alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Tanzania

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Tanzania			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report available online.  It did not publish a full executive budget proposal.  Some information on debt obligations was available online, but information on state-owned enterprise debt was not available.  Publicly available budget documents did not provide a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams.  Only limited information on allocations to and earnings from state owned enterprises and natural resource revenues was available.  The intelligence budget was not part of the public budget, and there were no procedures in place to permit parliamentary review of it.  Actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget, and the government did not produce and publicly issue revised budget estimates or pass a supplementary budget.  The supreme audit institution reviewed the government’s accounts and made its reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time but lacked independence that met international standards.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law and regulation, but not followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available. Tanzania’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- making its executive budget proposal widely and easily accessible to the general public;
- including allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
- publishing revised or supplementary budgets as needed;
- subjecting intelligence budgets to greater civilian oversight and audit;
- ensuring actual revenues and expenditures reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget, and producing and publicly issuing revised budget estimates or passing a supplementary budget when they do not;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;
- following natural resource extraction laws and regulations in practice; and
- publishing basic information on natural resource extraction awards.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentTanzania

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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7540

LARRY NORMAN GAMBRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PHOEBE JOHNSON, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-00-593-23-9) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Norman Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry Norman Gambrell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 29, 2001. The notice of appeal was filed on October 7, 2002. Because Gambrell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
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 IR BioSciences  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 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 18 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.






/s/ Michael Wilhelm
--------------------
Michael Wilhelm
Chief Executive Officer
November 16, 2005


/s/ John Fermanis
--------------------
John Fermanis
Chief Financial Officer
November 16, 2005



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.1009 Personal funds of patients. The provisions of this section are applicable to gratuitous benefits deposited by the Department of Veterans Affairs either before, on, or after December 1, 1959, in a personal funds of patients account for an incompetent veteran who was incompetent at the date of death. Where the veteran died after November 30, 1959: ( a ) *Eligible persons.* Gratuitous benefits shall be paid to the living person first listed as follows: ( 1 ) His or her spouse, as defined in § 3.1000(d)(1);
( 2 ) His or her children (in equal shares), as defined in § 3.57 but without regard to their age or marital status;
( 3 ) His or her dependent parents (in equal shares) as defined in § 3.59 or the surviving parent, provided that the parent was dependent within the meaning of § 3.250 at the date of the veteran's death.
( 4 ) In all other cases, only so much may be paid as may be necessary to reimburse a person who bore the expense of last sickness or burial. (See § 3.1002.) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5502(d))
( b ) *Claim.* Application must be filed with the Department of Veterans Affairs within 5 years after the death of the veteran. If, however, any person otherwise entitled is under legal disability at the time of the veteran's death, the 5-year period will run from the date of termination or removal of the legal disability. ( 1 ) There is no time limit for the submission of evidence.
( 2 ) Failure to file timely claim, or a waiver of rights, by a preferred dependent will not serve to vest title in a person in a lower class or a claimant for reimbursement; neither will such failure or waiver by a person or persons in a joint class serve to increase the amount payable to another or others in the class.
[27 FR 5539, June 12, 1962, as amended at 28 FR 10487, Sept. 28, 1963; 39 FR 30349, Aug. 22, 1974]
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

April 28, 2015 
 Mr. Kevin M. Modany 

ITT Educational Services, Inc. 
 13000 North Meridian Street 

Carmel, IN 46032-1404 
 Re: Amendment to
Letter Agreement 
 Dear Kevin: 

Reference is made to that certain letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) dated as of August 4, 2014, between you and ITT
Educational Services, Inc. (the “Company”). You and the Company hereby agree to extend the Applicable Period (as defined and used in the Letter Agreement) to and including May 29, 2015. Other than such amendment, all other terms and
conditions of the Letter Agreement remain in full force and effect without modification. 
 If the foregoing accurately reflects our
agreement, please sign and return to us the enclosed duplicate copy of this letter. 
  

					
	ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ John E. Dean

			Name:		John E. Dean
			Title:		Executive Chairman
	
	Accepted and Agreed to:
	
	 /s/ Kevin M. Modany

	Kevin M. Modany
§ 78.20 Threshold requirements prior to scoring suicide prevention services grant applicants. VA will only score applicants who meet the following threshold requirements: ( a ) The application is filed within the time period established in the NOFO, and any additional information or documentation requested by VA under § 78.15(c) is provided within the time frame established by VA;
( b ) The application is completed in all parts;
( c ) The activities for which the suicide prevention services grant is requested are eligible for funding under this part;
( d ) The applicant's proposed participants are eligible to receive suicide prevention services under this part;
( e ) The applicant agrees to comply with the requirements of this part;
( f ) The applicant does not have an outstanding obligation to the Federal government that is in arrears and does not have an overdue or unsatisfactory response to an audit; and
( g ) The applicant is not in default by failing to meet the requirements for any previous Federal assistance.
#### ST. LOUIS, KENNETT *&*SOUTHEASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES ET AL.

[58 C. Cls. 339; 287 U. S. 346]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. A railroad company in a contract with the Director General of Railroads expressly accepted the covenants and obligations of the latter and the rights arising thereunder “ in full adjustment, settlement, satisfaction, and discharge of any and all claims and rights at law or in equity, which it now has or hereafter can have against the United States, the President, the Director General or any agent or agency thereof by virtue of anything done or omitted, pursuant to the acts of Congress herein referred to,” viz; the Federal Control Act, the act of August 29, 1916, c. 418, 39 Stat. 645, and the joint resolutions of April 6 and December 7, 1917, 40 Stat. 1, 429. *Held,*That a claim of the railroad under section 3 of the Federal Control Act for a deficit in operating income, etc., previously incurred under Federal control, was settled and released by *1022tlie contract, and denying this effect and intention were mere conclusions of law, not admitted by demurrer.

March 2, 1925.

2. Ordinarily, the defense of release, or accord and satisfaction, must be pleaded in bar; but where the fact appears either in the body of the petition or from an exhibit annexed, the defense may be availed of on demurrer.

3. The agreement was within the authority of the Director General.

Mr. Justice BraNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
```

[112th Congress Public Law 110]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 331]]

Public Law 112-110
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, as the ``Sergeant Jason 
     W. Vaughn Post Office''. <<NOTE: May 15, 2012 -  [H.R. 2213]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SERGEANT JASON W. VAUGHN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office''.
    (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 ``Sergeant 
Jason W. Vaughn Post Office''.

    Approved May 15, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2213:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 157 (2011):
                                    July 28, 29, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 158 (2012):
                                    Apr. 26, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           18000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   15000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           406000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        101000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (492000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (797000)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                158000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (158000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.016)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.016)
        

</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2429 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide an exception 

to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing arrangements between 

two physicians during the period in which one of the physicians is 

ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve component of the 

Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2007 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, 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 XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal 

billing arrangements between two physicians during the 

period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active 

duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 

Forces. 

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


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2429 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY LIMIT ON MEDICARE RE2 CIPROCAL BILLING ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE 

3 OF PHYSICIANS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY 

4 IN THE ARMED FORCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1842(b)(6)(D)(iii) of the 

6 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(D)(iii)) is 

7 amended by inserting after ‘‘of more than 60 days’’ the 

8 following: ‘‘or are provided (before January 1, 2008) over 

9 a longer continuous period during all of which the first 

10 physician has been called or ordered to active duty as a 

11 member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply to services furnished on or after 

14 the date of the enactment of this section. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
# C_2004201EN.01000202.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 24 June 2004

in Case C-119/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Directive 91/271/EEC - Discharge of urban waste water into a sensitive area - Lack of a collecting system - Lack of treatment more stringent than the secondary treatment provided for in Article 4 of the Directive)

(2004/C 201/04)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-119/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — application for a declaration that, by not taking the measures necessary for the installation of a collecting system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from that area to treatment more stringent than secondary treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area of the Gulf of Elefsina, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 (OJ 1998 L 67, p. 29) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary for the installation of a collecting system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from that area to treatment more stringent than secondary treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area of the Gulf of Elefsina, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary for the installation of a collecting system for urban waste water from the area of Thriasio Pedio and not subjecting urban waste water from that area to treatment more stringent than secondary treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area of the Gulf of Elefsina, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 131, 1.6.2002.

---
§ 20.712 Rule 712. Record of hearing. ( a ) *General.* All Board hearings will be recorded. The Board will prepare a written transcript for each Board hearing conducted. The transcript will be the official record of the hearing and will be incorporated as a part of the record on appeal. The Board will not accept alternate transcript versions prepared by the appellant or representative.
( b ) *Hearing recording.* The recording of the Board hearing will be retained for a period of 12 months following the date of the Board hearing as a duplicate record of the proceeding.
( c ) *Copy of written transcript.* If the appellant or representative requests a copy of the written transcript in accordance with § 1.577 of this chapter, the Board will furnish one copy to the appellant or representative.
[84 FR 188, Jan. 18, 2019]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2217 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 

to include homeless status in the definition of ‘‘hate crime’’ for the 

purposes of Federal sentencing provisions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2007 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, 

Mr. WEXLER, Mr. KUCINICH, and Mr. JEFFERSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act of 1994 to include homeless status in the definition 

of ‘‘hate crime’’ for the purposes of Federal sentencing 

provisions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hate Crimes Against 

5 the Homeless Enforcement Act’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 2217 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOMELESS STATUS INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF 

2 HATE CRIME. 

3 Section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and 

4 Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) is 

5 amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

7 ‘‘(1) HATE CRIME.—The term ‘hate crime’ 

8 means a crime in which the defendant intentionally 

9 selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, 

10 the property that is the object of the crime, because 

11 of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, na12 tional origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual ori13 entation, or homeless status of any person. 

14 ‘‘(2) HOMELESS STATUS.—The term ‘homeless 

15 status’ means the status of an individual who lacks 

16 a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, 

17 or an individual who has a primary nighttime resi18 dence that is— 

19 ‘‘(A) a public or private place not designed 

20 for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping ac21 commodation for human beings, including cars, 

22 parks, public spaces, abandoned buildings, sub23 standard housing, bus or train stations, or simi24 lar settings; 

25 ‘‘(B) a supervised publicly or privately op26 erated shelter designed to provide temporary 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 2217 IH

1 living accommodations, including motels, hotels, 

2 congregate shelters, and transitional housing; or 

3 ‘‘(C) housing of other persons in which the 

4 individual is temporarily staying due to loss of 

5 housing, economic hardship, or a similar rea6 son.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS