only 

the district court’s order on Slocum’s age discrimination claim, 

his appeal of the district court’s previous order on the

disability discrimination claim is not properly before this 

court and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317 (1988) 

(requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3 are jurisdictional).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
# C_2021412EN.01001201.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/12

---

Order of the General Court of 10 August 2021 — Jakeliūnas v ESMA

(Case T-760/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act - Request to launch an inquiry - Refusal of the President of ESMA - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Application for an injunction - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2021/C 412/11)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Stasys Jakeliūnas (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Paukštė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (represented by: G. Filippa, F. Barzanti and E. Siracusa, acting as Agents)

Re:

In essence, application, first, under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that ESMA unlawfully refrained from launching an inquiry in respect of the infringement of Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (OJ 2003 L 96, p. 16) and, second, under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the President of ESMA of 20 October 2020 refusing to launch that inquiry.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr. Stasys Jakeliūnas shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr. Stasys Jakeliūnas shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 1.3.2021.

---
HMONG • APRIL 2004
145

150

155

159

164

169

174

179

184

189

194

200

205

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

151

156

161

166

171

176

181

186

191

197

202

208

213

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

134

138

142

146

151

155

160

165

169

174

179

184

189

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

NIH Publication No. 04-5524 HMONG • APRIL 2004

NDEP-74HM
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 7
§ 1012.225 Suspension order for failure to cooperate. A suspension pursuant to § 1010.45(b)(2) of this chapter shall be effected by service of a suspension order which shall contain: ( a ) An identification of the filing to which the order applies.
( b ) Bases for issuance of order.
( c ) A notice of the hearing rights of the developer under § 1012.235 the procedures for invoking those rights.
( d ) A statement that the order shall remain in effect until the developer has complied with the Director's requirements.
### NUM BER 13-1 0-00 094- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG A D A M E A R L EY

W IN E A /K /A A DA M C HR ISTO PHE R EA RL EYW INE, A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 1 97t h Dist rict C ou rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, B en av ide s, an d Vela M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t , Ad a m E a r l e y w i n e a / k / a Ad a m C h r is topher

Ear ley w ine , attempts to appeal his conv icti on for harass ment by ce rt ain personsi n a c or re cti onal faci li ty

. SeeT EX . P ENAL2

C OD E A NN . § 22.11 (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. The tr ial co urt has ce rt ified thatthi s “ is a pl eabargain case, a nd the defend anthas NO rig ht of app eal.” SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2(a)(2). On March 17 , 201 0, th is Court notif ied ap pellan t’s coun sel tha t the trial court’s cer ti ficat ion fail ed to sh ow

the ri g ht to appeal and ordered c ounse l to: (1 ) re v iew the re cord; (2) dete rmine w het h e r app ellanthas a right to app eal; a nd (3) forw ard to th is Cou rt , by le t t e r, co u n s e l’ s f in d in gs a s t o wh e t h e r a p p e ll a n th a s a ri g h tt o a p p e a l, o r, a lt e rn a t ive ly, adv is e thi s C our

t as to the e x is tenc e of any amended cer

ti ficat ion

. On Jan uary 30, 200 8, cou nsel f iled a lette r brief w ith this Court. Cou nsel’s respo nse does not e sta bli sh that the c erti ficat ion cu rrentl y on file w it h thi s Cou rti s i ncor re ct or that appel lan t oth e rwi se has a r ig ht t o appea l. C ounse l has als o i nformed t he C our t t hat appel lan t doe s n ot w is h to pursue th e appeal ; t hat a ppel lan t has been re lea sed from pr is on; a nd th at c ounse l is unabl e to loc ate a ppel lan t. The Tex as Rul es of Appel lat e Proc edure prov ide thatan a ppeal mustbe d is mis sed if the trial court’s certif ication doe s not sho w thatthe de fe n d a nt ha s the right of app eal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25 .2 ( d); se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 37 .1, 4 4.3 , 44. 4. Acco rdingly , this app eal is DI SM ISSE D. An y

and all pendi ng moti ons are deni ed as moot.

P E RC U R I A M Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47 .2(b). Del iv ered and filed the 5th day of Aug ust , 201 0.
#### Den ex dem. Miller and Brown *against*Reed. *(a)*

THIS cause, being at issue, was carried down for trial, at the *Gloucester*circuit, in *November*1816. The defendant was a tenant, the landlord not having been made a party on the record. A rule for a view had been taken by the plaintiff at the preceding term of the court, and the view had. At the circuit, the landlord came in and made affidavit, that the tenant had not given him notice of the view, nor did he take any part in it; which he would have done, if he had been informed of it, as he considered his rights materially affected by it. That he lived at a great distance from the court, and had a very late notice of trial. Upon this affidavit the court postponed the trial, upon payment of the usual costs; and it was referred to the court at bar, whether to these costs, should be added, the costs of the view.

Trial postjy1.1^ view,

vjew‘j)aid by pariy appiy- ^ or

It wTas insisted by *White*and *Armstrong,*that the landlord being no party on the record, had no right to be present at the view, or take part in it; and that the favour of postponing the cause on his account, ought to have *400been granted only on such terms as should not injure the —plaintiff. It was matter of discretion in the court, and it ought to have imposed terms; that the defendant ought to have been required to pay these costs, before the trial was postponed.

*L. H. Stockton,*

for the defendant, insisted, that the landlord had rights, which justified the court in postponing, on his application; and that these costs could not be given to the plaintiff, being in the same situation as costs of struck juries.»

(a)

 See *Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1 Hal. 159. Houston ads. Woodward, 2 Har. 344.*

By the court,

*Rossell*J.

dissenting. We cannot give the costs of the view in this case. We consider the law as explicit and conclusive.

Costs refused.