alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary Flanagan, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a ; verdict.

H. A. Robinson, for appellant.

P. M. Herzog, for respondent.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J.

We think that the evidence clearly proves that plaintiff was injured through the gross carelessness of defendant’s conductor. While the car was at a standstill, and plaintiff in the act of alighting therefrom, and before she was able to do so, and without warning, he started the car, threw ■ plaintiff to the ground, spraining and disfiguring her. wrist and breaking the radius bone in her arm. These injuries were dangerous, painful and perhaps the evil effects thereof may be permanent. She was without fault. She had the right to leave the car at the place in question and as it was at a full stop and several passengers were getting off, she had the right to believe and assume that she would be allowed a reasonably safe opportunity to alight, which right was not accorded her.

The verdict was not excessive, as testified to. She was seriously injured, and may always suffer deformity and pain, because of the negligent act of defendant’s servant.

Hnder the circumstances,- we think, the verdict was just, reasonable and proper, and it must be affirmed, with costs.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 38.740 Scoring and selection. ( a ) *Scoring.* VA will only score complete applications received from eligible applicants by the deadline established in the NOFA. The applications must meet the minimum criteria set forth in § 38.730 and will be scored as specified in the NOFA, as set forth in § 38.725.
( b ) *Selection of recipients.* All complete applications will be scored using the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and ranked in order of highest to lowest total score. NOFA announcements may also clarify the selection criteria in paragraph (a) of this section. The relative weight (point value) for each selection will be specified in the NOFA. VA will award any VLGP grant on the primary basis of the scores but will also consider a risk assessment evaluation.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 2400 note and 2 CFR 200.203)
§ 68b.5 How will applicants be selected to participate in the Scholarship Program? ( a ) *General.* In deciding which applications for participation in the Scholarship Program will be approved, the Director will place the applications into categories based upon the selection priorities described in paragraph (b) of this section. Except for renewal awards (see paragraph (e) of this section), the Director will then evaluate each applicant under paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Priorities.* ( 1 ) First priority will be given to applicants who have completed at least 2 years of undergraduate course work, including four core science courses, and are classified by their educational institutions as juniors or seniors as of the beginning of the academic year of scholarship. (Core science courses include, but are not limited to, biology, chemistry, physics, and calculus.)
( 2 ) Second priority will be given to applicants who have completed four core science courses, as defined above.
( 3 ) Third priority will be given to applicants who are matriculated freshmen or sophomores.
( c ) *Selection.* In selecting participants and determining continuation of program support, the Director will take into consideration those factors determined necessary to ensure effective participation in the Scholarship Program. These factors may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Biomedical research experience and performance,
( 2 ) Academic performance,
( 3 ) Career goals, and
( 4 ) Recommendations.
( d ) *Duration of Scholarship award.* Subject to the availability of funds appropriated for the Scholarship Program, the Director may, at his/her discretion, award scholarships under this part for a period of one, two, or three academic years.
( e ) *Continuation of scholarship support.* Subject to the availability of funds for the Scholarship Program, the Director may continue scholarship support if: ( 1 ) The participant requests a continuation of scholarship support;
( 2 ) The scholarship will not extend the total period of Scholarship Program support beyond 4 years; and
( 3 ) The participant is eligible for continued participation in the Scholarship Program, as determined by the Scholarship Program Review Committee.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DOD.

# ACTION:

Notice of Open Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on communication aspects of the University in order to further the growth and internal communication practices of the Marine Corps University. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Friday, October 30, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites Alexandria—Old Town. The address is: 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314, telephone number (703) 684-5900.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Davi Michelle Richardson, Faculty Development Coordinator, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number (703) 784-2884.

Dated: September 23, 2009.

A.M. Vallandingham, 

Lieutenant Commander,  Judge Advocate General's Corps,  U.S. Navy,  Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-23537 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Cameroon

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Cameroon 			

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Cameroon  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Cameroon 

During the review period, the government made significant progress by reviewing its budget throughout the fiscal year.  The government  published its enacted budget and end-of-year report online within a reasonable period, but not its executive budget proposal. The budget provided a substantially full picture by including major sources of revenue and expenditure. Information on debt obligations was publicly available and updated quarterly, including for state-owned enterprises. Allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises were not identified in budget documents, and few state-owned enterprises produced financial statements. The government broke down expenditures to support executive offices. The government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to adequate audit or oversight. Information in the budget was considered generally reliable. The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence; however, it audited the entire annual executed budget and 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 contracts and licenses. Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

Cameroon’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Making its executive budget proposal publicly available within a reasonable period;
- Including in budget documents allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises;
- Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate audit and oversight; and
- Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Cameroon  

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsCameroonDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Trajectory Alpha Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on Form10-K for the period ending December 31, 2021 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I certify, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 
Date: March 30, 2022  By: /s/ Peter Bordes      **Peter Bordes**      **Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**      **(Principal Executive Officer)****
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus GILBERTO NAPOLES-CARDENAS, a/k/a Gilberto Napoles, a/k/a Gilberto N. Cardenas, a/k/a Gilberto Cardenas-Napoles, a/k/a Gilberto Estrada, a/k/a Martin C. Estrada, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-131, CA-01-528-1) Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: February 26, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Donald Cowan, Jr., SMITH MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Arnold L. Husser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Gilbert Napoles-Cardenas seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Napoles-Cardenas has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Napoles-Cardenas , Nos. CR-00-131; CA-01-528-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We also deny Napoles-Cardenas’ motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 61.52 Technical assistance grant application packages—threshold requirements. The following threshold requirements for a technical assistance grant must be met, or the application will be rejected before being rated under § 61.53: ( a ) The application must be complete and submitted on the correct form and in the time period established in the Notice of Fund Availability;
( b ) The applicant must establish expertise in preparing grant applications;
( c ) The activities for which assistance is requested must be eligible for funding under this part;
( d ) The applicant must demonstrate that adequate financial support will be available to carry out the project for which the grant is sought, consistent with the plans, specifications and schedule submitted by the applicant;
( e ) The applicant must not have an outstanding obligation to VA that is in arrears, or have an overdue or unsatisfactory response to an audit; and
( f ) The applicant must not have been notified by VA as being in default.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2064)
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold Mines
Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify
to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Garry L. Anselmo Garry
L. Anselmo Principal Accounting Officer

October 16, 2006

---
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-8435

 Directorate Identifier: 2015NM049AD

700-52-6008 ---11/09/2012

700-52-5008 --- 11/09/2012

700-52-044 --- 11/09/2012

700-1A11-52-021, 11/09/2012

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10679

Conference Calendar

 

RONALD J. HOLLEMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL GILLETT; MARY LUDWIG;

DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT; HENRY WADE

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-3320-G

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1997

Before BARKSDALE, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Having reviewed Holleman’s arguments and the record on

appeal, we hereby deny Holleman’s motion to amend his complaint. 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Holleman’s 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action for substantially the same reasons adopted by the

district court. Holleman v. Gillett, 3:96-CV-3320-G (N.D. Tex.

May 19, 1997).
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel Bernstein, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      August 9, 2007


By:
                /s/
                  Daniel BernsteinDaniel
                        Bernstein, Presidentand
                        Chief Executive Officer
----

(2004/C 88 E/0464)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3179/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Cambodian deadlock

Has the Commission made representations to the Cambodian authorities in order to help solve the current constitutional deadlock, especially in the context of the country's troubled and violent history?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The Commission and Member States represented in Phnom Penh are following the recent political developments in Cambodia closely. Commission representatives have on several occasions encouraged all political parties to do their utmost, in a peaceful manner, to find an agreement on the formation of a new government reflecting the wishes of the electorate.

----
42261.

#### LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. CAVENDER.

Deen, Judge.

The sole problem in this workmen’s compensation case is whether it belongs within the ambit of *Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Sheets,*105 Ga. App. 734 (125 SE2d 569) where it was lodged by the hearing director, the full board, and the Judge of the Superior Court of Fulton County, or whether it is controlled adversely by the conclusion reached in *Continental Cas. Co. v. Donnell,*112 Ga. App. *511274 (145 SE2d 89). The distinction is made in the latter case as follows: “The award of the board indicates that it was based upon the rule set forth in” *Sheets,*supra, to the effect that *Sheets*held “to the effect that a change in diagnosis from one showing a compensable injury to one showing a non-compensable injury does not amount to evidence of change of condition. In that case the doctor who made the original examination changed his diagnosis after the agreement was signed and approved by the board, in effect merely changing his mind as to the cause of the injury. In the instant case, however, there was evidence of the termination of disability caused by the initial work-related injury and a change in condition accompanied by lesser disability due to the subsequent, non-work-related disease of diabetes mellitus.”

Argued September 13, 1966

Decided October 6, 1966

Rehearing denied October 26, 1966.

In the case before us the claimant suffered accidental injury to his back on October 12, 1963, which became disabling on June 17, 1964. An agreement to pay compensation for total disability was entered into at that time and the claimant has been totally disabled and has not worked since. On September 1, 1964, he was operated on for cancer of the neck of the right femur. A doctor who first saw him on that date testified to the existence of the cancer, that it would be painful and disabling, that it is presently disabling, and that he found nothing else which was disabling, but his deposition does not show whether or not any examination was made to determine the existence or extent of the non-related back injury. The claimant testified that since'the operation his right leg is better although he still cannot walk on it; that the back trouble remains the same and pains radiate from the back into both legs; that the back trouble prevents him from stooping, bending, putting his socks on, and so forth. There is not in this case, as there was in *Donnell,*supra, any evidence of termination of disability caused by the original work-related injury. There is evidence that both injuries exist and that both are disabling. Indubitably, we do not agree with the appellant that the evidence demands a finding that the claim was decided on an erroneous legal theory.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*

*512*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, Burt DeRieux, James A. Eichelberger, Joseph R. Manning,*for appellants.

*Burdine & Freeman, Essley Burdine, D. M. Johnson,*for appellee.
§ 1081.202 Amended pleadings ( a ) *Amendments before the hearing.* The notice of charges, answer, or any other pleading may be amended or supplemented only with the opposing party's written consent or leave of the hearing officer. The respondent must answer an amended notice of charges within the time remaining for the respondent's answer to the original notice of charges, or within 14 days after service of the amended notice of charges, whichever is later, unless the hearing officer orders otherwise for good cause.
( b ) *Amendments to conform to the evidence.* When issues not raised in the notice of charges or answer are tried at the hearing by express or implied consent of the parties, they will be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the notice of charges or answer, and no formal amendments are required. If evidence is objected to at the hearing on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by the notice of charges or answer, the hearing officer may admit the evidence when admission is likely to assist in adjudicating the merits of the action and the objecting party fails to satisfy the hearing officer that the admission of such evidence would unfairly prejudice that party's action or defense upon the merits. The hearing officer may grant a continuance to enable the objecting party to meet such evidence.