With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or has reason to believe that the drawer did not have on deposit or to his credit ... sufficient funds to insure payment on [the check's] presentation.” § 30—36—6(A); see also State v. McKay, 79 N.M. 797, 450 P.2d 435 (Ct.App.1969). Defendant contends that the evidence (that North Academy In teriors knew that the funds in his account were insufficient to cover the check when it was written) is uncontroverted. We note, however, that the language of the statute implicitly, if not expressly, requires that the funds or credit exist in the account when the check is presented for payment, rather than when it is written and delivered. §§ 30-36-4, -6(A); see also § 30-36-6(B) (creating an exception to the act for post-dated checks); State v. Downing, 83 N.M. 62, 488 P.2d 112 (Ct.App.1971) (<HOLDING>). Two of North Academy Interiors’ employees,

A: holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the oil pollution act
B: holding that worthless check act did not apply to postdated check
C: holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government
D: holding that the adas exhaustion requirement did not apply to rehabilitation act claims
B.