alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         119,659
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,550,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                    23,379
<INVENTORY>                                  5,540,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,300,801
<PP&E>                                       5,421,065
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,785,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,622,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,889,230
<BONDS>                                      2,960,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,952,719
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,622,416
<SALES>                                      6,069,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,282,925
<CGS>                                        3,321,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,671,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                237,211
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,943
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            164,268
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   164,268
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12


</TABLE>
#### § 6.10 Options.

Insurance will be payable in one sum only when selected by the insured during his or her lifetime or by his or her last will and testament.

[61 FR 29025, June 7, 1996]
§ 60.15 Process for requesting Fisher House or other temporary lodging. ( a ) *Submitting requests.* An accompanying individual requesting Fisher House or other temporary lodging must contact directly the provider, social worker, case manager, or Fisher House Manager at the veteran's VA health care facility of jurisdiction. Upon receiving a request, VA will determine the accompanying individual's eligibility for the requested housing, as provided in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
( b ) *Processing requests.* ( 1 ) Requests for all temporary housing are generally processed in the order that they are received by VA, and temporary lodging is then granted on a first come, first served basis; however, in extraordinary circumstances, such as imminent death, critical injury, or organ donation, requests may be processed out of order.
( 2 ) Temporary lodging is granted on a space-available basis, with some consideration given to the compatibility of the applicant(s) and the room(s) available. For example, although VA may require an applicant to share a room with another veteran's accompanying individual, VA would not do so if the persons affected are not the same gender.
( 3 ) Temporary lodging at a VA health care facility, such as non-utilized beds in a VA health care facility, may be made available only if not barred by law and if the Director of the VA health care facility determines that such action would not have a negative impact on patient care. Non-utilized beds provided to accompanying individuals must be reassigned to VA patients when necessary.
( 4 ) The Director of the VA health care facility of jurisdiction will determine whether local funding is sufficient to allow the use of temporary lodging in hotels and motels.
( 5 ) Subject to all criteria provided in this part, the person responsible for coordinating the Fisher House and other temporary lodging program(s) at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction is responsible for making decisions to grant temporary lodging. These decisions are considered to be final VA decisions concerning individual medical treatment plans and the scheduling and use of VA lodging facilities, and they are not appealable to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
( 6 ) If VA denies a request for one type of lodging, such as at a Fisher House, the request will be considered for other temporary lodging and vice versa, if the requester is eligible.
( 7 ) If VA denies a request for temporary lodging, VA will refer the request to a VA social worker at the VA health care facility of jurisdiction to determine if other arrangements can be made.
( c ) Costs for Fisher House and other temporary lodging under this part are borne by VA.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under OMB control number 2900-0630) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1708)
[77 FR 59089, Sept. 26, 2012, as amended at 82 FR 26594, June 8, 2017; 82 FR 35905, Aug. 2, 2017]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                         1,544,075
<SECURITIES>                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                  000
<ALLOWANCES>                   000
<INVENTORY>                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               1,544,075
<PP&E>                         000
<DEPRECIATION>                 000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 1,544,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          1,642,408
<BONDS>                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          000
<PREFERRED>                    000
<COMMON>                       000
<OTHER-SE>                     (98,333)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   1,544,075
<SALES>                        000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               18,826
<CGS>                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               136,539
<LOSS-PROVISION>               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (117,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (117,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                000
<CHANGES>                      000
<NET-INCOME>                   (117,713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.56)
        


</TABLE>
42404.

#### RACKARD v. MERRITT.

Jordan, Judge.

Sallie Merritt brought this action against Jesse Rackard in Fulton Superior Court to recover damages for personal injuries. The jury found for plaintiff for $12,500; judgment was entered accordingly, and defendant appeals. The sole issue asserted by appellant is whether the verdict is excessive, and appellee moves this court to assess damages for delay caused by the appeal. *Held:*

1. This court will not disturb the verdict of a jury for $12,500 *744as being excessive as a matter of law where the evidence discloses that plaintiff, born in 1909, had been gainfully employed as a maid for 13 years and was earning $37.30 per week when she was injured on December 23, 1964, when defendant’s taxicab in which she was a passenger struck a parked vehicle, causing painful injuries to her forehead and left knee; that she wore a cast for about ten weeks and was unable to work, that on the date of trial there was a *50%*impairment of the knee; that she will continue to have pain and discomfort from the knee; and that because of her injuries her earning ability as a maid has been and will continue to be impaired. See *Southern Grocery Stores v. Kelley, 57*Ga. App. 37, 39 (194 SE 234); *Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Gilbert,*82 Ga. App. 244 (2) (60 SE2d 787); *St. Paul Fire*&c. *Ins. Co. v. Dillingham,*112 Ga. App. 422 (145 SE2d 624), and numerous cases collected under *Code*§ 70-202, catchword “Approval” and *Code*§ 105-2015, catchword “Ex-cessiveness.”

Submitted November 9, 1966

Decided December 5, 1966.

*Atkins & Atkins, Ben S. Atkins,*for appellant.

*Charlie Franco, James H. Weeks,*for appellee.

2. Where, as here, the court is not fully satisfied that the cause was taken up for delay only, additional damages will not be awarded under the provisions of *Code*§ 6-1801.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
# Official Journal L 6/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.006.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 6 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5610 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.006.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 6

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5610 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Commission Directive 2012/48/EU of 10 December 2012 amending the Annexes to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels | 1 |
| | * | Commission Directive 2012/49/EU of 10 December 2012 amending Annex II to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (1) | 49 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Commission Directive 2012/48/EU of 10 December 2012 amending the Annexes to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels

1

*

Commission Directive 2012/49/EU of 10 December 2012 amending Annex II to Directive 2006/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down technical requirements for inland waterway vessels (1)

49

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          37,647
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,072
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    115,436
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         104,427
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           106,124
<LOANS>                                        961,855
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,274,027
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,063,665
<SHORT-TERM>                                    59,600
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,140
<LONG-TERM>                                     18,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,640
<OTHER-SE>                                     110,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,274,027
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,146
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,107
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   289
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                24,542
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              10,676
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,472
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,070
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      383
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (6)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,978
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,978
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,147
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.74
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,832
<LOANS-PAST>                                       100
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,577
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      285
<RECOVERIES>                                       108
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,783
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            11,783
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Pakistan

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Pakistan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Pakistan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Pakistan

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  It did not publish its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period.  The government published limited information on debt obligations.  Publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of most of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues.  The intelligence budget was not subject to adequate civilian oversight.  The information in the budget was considered generally reliable and subject to audit by the supreme audit institution.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.  Its audit reports were made publicly available within a reasonable period and provide substantive findings.  The government specified in law or regulation 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.

Pakistan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing its executive budget proposal in a reasonable period;
- Disclosing detailed information on government debt obligations, including for state-owned enterprises; and
- Subjecting the intelligence agencies’ budgets to parliamentary or other civilian oversight.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Pakistan 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentPakistan

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,362,745
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       5,245,061
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               865,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                190,325,599
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    454,280,611
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,645,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             675,691,014
<DEPOSITS>                                 457,342,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                29,417,747
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          7,513,940
<LONG-TERM>                                111,300,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,894
<OTHER-SE>                                  70,040,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             675,691,014
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             39,046,983
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            9,885,455
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               151,179
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            49,083,617
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          20,116,405
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          26,514,482
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       22,569,135
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  494,438
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             203,317
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             12,495,048
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,129,659
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   8,140,105
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,140,105
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.62
<LOANS-NON>                                  2,160,290
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                99,262
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,740,169
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  723,383
<RECOVERIES>                                   133,908
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,645,132
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,645,132
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        774,025


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on [Part 3](/current/title-38/part-3?toc=1)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at [61 FR 7216](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-7216), Feb. 27, 1996; [62 FR 35970](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-35970), July 3, 1997; [62 FR 47532](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-47532), Sept. 9, 1997; and [67 FR 46868](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/67-FR-46868), July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.330 Resumption of rating when veteran subsequently reports for Department of Veterans Affairs examination.

Such ratings will be governed by the provisions of [§ 3.158](/on/2024-09-18/title-38/section-3.158), “Abandoned Claims,” and [§ 3.655](/on/2024-09-18/title-38/section-3.655), “Failure to report for Department of Veterans Affairs examination.” The period following the termination or reduction for which benefits are precluded by the cited regulations will be stated in the rating. If the evidence is insufficient to evaluate disability during any period following the termination or reduction for which payments are not otherwise precluded, the rating will contain a notation reading “Evidence insufficient to evaluate from \_\_\_\_\_ to \_\_\_\_\_\_.

Cross Reference:

Failure to report for Department of Veterans Affairs examination. See [§ 3.655](/on/2024-09-18/title-38/section-3.655).

[[29 FR 3623](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/29-FR-3623), Mar. 21, 1964]
126 STAT. 340 PUBLIC LAW 112–118—MAY 15, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3248: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

Feb. 14, 15, considered and passed House. 

Apr. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–118 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 112 South 

5th Street in Saint Charles, Missouri, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DREW W. WEAVER POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 112 South 5th Street in Saint Charles, Missouri, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lance Corporal Drew W. 

Weaver Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver Post Office Building’’. 

Approved May 15, 2012. 

May 15, 2012 

[H.R. 3248] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
42085, 42086.

#### LEITER v. ARNOLD (two cases).

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. The contract here was entered into pi’ior to the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code, and the then existing law governs it. The checks sued on are negotiable instruments and their negotiability is not affected by the fact that many of them were postdated. *Code*§ 14-212; cf. *'Code Ann,*§ 109A-3—-114. A negotiable instrument is presumed to be based on a valid and sufficient consideration. *Code*§ 14-301; cf. *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—408. In a suit on a check it is not necessary that consideration be alleged. *Gainesville News v. Harrison,*58 Ga. App. 744 (1) (199 SE 559).

Furthermore, the petition alleged that plaintiff had “sold” certain stock to the defendants in exchange for the checks sued on. As used in this petition, the word “sold” must be considered in the light of the definitions accepted by this court in *Neuhoff v. Swift & Co.,*54 Ga. App. 651 (188 SE 831), and *Friedsam v. Sawan, Inc.,*103 Ga. App. 500, 504 (2) (119 SE2d 707) together with those approved by the Supreme Court in *Howell v. State,*124 Ga. 698 (52 SE 649).

While it may be a matter of defense on the trial whether the stock was in fact delivered or tendered to the defendants, nevertheless when considered on general demurrer the petition is not defective by reason of a failure to allege delivery or tender of the stock as contended by defendants.

2. There is no merit in defendants’ contention that the petition is fatally defective because it does not allege that the purchase of the stock was within the scope of the partnership business. This contention is not such a matter of defense as can be raised by a general demurrer. This contention raises only a question of fact, which according to the Code must be raised by plea or answer. Demurrers raise only questions of law. *Code*§ 81-303.

3. Each of the checks in this case constituted a separate and distinct cause of action. Although the plaintiff may exercise *324the privilege of joinder accorded by *Code*§ 3-113 and sue upon the checks in one action *(Maugham v. Hotel &c. Supply Co.,*107 Ga. App. 882 (131 SE2d 853)), it is necessary that each of the causes of action be embraced in a separate count. See *Lance v. Boroughs,*213 Ga. 834 (102 SE2d 167). The trial judge erred in overruling the special demurrer of each of the defendants objecting to the inclusion of the several causes of action in one count.

Argued June 10, 1966

Decided September 22, 1966.

*'Marvin O’Neal, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Arnold & Harris, Boss Arnold,*for appellee.

The judgment of the trial court in each case is affirmed on the general demurrer and is reversed on the special demurrers.

*Judgments affirmed in part; reversed in part.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*