alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1010.110 Roads. ( a ) *Access to the subdivision.* ( 1 ) Is access to the subdivision provided by public or private roads? What type of surface do they have? How many lanes? What is the width of the wearing surface?
( 2 ) Who is responsible for their maintenance? What is the cost to the purchaser, if any? Are any improvements contemplated? If so, when will they begin and when will they be completed? At whose expense?
( b ) *Access within the subdivision.* ( 1 ) How have legal and physical access by conventional automobile been or will they be, provided to the lots (*e.g.,* road on recorded easement; right of way dedicated to the public; right of way dedicated to use of lot owners)?
( 2 ) Who is responsible for the road construction? Is there any construction cost to the purchaser? Is there any financial assurance of completion? If there is no financial assurance of completion, enter a warning to the effect that no funds have been set aside in an escrow or trust account and there are no other financial arrangements to assure completion of the roads.
( 3 ) How many lanes do the interior roads have? What is the estimated starting date of construction (month and year); the present percentage of construction now complete; the present surface; the estimated completion date (month and year) and what is the final surface to be? If there are separate units or sections in the subdivision which will have different completion dates or different surfaces, the chart in section XIX of the appendix to this part: Road Chart shall be used rather than a narrative paragraph.
( 4 ) Who is responsible for road maintenance? If the roads are to be maintained by a public authority, a property owners' association or some other entity at some time in the future, who is responsible for their maintenance during the interim period? What is the cost to the purchaser during the interim period and after acceptance for permanent maintenance? Will they be maintained so as to provide access to the lots on a year round basis? If not, include a warning which informs the purchaser that access may not be available year round. Identify the months when access may not be available to lots. If there are no arrangements for maintenance, include a warning to the effect that purchasers are responsible for maintaining the roads and that, if maintenance is not performed, the roads may soon deteriorate and access may become difficult or impossible.
( 5 ) If estimated completion dates given in prior Statements of Record have not been met, state that previous dates have not been met and give the previous dates. Underline the answer. If the roads are 100 percent completed, no dates are needed.
( 6 ) Complete the chart in section XX of the appendix to this part: Nearby Communities Chart by listing the county seat (identify) and at least two nearby communities. Include at least one community of significant size which offers general services.
( 7 ) If the purchasers will be individually responsible for providing access to their lots and for maintaining that access, what is the estimated cost of construction and maintenance?
# C_2006249EN.01000602.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/6

---

Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-354/06)

(2006/C 249/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux, F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

By its action, the applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1), and, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1), and, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

1

| — | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which Directive 2003/35/EC had to be transposed expired on 25 June 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 156. p. 17

1

---
42407.

#### GILMER v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment which charged him with two counts of burglary. The sole enumeration of error relates to the following occurrence which took place during the trial of the case, and while a witness for the State, a detective, was testifying as to the conduct of the investigation after the burglaries were reported: “Q. As a result of the conversation you had with him, what did you do, don’t tell me what you said or what he said but as a result of the conversation what did you do? A. I called the Identification Bureau and started checking records. Q. Did you find some records? A. Yes sir, I found some records. Q. Did you find some photographs? A. Yes. By Mr. Henley: If the Court please, I want to object to that. By Mr. Thompson: It is probably a little leading. By Mr. Henley: Not just leading but I have a motion at this time, Your Honor, outside of the presence of the jury. By the Court: Let the jury go out. (Whereupon the jury retired to the jury room.) By Mr. Henley: Your Honor, I make a motion for a mistrial on the grounds that the solicitor has placed, or attempted to place, I think he has placed the defendant’s record into evidence by attempting to show through this officer they went to the identification department and found pictures. By the Court: He didn’t say this defendant’s picture. By Mr. Henley: I think the implication itself is enough to get a mistrial. By the Court: I overrule the motion. Let the jury come back. He didn’t say anything with reference to *612the defendant on trial. (Whereupon the jury returned to the jury box.) Q. As a result of your investigation did you cause a warrant to issue from the Civil Court of Fulton County for the arrest of James Edward Gilmer? A. Yes sir, I did.”

Submitted November 7, 1966

Decided November 14, 1966.

*Garland & Garland,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, Jr., Solicitor General, J. Walter LeCraw,*for appellee.

No further objection was made during the trial of the case and the enumeration of error is as follows: “The court erred in refusing to grant a motion for mistrial when the appellant’s character was placed in issue by testimony concerning the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the appellant as the result of the investigating officer’s calling of the Identification Bureau and checking of criminal records.” *Held:*

1. No question is presented by so much of the enumeration of error as deals with the issuance of the warrant since no objection or motion for mistrial was made after such question was asked. See *Dowling v. Camden County,*113 Ga. App.34 (3) (146 SE2d 925).

2. The questions with reference to the officer’s investigation at the Identification Bureau did not show that the defendant . had a record or that his photograph was found. Even assuming that such evidence may have otherwise been objectionable and that the enumeration of error is sufficient it was not ground for a mistrial as having placed the defendant’s character in issue.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2587 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Kenneth 
                 T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. KENNETH T. WHALUM, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Kenneth T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kenneth T. 
Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2587

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 555 South 3rd Street Lobby in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ``Kenneth 
                 T. Whalum, Sr. Post Office Building''.
```
§ 1070.11 Information made available; discretionary disclosures. ( a ) *In general.* The FOIA provides for public access to information and records developed or maintained by Federal agencies. Generally, the FOIA divides agency information into three major categories and provides methods by which each category of information is to be made available to the public. The three major categories of information are as follows: ( 1 ) Information required to be published in the Federal Register (see § 1070.12);
( 2 ) Information required to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format or, in the alternative, to be published and offered for sale (see § 1070.13); and
( 3 ) Information required to be made available to any member of the public upon specific request (see §§ 1070.14 through 1070.22).
( b ) *Discretionary disclosures.* Even though a FOIA exemption may apply to the information or records requested, the CFPB may, if not precluded by law, elect under the circumstances not to apply the exemption. The fact that the exemption is not applied by the CFPB in response to a particular request shall have no precedential significance in processing other requests.
( c ) *Disclosures of records frequently requested.* Subject to the application of the FOIA exemptions and exclusions (5 U.S.C. 552(b) and (c)), the CFPB shall make publicly available, as provided by § 1070.13, all records regardless of form or format, which have been released previously to any person under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) and §§ 1070.14 through 1070.22, and which the CFPB determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records. When the CFPB receives three (3) or more requests for substantially the same records, then the CFPB shall also make the released records publicly available.
§ 62.32 Supportive service: Assistance in obtaining VA benefits. ( a ) Grantees must assist participants in obtaining any benefits from VA for which the participants are eligible. Such benefits include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Vocational and rehabilitation counseling;
( 2 ) Employment and training service;
( 3 ) Educational assistance; and
( 4 ) Health care services.
( b ) Grantees are not permitted to represent participants before VA with respect to a claim for VA benefits unless they are recognized for that purpose pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5902. Employees and members of grantees are not permitted to provide such representation unless the individual providing representation is accredited pursuant to 38 U.S.C. chapter 59.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044)
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Chad

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Chad			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Chad 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Chad

During the review period, the transitional government made significant progress by publishing its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period.  It also published its enacted budget within a reasonable period but did not publish an end-of-year report.  Budget documents broke down expenditures by ministry, but did not include all revenues and expenditures, nor financial allocations to or earnings from major state-owned enterprises.  Information on debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt, was not publicly available.  The transitional government maintained some off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence or produce substantive public reports.  The transitional government specified in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses, but it did not always follow those regulations in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.

Chad’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing online an end-of-year report within a reasonable period;
- Including all revenues and expenditures in the budget;
- Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to audit and oversight;
- Disclosing debt holdings, including for major state-owned enterprises;
- Ensuring the independence of the supreme audit institution;
- Making substantive supreme audit institution reports publicly available; and
- Following the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses in practice.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Chad 

Tags

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

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
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 32


                           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 Radva Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
19 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

     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 the Company.



Date:       May 7, 2004

                                                     /s/ Luther I. Dickens
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     Luther I. Dickens
                                                     Chief Executive Officer



Date:       May 7, 2004

                                                     /s/ William F. Fry
                                                     --------------------------
                                                     William F. Fry
                                                     Vice President-
                                                     Chief Financial Officer



                                     - 12 -
Appendix	A

Summary for Federal Register Publication

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the

Federal Register should the FAA determine that publication is needed.

Petitioner: Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Sections of 14 C.F.R. Affected:

333 Aircraft Exemption Status

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

14 C.F.R. §91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.151

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

Description of Relief Sought:

Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 333 Aircraft Exemption Status, 14 

C.F.R., 61.113(a)&(b)), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(a), 91.409(a), and

91.417(a)&(b) to conduct sUAS operations over [WELLS FARGO] Client’s owned or 

controlled land, solely during daylight hours, to assist in the safe evaluation and analysis 

of infrastructure and operations. In general, sUAS operations are intended to be 

conducted in areas remote from both congested areas and airports. The nature of 

operations anticipated by [WELLS FARGO] requires that the sUAS be flown at 

relatively low altitudes. [WELLS FARGO] expects that in most instances, the sUAS will 

be flown less than 75 feet from the highest structure along the path of the sUAS and in no 

instances will be flown higher than 400 feet above the ground. Accordingly, the risk of 

interference with other aircraft is minimal.

Planned Equipment inventory:

DJI Phantom 2 with Modified GoPro Hero 4(Modified lense to provide flat 

imaging)

Futaba T8FGS Radio/Transmitter (PIC)
IIB 

★(Star Print)

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2559 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2559 RFS1S 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Higher Edu3 cation Extension Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act 

6 of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘June 30, 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘Oc8 tober 31, 2007’’. 

9 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

10 Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Ex11 tension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be con12 strued to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of ap13 propriations for, or the durations of, programs contained 

14 in the amendments made by the Higher Education Rec15 onciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) to the pro16 visions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Tax17 payer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 6, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By DEBORAH M. SPRIGGS, 

Deputy Clerk.
#### *John Boyd, late constable, Richard Addis, Andrew Little, and Aaron Ayers *against*Andrew Rose.

on certiorari.

JAMES STUDMFORI) attorney for plaintiffs.

Suit against constable for neglect of (a)

not on

Neglect ot sufficiently set out. (b)

(a)

*Lewis vs. Little, post 685. Matlack vs. Stow, Pen. *532.*

(b)

*Leaming vs. Denny, Pen. *611, Sandford vs. Colfax, ante 120.*

Southard J.

The transcript states the service of the summons on the defendant, the adjournment, the filing of the state of demand, and that on *January*10, 1818, the day of trial, the “ plaintiff' appeared, opened his cause, and offered in evidence a transcript from the docket *William Little,*esq. which after examining, he gave ment in favour of the plaintiff for 100 dollars.” transcript from the docket of *William Little,*esq. which *262accompanies the papers, is in the case of *Andrew Rose*v. *James Stewart.*The state of demand claims “ 100 dollars for this, viz. that heretofore the plaintiff obtained a judgment, before *William Little,*esq. against one *James Stewart,*for the sum of 100 dollars, debt; and 23 cents, costs.” The 23d of *May*1816, the justice issued his execution against said *Stewart,*and gave the same to *.John Boyd,*constable, of *Independence,*and the said constable has neglected to serve the same, and therefore he demands 100 dollars, and gives credit for 10 dollars, alleging that the balance and interest amount to 100 dollars.

The plaintiffs in *certiorari,*have seen fit to file two reasons for reversal. 1. That the state of demand contains no lawful cause of action against the defendants. And 2. Because the neglect of the constable is not set out with sufficient certainty.

The proceeding seems to me to be a tissue of errors.

1. The state of demand does not, even by implication, contain any charge against three of the defendants. Indeed, from the face of the writing, it is manifest that joining them is altogether an after thought.

2. In a suit against a constable, the state of demand must specify, the neglect of which he has been guilty. It will not do to charge him generally with neglect, and prove the particular fact at the trial. This would serve only to entrap him.

3. There is nothing in the proof to shew the slightest connexion of three of those against whom judgment has passed, with the constable *Boyd.*As to them, it is a judgment without proof.

*4. There is no proof of any neglect in the constable himself. The transcript which was given in evidence, only proves the delivery of the process to him, and this is not enough. The trial was in his absence ; the proof should have been, complete.

5. It is presumed, from the appearance of the case, that it was designed to recover judgment against three of the defendants as securities of the constable, under the 52d section of the “ act constituting courts for the trial of small causes.” If this be so, this suit is radically erroneous. It must be brought upon the bond given by the *263constable to the inhabitants of the township. The securities can be made to answer in no other

In the opinion of the whole court

Judgment must be reversed.