alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42178.

#### PALMER TIRE COMPANY v. L. & H. ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action as transferee on a note executed by the defendant. The defendant appeals from the trial court’s judgment for the plaintiff for principal, interest, and attorney’s fees provided for in the note. The allegations of the defendant’s answer did not set up a valid defense to the indebtedness for principal and interest due unconditionally under the terms of the note. The answer denied the allegation of the petition that the plaintiff had given written notice to the defendant (required by law as a condition to the enforcement of the obligation to pay attorney’s fees) that unless the balance due on the note was paid within ten days the provision for attorney’s fees would be enforced.

When the original answer to a suit on a note does not set up any legal defense to the unconditional contract for payment of principal and interest, but only denies that defendant was given the notice required by law *(Code*§ 20-506, as amended Ga. L. 1946, p. 761; Ga. L. 1953, p. 545; Ga. L. 1957, p. 264) as a condition to the enforcement of the provisions of the note for the payment of attorney’s fees, the answer is not amendable to set up a defense to the unconditional part of the contract. *O’Kelley v. Welch,*18 Ga. App. 157 (89 SE 76); *McMillan v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Jacksonville,*18 Ga. App. 445 (89 SE 635); *Kingery v. Yancey Bros. Co.,*100 Ga. App. 178, 180 (110 SE2d 411). But see *Kreischer v. Bank*
      *315
      *of Louisville,*32 Ga. App. 699 (124 SE 539); *Greenwood v. Greenwood,*44 Ga. App. 847 (163 SE 317); and *Howard v. Jones Motor Co.,*104 Ga. App. 440 (121 SE2d 915), which appear to be inconsistent with the earlier decisions cited supra.

Argued July 6, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966

Rehearing denied September 21, 1966

*Westmoreland & Patterson, CarlE. Westmoreland, W. Wheeler Bryan,*for appellant.

*George E. Saliba,*for appellee.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the plaintiff’s general demurrer to the answer and plea except insofar as it denied receipt of the notice alleged to have been given to enforce the provisions of the note to collect attorney’s fees, nor in sustaining the plaintiff’s objections to the defendant's amendments on the ground that the original answer set up no valid defense under oath and was not amendable.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
#### Den *against*Stigar and Miller.

THIS cause had been several times noticed for trial at the circuit, and each time a jury struck, upon the motion of the defendant. *Ewing*for defendant, and *M’Donald*for plaintiff, now presented to the court, the question, ■whether the fees of the sheriff, for summoning these juries, should be paid by the plaintiff or the defendant ?

Fees for summoning a struck jury. (c)

(c)

*Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1 Hal. 159.*See *Gibbons vs. Ogden, 2 Hal. 122. Anonymous, 1 Har. 393.*

By the Court.

The costs of striking the juries, must *412be paid by the party applying for them. The fees for the juries, must be paid by the plaintiff who issues the writ, and taxed and recovered in his bill of costs, if he have judgment against the defendant.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

y1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141285

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141285 COA: 297283 Kent CC: 08-009854-FH ROBERT EARL REYBURN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 12, 2010 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.
Editorial Note on Subpart B of Part 21
Editorial Note: The regulations formerly appearing under this subpart were revoked at 30 FR 14103, Nov. 9, 1965. That order provided in part, “these regulations remain in force insofar as they are pertinent to any problems, appeals, litigation, or determinations of liability of educational institutions or training establishments for overpayments under 38 U.S.C. 1666.”

§ 21.1031 VA responsibilities when a claim is filed. ( a ) *VA will furnish forms.* VA will furnish all necessary VA claim forms and instructions, and, if appropriate, a description of any supporting evidence required upon receipt of an informal claim. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5102)
( b ) *VA has a duty to notify claimants of necessary information or evidence.* ( 1 ) Except when a claim cannot be substantiated because there is no legal basis for the claim, or undisputed facts render the claimant ineligible for the claimed benefit, when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application for educational assistance provided under subpart C, D, G, H, K, L, or P of this part VA will— ( i ) Notify the claimant of any information and evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim; and
( ii ) Inform the claimant which information and evidence, if any, the claimant is to provide to VA and which information and evidence, if any, VA will try to obtain for the claimant.
( 2 ) The information and evidence that VA, pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section informs the claimant that the claimant must provide, must be provided within one year from the date of the notice. If VA does not receive such information and evidence from the claimant within that time period, VA may adjudicate the claim based on the information and evidence in the file.
( 3 ) If the claimant has not responded to the request within 30 days, VA may decide the claim before the expiration of the one-year period prescribed in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, based on all the information and evidence in the file, including information and evidence it has obtained on behalf of the claimant. If VA does so, however, and the claimant subsequently provides the information and evidence within one year of the date of the request, VA must readjudicate the claim. If VA's decision on a readjudication is favorable to the claimant, the award shall take effect as if the prior decision by VA on the claim had not been made.
( 4 ) If VA receives an incomplete application for benefits, it will notify the claimant of the information necessary to complete the application and will defer assistance until the claimant submits this information. If the information necessary to complete the application is not received by VA within one year from the date of such notice, VA cannot pay or provide any benefits based on that application.
( 5 ) For the purpose of this paragraph, if VA must notify the claimant, VA will provide notice to: ( i ) The claimant;
( ii ) His or her fiduciary, if any; and
( iii ) His or her representative, if any.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5102, 5103, 5103A(a)(3))
[64 FR 23771, May 4, 1999, as amended at 72 FR 16965, Apr. 5, 2007; 74 FR 14665, Mar. 31, 2009]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  720,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,135
<INVENTORY>                                  1,356,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,095,361
<PP&E>                                         834,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                 618,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,597,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,699,207
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,545
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,235,757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,597,412
<SALES>                                      8,469,994
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        6,367,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             737,942
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,977,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,977,939)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,977,939)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 107–125—JAN. 16, 2002 115 STAT. 2403

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2278:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–188 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Sept. 5, considered and passed House.

Dec. 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–125

107th Congress

An Act

To provide for work authorization for nonimmigrant spouses of intracompany transferees, and to reduce the period of time during which certain intracompany

transferees have to be continuously employed before applying for admission to

the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR SPOUSES OF INTRACOMPANY

TRANSFEREES.

Section 214(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(E) In the case of an alien spouse admitted under section

101(a)(15)(L), who is accompanying or following to join a principal

alien admitted under such section, the Attorney General shall

authorize the alien spouse to engage in employment in the United

States and provide the spouse with an ‘employment authorized’

endorsement or other appropriate work permit.’’.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PERIOD OF PRIOR CONTINUOUS

EMPLOYMENT FOR CERTAIN INTRACOMPANY TRANSFEREES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 214(c)(2)(A) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(2)(A)) is amended by adding at

the end the following:

‘‘In the case of an alien seeking admission under section

101(a)(15)(L), the 1-year period of continuous employment required

under such section is deemed to be reduced to a 6-month period

if the importing employer has filed a blanket petition under this

subparagraph and met the requirements for expedited processing

of aliens covered under such petition.’’.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 101(a)(15)(L) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(L)) is

amended by striking ‘‘an alien who,’’ and inserting ‘‘subject to

section 214(c)(2), an alien who,’’.

Approved January 16, 2002.

Jan. 16, 2002

[H.R. 2278]
Administrative Offices Civil and Family Division Criminal Division Jury Office

(512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9420 (512) 854-9669

fax: 854-4744 fax: 854-9549 fax: 854-4566 fax: 854-4457

Amalia Rodriguez -Mendoza

Travis County District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse Complex

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

July 13, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. BOX 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Dear Mr. Kyle;

Re: D-1-GN-14-002158

A clerk’s record in cause number D-1-GN-14-002158 JESSICA LUKEFAHR VS TEXAS HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICE COMMISSION was due in your office on JULY 3, 2015. This office 

received payment on JULY 10, 2015; therefore we are requesting an extension of 5 days to file 

this record.

If you have any question please contact me at (512) 854-5880.

Thank you,

Sincerely, 

Patsy Ybarra

Deputy Court Clerk, 

(512) 854-5880

cc: Court file
§ 74.5 How does CVE determine affiliation? ( a ) CVE does not determine affiliation. Affiliation is determined by the SBA in accordance with 13 CFR part 121.
( b ) Joint ventures may apply for inclusion in the VIP Verification Program. To be eligible for inclusion in the VIP Verification Program, a joint venture must demonstrate that: ( 1 ) The underlying VOSB upon which eligibility is based is verified in accordance with this part; and
( 2 ) The joint venture agreement complies with the requirements set forth in 13 CFR part 125 for SDVOSBs. However, while 13 CFR part 125 is limited to SDVOSBs, CVE will apply the same requirements to joint venture firms seeking verified VOSB status.
[83 FR 48230, Sept. 24, 2018]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C. 20460

 September 16, 2004 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

EPA-SAB-COUNCIL-ADV-04-004 

Dr. Trudy Ann Cameron 

Chair 

Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis 

Office of the Science Advisory Board 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Dr. Cameron: 

Thank you for writing on behalf of the Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance 

Analysis to offer valuable advice on the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans for the review 

of the Revised Analytical Plan for the upcoming Second Prospective Analysis of the Clean Air 

Act. 

I applaud the thoroughness and technical sophistication of your advisory, and I appreciate 

the Council’s ongoing efforts to provide high-quality advice regarding the design and 

implementation of this important series of studies. Given the substantial scope and depth of the 

advisory, EPA will respond by taking specific actions to address and implement the report’s 

recommendations through the redirection of our analytical efforts. These analytical changes will 

be reflected in the first draft of the study report, which will be submitted to the Council for 

review. In addition, EPA anticipates conducting additional interim consultations with the 

Council and its subcommittees, during which the project team will describe EPA’s efforts to 

address all the key elements of your advisory. 

Again, I appreciate the scientifically rigorous and sound advice provided by the Advisory 

Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis, and I look forward to continuing the productive 

working relationship between the Council and EPA. 

Sincerely, 

/ Signed / 

Michael O. Leavitt
§ 1005.4 General disclosure requirements; jointly offered services. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Form of disclosures.* Disclosures required under this part shall be clear and readily understandable, in writing, and in a form the consumer may keep, except as otherwise provided in this part. The disclosures required by this part may be provided to the consumer in electronic form, subject to compliance with the consumer-consent and other applicable provisions of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) (15 U.S.C. 7001 *et seq.*). A financial institution may use commonly accepted or readily understandable abbreviations in complying with the disclosure requirements of this part.
( 2 ) *Foreign language disclosures.* Disclosures required under this part may be made in a language other than English, provided that the disclosures are made available in English upon the consumer's request.
( b ) *Additional information; disclosures required by other laws.* A financial institution may include additional information and may combine disclosures required by other laws (such as the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 *et seq.*) or the Truth in Savings Act (12 U.S.C. 4301 *et seq.*) with the disclosures required by this part.
( c ) *Multiple accounts and account holders* — ( 1 ) *Multiple accounts.* A financial institution may combine the required disclosures into a single statement for a consumer who holds more than one account at the institution.
( 2 ) *Multiple account holders.* For joint accounts held by two or more consumers, a financial institution need provide only one set of the required disclosures and may provide them to any of the account holders.
( d ) *Services offered jointly.* Financial institutions that provide electronic fund transfer services jointly may contract among themselves to comply with the requirements that this part imposes on any or all of them. An institution need make only the disclosures required by §§ 1005.7 and 1005.8 that are within its knowledge and within the purview of its relationship with the consumer for whom it holds an account.
## I am addressing the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leaks whitepaper.

The paper should emphasize that some equipment, such as condensate tanks, that are not designed to hold liquids and gasses under pressure cannot be made to stop leaking with simple fixes. Condensate tanks that hold liquids with dissolved gasses that flash when the pressure is lowered from the well pressure to the tank pressure are designed to vent these gasses to the atmosphere. The only way to stop this is to use multi

- stage separators so that flashing occurs during separation, and to rout flash emissions to the gas collection s ystem instead of the tank.

-- Dale We lls Modeling, Meteorology, and Emission Inventory Unit Technical Services Program Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment APCD - TS - B1 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, CO 80246 - 1530 303 - 692 - 3237| dale.wells @state.co.us
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 SECOND AMENDMENT  Dated as of June 1, 2007
 SECOND AMENDMENT Amendment CKX, INC., Borrower BEAR STEARNS CORPORATE LENDING INC. Administrative Agent
 Preliminary Statements
 Credit Agreement
   NOW, THEREFORE
 SECTION 1. Amendment to Credit Agreement.
  FXLR
 FXLR Acquisition
 FXLR License Agreements
 1




---



##### 



Second Amendment
 Second Amendment Effective Date
  Addendum
 Subsidiary
 Swingline Commitment
 Total Revolving Commitments
   2




---



##### 



provided
   SECTION 2. Conditions to Effectiveness. Amendment Effective Date
 Consent
  3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



SECTION 3. Representations and Warranties
 Authority
 Enforceability
 Representations and Warranties
 No Conflicts
 5




---



##### 



No Default
 SECTION 4. Reference to and Effect on Credit Agreement.
    SECTION 5. Counterparts.
 SECTION 6. Severability.
 SECTION 7. Headings.
 6




---



##### 



SECTION 8. Governing Law.
  7




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 CKX, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Thomas P. BensonName:
    
    Thomas P. BensonTitle:
    
    Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer
  8




---



##### 



BEAR STEARNS CORPORATE LENDING INC.,as
Administrative AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Victor F. BulzacchelliName:
    
    Victor F. BulzacchelliTitle:
    
    Vice President
 9
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6770

JAMES BENJAMIN BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SAM DOTSON, in his individual capacity; CHRIS SURRATT, in his individual capacity; JAMES JOHNSON, in his individual capacity; CURTIS STURGILL, in his individual capacity; SID HARKLEROAD, in his individual capacity; BOYD BENNETT, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00114-03-MU) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 19, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Benjamin Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James Benjamin Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Brown v. Dotson , No. 1:07- cv-00114-03-MU (W.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2007). 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
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Afghanistan

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Afghanistan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Afghanistan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Afghanistan

On August 15, 2021, the Taliban took over Kabul.  The U.S. government has not yet decided whether to recognize the Taliban or any other entity as the Government of Afghanistan or as part of such a government.  During the review period, the pre-August 15 government met minimum requirements of transparency.  From January 1 to August 15, 2021, the government’s relevant budget and information on debt obligations was widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  The budget was substantially complete and generally reliable.  The supreme audit institution reviewed the government’s accounts and made its reports publicly available.  The process for allocating licenses and contracts for natural resource extraction was outlined in law and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.  Since August 2021, no entity has taken actions to ensure Afghanistan is meeting minimum requirements of fiscal transparency.  No entity has published an executive budget proposal or end-of-year report within a reasonable period.  Without a budget, there was no reliable breakdown of expenditures to support executive offices.  the budgets of the Taliban’s so-called “military” and “intelligence services” were not made public.  The Taliban’s so-called “caretaker government”, which has not been recognized by the United States, published timely information on debt obligations.  The expenditure and revenue data that was published, despite the absence of a budget, did not correspond to actual revenues or expenditures.  There were no reports or follow-up audits published by a government audit institution after August 15.

Fiscal transparency of the so-called “interim government” announced by the Taliban would be improved by:

- Publishing timely and complete budget information; and
- Ensuring actual revenues and expenditures correspond to published data.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Afghanistan 

Tags

AfghanistanBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDivision 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