alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Travel to San Francisco

# 									Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Matza’s Travel to San Francisco							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 16, 2023

Acting Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGI) Helaina Matza will travel to San Francisco November 15-16 to participate in meetings during Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders’ Week.  In San Francisco, she will advance ongoing PGI-led efforts to advance investment in quality, sustainable infrastructure opportunities in the Indo-Pacific.  Acting Special Coordinator Matzawill meet with government officials also attending Leaders’ Week as well as private sector partners to discuss potential infrastructure financing in the Asia-Pacific region. Acting Special Coordinator Matza will also attend the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGI) Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) Investor Forum co-hosted by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo and Senior Advisor to the President Amos Hochstein. This forum will focus on identifying ways to mobilize capital, unlock sustainable long-term economic growth, facilitate commercial activity, and strengthen supply chains in IPEF countries.

Tags

Asia-Pacific Economic CooperationBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsCaliforniaOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the SpokespersonOffice of the U.S. Special Coordinator for the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and InvestmentOfficial Domestic Travel

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 103 Reference Change House (RCH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 103

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service 
   Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the 
                       United States Government.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

                            December 6, 1995

   Rereferred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the Civil Service 
   Retirement and Disability Fund be excluded from the budget of the 
                       United States Government.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8348 of 
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(n) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
disbursements of the Fund--
            ``(1) shall not be included in the totals of--
                    ``(A) the budget of the United States Government as 
                submitted by the President; or
                    ``(B) the congressional budget (including 
                allocations of budget authority and outlays provided 
                therein);
            ``(2) shall be exempt from any general budget limitation 
        imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (budget 
        outlays) of the United States Government; and
            ``(3) shall be exempt from any order issued under part C of 
        the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
        1985.''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOE BRADLEY ROBERSON, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00336

- CR

Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC # 1306790D)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 1 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McC lure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)
#### Noll et al. *v.*Braun et al.

[No. 19,853.

Filed April 6, 1964.

Rehearing denied May 4, 1964.]

*Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, J. Michael O’Hara,*both of Fort Wayne, and *Hubert R. McClenahan,*of Decatur, for appellants.

*C. R. McNabb, Thomas D. Logan, Thomas A. Gallmeyer,*all of Fort Wayne and *John L. DeVoss,*of Decatur, for appellees.

Carson, C. J.

This action comes to us from the Adams Circuit Court and involves a decision of the trial court on issues joined upon the final decision of the surveyor and remonstrances thereto filed by the appellants with reference to the establishment of a drainage ditch in Adams County, Indiana. The court *124below found against the remonstrators and this appeal was processed.

Separate motions for new trial were filed but the grounds of the motions were identical:

> “1. The finding or decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law.”

The errors assigned were:

> “1. The court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial.

> 2. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial of Thompson R. Noll and Allie Noll.

> 3. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial of Eloise A. Noll.

> 4. The court erred in its order approving and confirming the assessments and declaring the proposed work of drainage established.”

In the argument portion of the appellants’ brief we find the following statement:

> “The only error we urge is that the decision is erroneous in fixing excessive benefits and awarding inadequate damages to appellants.”

The appellants’ in their motion for new trial under the provisions of §2-2401, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, failing to make a proper assignment, no error is presented for our consideration. The cases have consistently held that error relating to damages must be assigned under Clause 4 or 5 of the above section. This opinion will not be burdened with an unnecessary list of authorities, but attention is directed to the annotations under the statute.

For the reason above set out judgment is affirmed.

Cooper, Ryan and Faulconer, JJ., concur.

Note.—Reported in 197 N. E. 2d 310.
H. R. 1335

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project located in the State of

West Virginia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would

otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Project No. 7307, the Commission shall, upon the request of the

licensee for the project, in accordance with the good faith, due

diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the

Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the time period

during which the licensee is required to commence construction

of the project so as to terminate on September 26, 1999.

(b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall take effect for the

project described in subsection (a) upon the expiration of the extension, issued by the Commission under section 13 of the Federal

Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), of the period required for commencement

of construction of the project.

(c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If a license for the

project described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date

of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall reinstate the license

effective as of the date of its expiration and extend the time required
H. R. 1335—2

for commencement of construction of the project until September

26, 1999.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Motion Granted and Order filed May 17, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00348-CV

____________

SUSAN MEEK, M.D., Appellant

V.

ROCKNE ONSTAD INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE ONSTAD LAW FIRM 

AND JOYCE STAMP LILLY INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A JOYCE 

STAMP LILLY, RN, JDPC, Appellees

&

____________

NO. 14-12-00463-CV

____________

ROCKNE ONSTAD INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THE ONSTAD LAW FIRM 

AND JOYCE STAMP LILLY INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A JOYCE 

STAMP LILLY, RN, JDPC, Appellants

V.

SUSAN MEEK, M.D., Appellee
On Appeal from the 268th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 07-DCV-156522

ORDER

On April 11, 2012, Susan Meek, M.D., filed a notice of appeal from the 

judgment signed December 29, 2011, and the appeal was assigned to this court 

under our appellate number 14-12-00348-CV. On May 9, 2012, Rockne Onstad 

Individually and d/b/a The Onstad Law Firm and Joyce Stamp Lilly, Individually 

and d/b/a Joyce Stamp Lilly, RN, JDPC, filed a notice of cross-appeal from the 

same judgment, which was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14-

12-00-463-CV. On April 22, 2013, Rockne Onstad Individually and d/b/a The 

Onstad Law Firm and Joyce Stamp Lilly, Individually and d/b/a Joyce Stamp Lilly, 

RN, JDPC, filed a motion to consolidate the related appeals. The motion is 

GRANTED and we issue the following order:

We order the appeals pending under our appellate case numbers 14-12-

00348-CV and 14-12-00463-CV CONSOLIDATED. 

Further, in appeal 14-12-00348-CV, appellant’s brief is due May 24, 2013.

In appeal 14-12-00463-CV, appellee’s brief is due June 3, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Busby.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnerhsip 1989-2, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations  contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 1997 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         140,283
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  60,395
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,678
<PP&E>                                         1,418,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,173,491)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 445,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,109
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     442,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   445,783
<SALES>                                        46,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46,804
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,708<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                25,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            25,770
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   25,770
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
(Superior Court of Cincinnati.)

General Term, 1901.

#### CITY OF CINCINNATI v. EVA LOCHNER.

(1) The statutory prohibition against any qualification, modification or explanation of a written charge to a jury applies to charge,* given before argument as well as to charge,si given after argument.

(2) The law will presume injury where such, prohibition is violated.

C. J. Hunt and Wade Ellis, Corporation counsel, for plaintiff in error.

-VI. F. Galvin, for defendant in error.

Smith, J.;

Dempsey and Murphy, JJ., concur.

In this case the court, at the request of the plaintiff in error, gave certain written instructions to the jury before argument.

Subsequently in the general charge the court, after charging with reference to the question of law prescribed by one of the special charges, added: “That is what I meant when I said to you in my special charge, that if you find there was a slight defect in the sidewalk, but you find that slight defect was not inconsistent with ordinary care and prudence of the city under all the circumstances of the case, your verdict must be for the defendant.” To this plaintiff in error excepted.

Section 5190, paragraph 5, provides that “When the evidence is concluded either party may present written instructions to the court on matters of law, and request the same to be given to the jury, which instructions shall be given or refused by the court before the argument to the jury is commenced.”

By paragraph 7 of the same section it is provided that “Any charge shall be reduced to writing by the court if either party, before the argument to the jury is commenced, requests it. A charge or instruction when so written and given shall not be orally modified or in any manner explained to the jury by the court.”

It is contended that the provision of paragraph 7 which provides any qualification, modification or explanation of an instruction does not apply to the instructions provided for in paragraph 5; but we are not of that opinion. It would be, it seems to us. a strange condition of the law which would forbid any qualification, modification or explanation of a written charge or instruction if given after argument, but would allow it if the instruction is given before argument. The reason for the prohibition applies with the same force in all cases. (19 Ill., 82).

Nor do we think we arc permitted to say there was no prejudice to plaintiff in error. The law expressly forbids any explanation of an instruction, and we think that by reason of such express prohibition the law presumes injury when it is violated.

Judgment reversed.
(Hamilton Co., O., Common Pleas.

1900.)

#### WM. F. WEHRMAN v. FRANK B. MCFARLAND.

*Petition for accounting*— Refusal *to allow counsel*fees—

Although the filing of a petition for an accounting and to wind up the affairs of a partnership, or syndicate, all interests being antagonistic, inures to the general benefit, and, if there was a fund in court, compensation for filing the same might be allowed, the court has no authority to require judgments against the partners to include a *pro rata*share of plaintiff’s counsel fees of any one party, acting on his own behalf, merely on the ground that he initiated the proceedings.

Exceptions to report of special master.

Spiegel, J.

After a careful examination of the very numerous exceptions to the report of Judge Clement Bates, special master herein, both of the law involved in said exceptions and the evidence reported by the master, I can find no valid objections to his report. He has painstakingly examined every question referred to him by me after judgment rendered in this cause, and brought to bear upon them his thorough knowledge of the law and his ability to sift the evidence so as to arrive at a just conclusion upon the facts. His report will be confirmed, without going into details upon every exception raised, and the latter are overruled.

The only other question to be determined is the application for an allowance of plaintiff’s *674attorney fees. The parties to this cause are all antagonistic; no one has done anything with the purpose of acting on behalf of all. The filing of the petition certainly does inure to the general benefit; but it is the only step of that kind, and its filing was not on behalf of all, but to enforce plaintiff’s individual rights. Were there a fund under the court's control, compensation for filing the petition' would have been rightly allowed in accordance with the decision in *Payne*v. *McNamara,*6 Circ, Dec., 62. But there being no funds or assets, but only personal judgments against the partners, this court can not require these judgments to include a *pro rata*share of plaintiff’s counsel fees, or render an additional judgment for the attorneys’ fees of any one party acting on his own behalf alone, merely on the ground— for I can find none other — that he initiated the proceedings. Indeed, to do so, would be to invite the same race for forcing such suits that has become somewhat of an abuse in partition cases.

The motion must be refused.
#### § 30.6 Q-6: How does a TARP recipient comply with the requirement under § 30.4 (Q-4) of this part that the compensation committee discuss, evaluate, and review the employee compensation plans to ensure that these plans do not encourage the manipulation of reported earnings of the TARP recipient to enhance the compensation of any of the TARP recipient's employees?

The compensation committee must discuss, evaluate, and review at least every six months the terms of each employee compensation plan and identify and eliminate the features in these plans that could encourage the manipulation of reported earnings of the TARP recipient to enhance the compensation of any employee.
§ 29.503 Prohibition against collection of debts. ( a ) Debts may be collected from Federal Benefit Payments only to the extent expressly authorized by Federal debt collection statutes and any other applicable Federal law.
( b ) When collection of a debt from Federal Benefit Payments is authorized under paragraph (a) of this section, the collection will be made in accordance with this subpart and other applicable federal law.
#### § 29.520 Referral for litigation.

The Department may refer to the Justice Department for litigation overpayment debts which cannot be compromised or waived, or on which collection activity cannot be suspended or terminated, and which the Department has been unable to recover pursuant to the collection activity described in §§ 29.511 through 29.519. (See 31 CFR part 904.) Such debts should be referred to the Justice Department as early as possible, but at least within 1 year of the date such debts last became delinquent. In the case of overpayments arising from fraud, misrepresentation, or the presentation of a false claim, referral should be made to the Justice Department immediately. (See 31 CFR 900.3(a).) Referral of a debt to the Justice Department will suspend processing under §§ 29.511 through 29.519 of this subpart.
HomeAssisted Schools...Lusaka, Zambia: American International School of Lusaka: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Lusaka, Zambia: American International School of Lusaka: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

March 1, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +260-978-772-600, +260 973937629 (WhatsApp) | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Tim Stuart 
        -  E-mail: info@aislusaka.org | Website: www.aislusaka.org| Special needs information can be found at www.aislusaka.org/student-support-services.html. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly. 

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Lusaka- 2024 Special Needs- Zambia) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

The **American International School of Lusaka** (AISL) is an independent, coeducational day school that offers a robust educational program from early learning through to grade 12.  The school was founded in 1986.  The school year begins early August and ends in mid-June.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

Office of Overseas SchoolsZambia

Back to Top
www.gpo.gov

### §3325. General provisions

#### (a) Application of existing procedures

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the requirements relating to student eligibility, needs analysis, and determination of eligibility for the program to be attended regularly incorporated by reference into contracts under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act [25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.] for tribal operation of higher education grant programs prior to January 1, 1991, shall apply.

#### (b) Additional, excess, and incremental costs

The tribe or tribal organization may establish in writing, subject to the review of the Secretary, procedures for determining additional, excess, or inducement costs to be associated with grants for critical area service agreements.

(Pub. L. 102–325, title XIII, §1325, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 805.)

#### References in Text

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, as amended, which is classified principally to subchapter II (§450 et seq.) of chapter 14 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 450 of this title and Tables.
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6103(l)-1 Disclosure of returns and return information for purposes other than tax administration. ( a ) *Definition.* For purposes of applying the provisions of section 6103(l) of the Internal Revenue Code, the term *agent* includes a contractor.
( b ) *Effective date.* This section is applicable January 6, 2004.
[T.D. 9111, 69 FR 507, Jan. 6, 2004]