alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
42550.

#### CHATHAM v. DeKALB COUNTY.

Frankum, Presiding Judge.

1. After the expiration of the term of court at which an order is made or a judgment is rendered, no motion to set the same aside having been made at that term, the trial court has no jurisdiction to set aside, alter, amend, revoke, vacate, or in any manner modify such judgment or order, except for defects appearing on the face of the record. *American Mut. &c. Ins. Co. v. Satterfield,*88 Ga. App. 395, 396 (2) (76 SE2d 730); *Carolina Tree Service v. Cartledge,*96 Ga. App. 240 (4) (99 SE2d 705); *Sargeant v. Starr,*102 Ga. App. 453, 459 (3) (116 SE2d 633); *Safe-Way Finance Co. v. Standard Bag Co.,*105 Ga. App. 712 (5) (125 SE2d 733); *Carswell v. Shannon,*209 Ga. 596, 598 (2) (74 SE2d 850); *Amos v. Amos,*212 Ga. 670, 671 (1) (95 SE2d 5). After the expiration of the term at which the judgment is rendered or the order is made, in the absence of a defect appearing on the face of the record, the only remedy available to one aggrieved thereby is to follow the procedure provided by law, and within the time provided by law, for appealing from such judgment or order, if it be a final and appealable order or judgment, or if it not be a final or appealable order or judgment, to await the event of the entry of a final or appealable judgment or order and to appeal from that judgment or order, enumerating as error the former judgment or order.

2. Accordingly, where, as in this case, the Judge of the Civil Court of DeKalb County, on March 30, 1966 (which was during the March term of said court, Ga. L. 1951, pp. 2401, 2404), in an unconditional judgment, sustained the defendant’s renewed and additional demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition as then amended, which renewed and additional demurrers included grounds of general demurrer to each count of the petition, and where thereafter, on April 19, 1966, at the April term, the court entered a judgment purporting to amend the March 30th judgment so as to afford the plaintiff 20 days in which to amend, the court was without jurisdiction, under the authorities cited in the first headnote, to enter the aforesaid judgment of April 19, 1966, and no appeal from the judgment of March 30, 1966, having been taken, nor any motion made within the March term to vacate or set the same aside, that judgment became final, and the case was *740out of court, and all subsequent orders or judgments allowing amendments and passing on demurrers to the petition as thereafter attempted to be amended were nugatory.

*Deen and Qidllian, JJ., concur.*

Argued January 10, 1967 —

Decided April 18, 1967

Rehearing denied May 18, 1967 —

*E. T. Hendon, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, E. J. Summerour, Assistant Attorneys General, George P. Dillard, Herbert 0. Edwards,*for appellee.

3. The foregoing facts appearing from the record, it appears that the judgment appealed from was in fact void, and there having been no timely appeal from the final judgment of March 30, 1966, sustaining the demurrers to the petition, the appeal must be dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

LAUREEN OLSON 

VERSUS 

LOUISIANA PATIENT'S 

COMPENSATION FUND OVERSIGHT 

BOARD 

NO. 2021 CW 1507 

MARCH 14, 2022 

In Re: Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board, 

applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District 

Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 652,921. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. This court requires a copy of the 

transcript from the September 28, 2021 hearing and a copy of all 

evidence admitted at that hearing in connection with the 

exception of res judicata. 

Supplementation of this 

considered. See Uniform Rules 

Rules 2-18.7 and 4-9. 

writ application will not be 

of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 

In the event relator seeks to file a new application with 

this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation, 

including the missing item described above, and must comply with 

Rule 2-12.2 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. 

Any new application must be filed on or before April 13, 2022 

any must contain a copy of this ruling . 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

COURT 

.JMG 

GH 

WRC
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
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 December 28, 2011

h1219 

# Order

December 28, 2011

143399

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143399 COA: 303177 Washtenaw CC: 02-001622-FC STEVEN ANTWUAN HUNT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 27, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
Order entered February 15, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00784-CR

No. 05-18-00785-CR

NICHOLAS LEON ALEXANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-39330-R & F17-10320-R

ORDER

The reporter’s record was filed November 13, 2018. Missing from the record is State’s 

Exhibit 5, a DVD of appellant’s interview with police, that was offered and admitted at trial. 

We ORDER court reporter Debi Harris to file a supplemental reporter’s record 

containing a true and correct playable copy of State’s Exhibit 5 within FOURTEEN DAYS of 

the date of this order.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
|   | (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Buckeye. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated this 24th day of  February 2011   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |   |
|                                              |   |
| /s/ Steven G. Dean                                |   |
| Steven G. Dean                                    |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
§ 1208.25 Voluntary repayment agreements as alternative to salary offset where FHFA is the creditor agency. ( a ) *Proposed repayment schedule.* In response to a Notice of Intent, an employee may propose to repay the debt voluntarily in lieu of salary offset by submitting a written proposed repayment schedule to FHFA. Any proposal under this section must be received by FHFA within 30 calendar days after receipt of the Notice of Intent.
( b ) *Notification of decision.* In response to a timely proposal by the employee, FHFA shall notify the employee whether the employee's proposed repayment schedule is acceptable. FHFA has the discretion to accept, reject, or propose to the employee a modification of the proposed repayment schedule. ( 1 ) If FHFA decides that the proposed repayment schedule is unacceptable, the employee shall have 30 calendar days from the date he or she received notice of the decision in which to file a request for a hearing.
( 2 ) If FHFA decides that the proposed repayment schedule is acceptable or the employee agrees to a modification proposed by FHFA, an agreement shall be put in writing and signed by both the employee and FHFA.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MAGORIEN HONING & HYDRAULICS 

FAA DOCKET NO. (not assigned) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0908 

~-.,.~ -~- '·~~'-'"~'---- --~--'" , __ 

FAA CASE NO. 2011WP910318 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

(J1 

C.."') 

Re$p5>ndent, Magorien Honing & Hydraulics, by its undersigned counsel, hereby 

responds toth~ p.um?ere~ paragraphs in the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA's") 

complaint as follows\: 

P:aragraph J. Ad[l1it. 

Paragraph 2. Deny. 

Paragraph 3. Deny. 

Paragraph 4. Admit. ~- . --·' 

Paragraph 5. Deny. 

Paragraph 6. Deny. 

Paragraph a. Deny. 

Paragra,ph, q. D~l))'· 

Paragraph c .. Deny. 

Paragraph d., Deny. , , , , , ' f t' , ~ ' I '• ' , • 

Paragraph e,. peny~ .... . . . / ··~ \ 

RECEIVED 

. ,· ; MOV\1 :4 12012 ·.· · . , 

·· ;·~t=t~AR'tNCfboct<er 
; Paragraph f. Deny. 

Paragraph g. Deny. 

Paragraph h. Deny. 

Paragraph i. Deny. 

Paragraph j. Deny. 

Paragraph k. Deny. 

Paragraph 1. Deny. 

Paragraph m. Deny. 

Paragraph n. Deny. 

Respondent further denies the allegation that Title 49 of the United States Code, 

Section 46301, subjects-Respondent to a civil penaltY inthe amount of as muC11 as 

$11,000.00 per violation. 

Respondent further denies the allegation that under the facts and circumstances of 

this case, a civil penalty as high as $40,000.00 is appropriate. 

Respondent respectfully requests as follows: 

1. That the hearing in this matter be conducted in Los Angeles, California; 

and 

2. That the Administrative Law Judge render an initial decision ordering that 

no civil penalty be assessed. 

Dated: November 8, 2012 

2 

Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICE OF DOUG GRIFFITH 

~ul1r~ Doug Griffith, Esq. 

Counsel for Respondent 

633 W. 5th St., Ste. 2800 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

-·;'>«···""'"' 

Tel. 213-223-2092 I Fax 213-814-4530 

Email: doug@douggriffithlaw.com 
j 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date sent, by certified U.S. Mail, an original and 

one copy of the foregoing Answer to Complaint addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO 

as well as one copy by certified Q,S. Mail adqresseq to ~ach of: 0 ~ 

Michael F. McKinley, Complainant's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dated: November 8, 2012
#### § 228.19 Areas for eligible community development loans, community development investments, and community development services.

The Board may consider a bank's community development loans, community development investments, and community development services provided outside of its facility-based assessment areas, as provided in this part.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION 1
    In Witness Whereof th
 /s/ Alfred E. Mann

Alfred E. Mann


    
    /s/ Matthew J. Pfeffer

Matthew J. PfefferChief Executive Officer
    
    Corporate Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 
 1
    
    This certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K to which it relates, is
not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of MannKind Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this certification relates), irrespective of
any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Senegal

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Senegal			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Senegal  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Senegal 

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing audits of the entire annual executed budget within a reasonable period.  The budget was widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  The budget was substantially complete and generally reliable, except it did not include allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises.  Information on debt obligations was generally available.  Although the government included debt of state-owned enterprises in its overall debt figures, information on the debt of individual, major state-owned enterprises was not publicly available.  The government did not maintain off-budget accounts, broke down expenditures to support executive offices, and subjected the military budget to civilian public oversight.  The government reviewed its budget throughout the fiscal year and actual revenues and expenditures reasonably corresponded to those in the enacted budget.  The supreme audit institution, which met international standards of independence, audited the entire budget and its reports contained substantive findings.  The government specified in law or regulation and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

Senegal’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Including in the budget financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises; and
- Making debt obligations of major state-owned enterprises publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Senegal  

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSenegal

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
§ 250.408 Short-term negotiable notes of banks not securities under section 32, Banking Act of 1933. ( a ) The Board of Governors has been asked whether short-term unsecured negotiable notes of the kinds issued by some of the large banks in this country as a means of obtaining funds are “other similar securities” within the meaning of section 32, Banking Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 78) and this part.
( b ) Section 32 forbids certain interlocking relationships between banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System and individuals or organizations “primarily engaged in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution, at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation, of stocks, bonds, or other similar securities * * *.” Therefore, if such notes are securities similar to stocks or bonds, any dealing therein would be an activity covered in section 32 and would have to be taken into consideration in determining whether the individual or organization involved was “primarily engaged” in such activities.
( c ) The Board has concluded that such short-term notes of the kind described above are not “other similar securities” within the meaning of section 32 and this part.
[29 FR 16065, Dec. 2, 1964. Redesignated at 61 FR 57289, Nov. 6, 1996]
§ 238.85 Adjudications and offenses not covered. ( a ) *Youthful offender or juvenile delinquent.* This subpart does not cover any adjudication by a court against a person as: ( 1 ) A youthful offender under any youthful offender law; or
( 2 ) A juvenile delinquent by a court with jurisdiction over minors as defined by state law.
( b ) *De minimis criminal offense.* This subpart does not cover *de minimis* criminal offenses. A criminal offense is *de minimis* if: ( 1 ) The person has only one conviction or pretrial diversion or similar program of record;
( 2 ) The offense was punishable by imprisonment for a term of less than one year, a fine of less than $1,000, or both, and the person did not serve time in jail.
( 3 ) The conviction or program was entered at least five years before the date the person first held a position described in § 238.83(a); and
( 4 ) The offense did not involve an insured depository institution, insured credit union, or other banking organization (including a savings and loan holding company, bank holding company, or financial holding company).
( 5 ) The person must disclose the conviction or pretrial diversion or similar program to all insured depository institutions and other banking organizations the affairs of which he or she participates.
( 6 ) The person must be covered by a fidelity bond to the same extent as others in similar positions with the savings and loan holding company.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Thomas Group,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, David English, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Treasurer andAssistant Secretary of the Company, certify that to my knowledge:

1.           The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

2.           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/  DAVID ENGLISH                       |   |
| David English                            |
| Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, |
| Treasurer, and Secretary                 |
|                                     |
| April 6, 2007                            |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,363
<SECURITIES>                                    22,355
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,280
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,150
<PP&E>                                          67,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,806
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           295
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,852
<SALES>                                         22,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,803
<CGS>                                            6,777
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  74
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,477
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,383
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,094
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,094
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27


</TABLE>
42549.

#### BRASELTON v. BRADBURY.

Hall, Judge.

The defendant filed a traverse of entry of service of the plaintiff’s petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County, alleging that “at the first term of said court after notice to him of the entry of service purporting to show him legally served in Fulton County, Georgia,” he was making a special appearance to traverse the entry of service and to show that said court had no jurisdiction over him and his property; that the entry of service was untrue; that the defendant was never legally served and had not waived service, and was not a resident of Fulton County, Georgia, but was a resident of Harris County, Texas, and the District Court of Harris County, Texas had jurisdiction of his person and property. The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s judgments overruling the plaintiff’s oral motion to dismiss the traverse and sustaining the traverse and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition. *Held:*

The entry of the sheriff upon the original process stated that he had served the defendant at a stated address “by leaving a copy of the within writ and process at his most notorious *79place of abode .in this [Fulton] County.” The defendant alleged all the essential elements of a traverse of service. *Parker v. Rosenheim,*97 Ga. 769, 771 (25 SE 763). He specifically denied the truth of the'entry of service, which was a part of the record of the court in this action. This denial was essential to the traverse. *Webb v. Armour Fertilizer Works,*21 Ga. App. 409 (94 SE 610); *Deich v. American Discount Co.,*218 Ga. 726, 728 (130 SE2d 595). It was not destroyed by the erroneous allegation contained in the traverse, that “the following entry of service was made by the Deputy Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia: [the process requiring the defendant to appear to answer the complaint is quoted in full] to the defendant upon which this petition is served: This copy of petition and process was served upon you Nov. 4, 1964. D. J. Folds Deputy Sheriff.”

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

Argued January 4, 1967

Decided January 20, 1967.

*Grant, Spears & Duckworth, William H. Duckworth, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Westmoreland, Hall & Pentecost, John L. Westmoreland,*for appellee.

The trial court did not err in overruling the oral motion to dismiss the traverse and sustaining the traverse and dismissing the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 263.400 Scope.

This subpart, which implements section 36(g)(4) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA)(12 U.S.C. 1831m(g)(4)), provides rules and procedures for the removal, suspension, or debarment of independent public accountants and their accounting firms from performing independent audit and attestation services for insured state member banks, bank holding companies, and savings and loan holding companies required by section 36 of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1831m).

[68 FR 48267, Aug. 13, 2003, as amended at 76 FR 56605, Sept. 13, 2011]
#### § 1073.401 Administrative wage garnishment.

The Director may collect debts from a debtor's wages by means of administrative wage garnishment in accordance with the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3720D under the procedures established in 31 CFR 285.11.