alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeFY 2021 International Affairs Budget

# FY 2021 International Affairs Budget

							Discover More Budget Releases							

## 						The FY 2021 Congressional Budget Justification describes the funding required for State and USAID to carry out our missions worldwide. 					

View the full fiscal year 2021 Congressional Budget Justification: Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs [6 MB] | State and USAID Appendix 1 [7 MB] | State and USAID Appendix 2 [18 MB] | State and USAID Appendix 3 [2 MB] | Supplementary Tables – Foreign Operations [3 MB]

View the Machine Readable FY 2021 Summary of Appropriations Table: Download .xlsx [26 KB]

## 					Discover More				

### 									Publications								

          -  														FY 2021 Congressional Budget Justification - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs														 
          -  														FY 2021 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Appendix 1														 
          -  														FY 2021 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Appendix 2														 
          -  														FY 2021 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Appendix 3														 
          -  														FY 2021 State and USAID Congressional Budget Justification - Supplementary Tables - Foreign Operations														 

Back to Top
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Key Topics
- Strategic Plan
- Directorates
- Initiatives
- Releases

HomeBureau of Diplomatic Technology...Directorates – Bureau of Diplomatic Technology

# 									Directorates							

Bureau of Diplomatic Technology

### Business, Management and Planning

Business, Management, and Planning is responsible for centrally managing a $2.55B global IT portfolio and servicing an 76K person workforce. This includes providing executive leadership for IT strategy, portfolio management, enterprise architecture, digital diplomacy, policy and performance, and IT workforce planning.

### Cyber Operations

Cyber Operations is responsible for the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), and for establishing and implementing the enterprise vision, strategy, and programs that ensure information assets and technologies are adequately protected.

### Foreign Operations

Foreign Operations is DT’s field focused directorate providing IT infrastructure, core IT modernization, telephone systems and radio networks, emergency and mobile satellite systems, and other programs and services for over 300 sites around the world, including embassies, consulates, annexes, and missions to international organizations.

### Operations

Operations is responsible for the worldwide information technology operations including networks, e-mail, desktop support, mobile technologies, software development, equipment modernization, data center operations, telephones, and radios.

Tags

Bureau of Diplomatic TechnologyInformation Technology

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Alfacell
Corporation  Balance Sheet as of July 31, 1998 and the  Statements of Operations
for the year ended July 31, 1998 and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jul-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jul-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,099,453
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,216,640
<PP&E>                                           1,143,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                     843,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,516,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,818,113
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            17,240
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,674,598
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,516,678
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   311,822
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,677,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,387,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,387,506)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,387,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.40)
                                               


</TABLE>
§ 412.280 Representation. ( a ) *General.* A party may be represented by legal counsel or by any other person appointed to act as its representative at any proceeding before the MGCRB or the Administrator.
( b ) *Rights of a representative.* A representative appointed by a party may accept or give on behalf of the party any request or notice connected with any proceeding before the MGCRB or the Administrator. A representative is entitled to present evidence and argument as to facts and law in any MGCRB proceeding affecting the party represented and to obtain information to the same extent as the party represented. Notice of any action or decision sent to the representative of a party has the same effect as if it had been sent to the party itself.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JESSIE LAMONT SCRIVEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00174-BO-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2022 Decided: February 9, 2022

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessie Lamont Scriven, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jessie Scriven appeals from the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the 

court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Scriven’s 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has 

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2006100EN.01000101.xml

| 27.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 April 2006

(2006/C 100/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2425 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4601 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,696 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3135 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5776 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,87 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,797 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5761 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,417 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 265,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,696 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8873 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4747 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,58 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,26 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6505 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6623 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4058 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6355 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9734 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,974 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 176,09 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6541 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,9673 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,299 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 949,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5233 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,486 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,036 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,863 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2425

JPY

Japanese yen

142,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4601

GBP

Pound sterling

0,696

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3135

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5776

ISK

Iceland króna

92,87

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,797

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5761

CZK

Czech koruna

28,417

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

265,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,696

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8873

RON

Romanian leu

3,4747

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,58

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,26

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6505

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6623

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4058

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6355

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9734

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,974

KRW

South Korean won

1 176,09

ZAR

South African rand

7,6541

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,9673

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,299

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 949,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5233

PHP

Philippine peso

64,486

RUB

Russian rouble

34,036

THB

Thai baht

46,863

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Thomas J. FREIHEIT, Appellant, v. COCONUT CREEK DEVELOPERS, et al., Appellees.

No. YY-98.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 11, 1981.

Richard A. Sadow, North Miami, for appellant.

H. B. Yandle, Miami, for appellees.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order which we affirm except as to the *1177deputy commissioner’s denial of the claim for penalties pursuant to § 440.20(7), Florida Statutes. Appellee concedes that claimant was entitled to such a “penalty award,” and the order appealed is accordingly reversed on this issue and remanded to the deputy commissioner for the assessment and imposition of the statutory penalty.

BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
#### Luther Earl JACKSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 52020.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 1980.

Franklin J. George, Grenada, for appellant.

Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Susan L. Runnels, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grenada County; Niles McNeel, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
----

Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Strack v Commission

(Case F-37/06)

(2006/C 131/96)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Bouneaou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the claim for annulment, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging, by the first plea, infringement of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, by the second plea, infringement of the principle of the prohibition on arbitrary procedure, of the obligation to give reasons and abuse of powers and, by the third plea, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

In support of the claim for damages, the applicant submits that the implied decision rejecting his request left him in a state of uncertainty and anxiety which persisted for a number of months, giving rise to consequent material and non-material loss.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3154 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 3154

To increase the penalty for trafficking in powdered cocaine to the same 
 level as the penalty for trafficking in crack cocaine, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 1996

   Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin introduced the following bill; which was 
  referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the 
 Committee on Commerce, 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 increase the penalty for trafficking in powdered cocaine to the same 
 level as the penalty for trafficking in crack cocaine, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

    Section 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
841(b)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``5 kilograms'' 
        and inserting ``50 grams''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``500 grams'' and 
        inserting ``5 grams''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

    Pursuant to section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the 
United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate guidelines or 
amend existing guidelines to carry out this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bilbo *v.*The State.

*Murder.*

(Decided June 30, 1911.

55 South. 927.)

1. *Indictment and Information; Endorsements; Return; Requisites.*—An indictment which does not contain the endorsement “a true bill” signed by the foreman of the grand jury as required by section 7300 of the Code of 1907, is not a valid indictment.

2. *Appeal and Error; Record; Bill of Exceptions.■*— Where bills of exceptions in two cases were transposed and thus became incorporated in the wrong ease in each instance, this court cannot on appeal review the matters therein reserved.

Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Beowne.

William Bilbo was convicted of manslaughter and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

(Maria Bilbo was convicted at the same time and she appeals also, and her case is reversed and remanded. The facts and opinion being the same in each case and being written by the same judge is consolidated with this case for convenience sake. — Reporter.)

No counsel marked for appellant.

R. O. Beickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Mastín, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Counsel discuss exceptions to evidence and refused charges with citation of authority to support the action of the trial court, but in view of the opinion, it is not deemed necessary to set it out.

PELHAM, J.

This record presents no evidence that the indictment upon which the defendant was tried was regularly and legally returned into court. It is not *75shown to be a valid indictment, in that it is not shown to have been indorsed “a true bill,” nor does it appear to have been signed by the.foreman of the grand jury.—Code 1907, § 7300; *Moses’ Case,*35 Ala. 421; *Joyner v. State,*78 Ala. 448; *Wilson v. State,*128 Ala. 17, 29 South. 569; *Coburn v. State,*151 Ala. 100, 44 South. 58.

Besides, the records before the court in this case and in the companion case of Maria Bilbo (infra) are so confused as to render impossible an intelligent consideration of the questions attempted to be presented. It would seem that the cases were either tried together in the court below, and a clumsy attempt made to separate them on appeal, or that one of the cases was tried and an agreed judgment entered in the other, and a bill of exceptions prepared on the evidence of the case tried, which is'attempted to be made to apply to the other case. However that may be,- the bills of exceptions have evidently been transposed and incorporated in the wrong cases, thus mating the exceptions as applicable to the evidence and the requested charges, when designating the defendants by name, totally inapplicable to the case in which they appear. The evidence, as set out in the case in which William Bilbo is the defendant, is made by bill of exceptions in that case to refer to Maria Bilbo as the defendant, and in the case in which Maria Bilbo is the defendant to refer to William Bilbo as the defendant, putting it out of the power of the court to properly review the questions reserved for its consideration.

Reversed and remanded.
#### James OLIVER v. Frank JONES et al.

No. 64615.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 1, 1979.

In re James Oliver, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Jefferson. 370 So.2d 638.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for all parties be notified.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00665-CR

Michael Angelo Garcia, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 11-1686-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Michael Angelo Garcia pled guilty to the offense of possession of 400 grams or

more of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver, and a jury assessed a sentence of

sixty years’ imprisonment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(f) (West 2010).

Garcia’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,

516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent a copy of the brief to

Garcia and advised him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Garcia requested and received three extensions of time to file his pro se

brief but ultimately failed to do so.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous, and his motion to withdraw is

granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Rose

Affirmed

Filed: August 20, 2013

Do Not Publish

2
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   6-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          MAR-31-2000
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-2000
[CASH]                                             150
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                   150
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                     150
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                             3500
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                         70
[COMMON]                                         10280
[OTHER-SE]                                     (13700)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                       150
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                         0
[EPS-BASIC]                                        0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,778
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                       438
<INVENTORY>                                      4,040
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,996
<PP&E>                                           2,961
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,438
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,770
<COMMON>                                            54
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,109
<SALES>                                         23,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,320
<CGS>                                           17,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,773
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (314)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,625
<INCOME-TAX>                                       346
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.270
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.220
        

</TABLE>