alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1002.104 Covered credit transactions and excluded transactions. ( a ) *Covered credit transaction* means an extension of business credit that is not an excluded transaction under paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Excluded transactions.* The requirements of this subpart do not apply to: ( 1 ) *Trade credit.* A financing arrangement wherein a business acquires goods or services from another business without making immediate payment in full to the business providing the goods or services.
( 2 ) *Home Mortgage* Disclosure *Act (HMDA)-reportable transactions.* A covered loan, or application therefor, as defined by Regulation C, 12 CFR 1003.2(e).
( 3 ) *Insurance premium financing.* A financing arrangement wherein a business agrees to pay to a financial institution, in installments, the principal amount advanced by the financial institution to an insurer or insurance producer in payment of premium on the business's insurance contract or contracts, plus charges, and, as security for repayment, the business assigns to the financial institution certain rights, obligations, and/or considerations (such as the unearned premiums, accrued dividends, or loss payments) in its insurance contract or contracts. Insurance premium financing does not include the financing of insurance policy premiums obtained in connection with the financing of goods and services.
( 4 ) *Public utilities credit.* Public utilities credit as defined in § 1002.3(a)(1).
( 5 ) *Securities credit.* Securities credit as defined in § 1002.3(b)(1).
( 6 ) *Incidental credit.* Incidental credit as defined in § 1002.3(c)(1), but without regard to whether the credit is consumer credit, as defined in § 1002.2(h).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 26, 2019

NO. 03-18-00332-CV

In re Commitment of Aaron Gipson

APPEAL FROM THE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on March 8, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The State

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
# Official Journal L 149/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 149 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5720 May 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 149

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5720 May 2014

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement | 67 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council

1

*

Regulation (EU) No 509/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

67

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2467 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 69 Montgomery Street in Jersey City, New 

Jersey, as the ‘‘Frank J. Guarini Post Office Building’’. 

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


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

HR 2467 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. FRANK J. GUARINI POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 69 Montgomery Street in Jersey 

4 City, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Frank J. Guarini Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frank J. Guarini Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 10, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By JORGE E. SORENSEN

Deputy Clerk. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
       
<S>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                810,037
<SECURITIES>                          0    
<RECEIVABLES>                         232,629   
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                                13,459,304    <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                        3,355,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        11,847,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 309,224
<BONDS>                               8,852,912    <F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              2,685,738    <F3>
<OTHER-SE>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          11,847,874
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      1,794,211    <F4>
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         882,971    <F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0         
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    656,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          255,001
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0

<FN>
<F1>   "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]


<F2>   "BONDS" REPRESENTS MORTGAGES PAYABLE
<F3>   "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F4>   "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F5>   "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES LESS INTEREST
EXPENSE 
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2009302EN.01S00301.xml

| 12.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/s3

---

NOTICE

NOTICE

On 12 December 2009, in Official Journal of the European Union C 302 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — 28th complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for 1 year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
42058.

#### WILLIAMSON, Director v. LAVONDA’S HAIR STYLIST, INC.

Frankum, Judge.

1. Where, upon the trial of the issues made by an affidavit of illegality filed to the levy of an execution issued by the director-of the Georgia Employment Security *290Agency against á corporation to recover tax, penalty, interest, and costs due under the provisions of the Georgia Employment Security Law *{Code Ann. Ch.*54-6), the sole issue made by the affidavit of illegality and the director’s traverse thereto was whether the defendant in fi. fa. was an employer within the meaning of the aforesaid law, and where the evidence showed without dispute that the defendant in fi. fa., a corporation organized to lease and sublease space, stores, buildings and other structures to beauticians and barbers, and also to lease, sell, or buy all equipment and facilities for beauty and barber shops and to lease buildings for the purpose of subleasing space in such buildings to beauticians and barbers, and “to do all other type businesses usually connected with such rentals,” employed two maids to- clean the premises leased by the defendant in fi. fa., employed a third person as receptionist-bookkeeper-cashier, and that- the two principal officers and stockholders of the corporation were also- employees of the corporation, such evidence demanded a finding that the defendant in fi. fa. was an employer as defined in *Code Ann.*§ 54-657 (g) (1) (B), which defines an employer as “any employing unit, which for some portion of a day, but not necessarily simultaneously, in each of 20 different weeks, whether or not such weeks are or were consecutive, within either the current or preceding calendar year, has or had in employment, four or more individuals,” and such evidence demanded a verdict against the defendant in fi. fa. Accordingly, the 6th and 7th enumerations of error that the verdict and judgment are contrary to law and to the evidence are meritorious and require the reversal of the judgment and the grant of a new trial to the plaintiff in fi. fa.

2. The trial judge charged the jury that there was no issue as to the amount of the taxes due. No contention is made by way of cross appeal and cross enumeration of error that this charge incorrectly restricted the jury as to the issues which they were to try. As stated in the preceding headnote, the sole issue presented to the jury was whether the defendant in fi. fa. was an employer within the meaning of the law. The defendant’s own evidence and witnesses showed without dispute that the defendant employed at least five persons. The burden was on the defendant to prove the contentions made by its affidavit of illegality, and its evidence failed to carry the burden resting upon it to- show that the periods of *291employment of the five persons did not satisfy the letter of the requirements of the law.

Submitted June 6, 1966

Decided September 14, 1966.

*Otis L. Hathcock,*for appellant.

*P. Walter Jones,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.*
#### Carl A. Falk et al., Respondents, *v.*Nathan Starr et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.

J. Rieger, for appellants.

E. Lundgren, for respondents.

*Per Ouriam.*

We think this case was correctly disposed of by the court below on the authority of Bemheimer v. Herraran, 44 Hun, 110, decided in this department, and which, for that reason, we should follow, rather than Sage v. Burton, 84 Hun, 267, elsewhere decided by a divided court.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Appliance Standards Regulatory Advisory Committee

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585

DOE Forrestal, 1E-245

March 19, 2015 9:00AM – 1:00PM

Preliminary Agenda

Time Discussion

9:00-9:15 Ethics Discussion (DOE General Counsel)

9:15-9:30 Welcome and ASRAC Overview (John Cymbalsky)

9:30-10:00 Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products (DOE and Open Discussion)

10:00-10:30 Fans and Blowers (Open Discussion)

10:30-11:00 Commercial Packaged Air Conditioners and Commercial Furnaces 

(Open Discussion)

11:00-11:30 Discussion of Regulatory Review Activities (DOE)

11:30-12:30 Standards Under Development and Other Relevant Issues (Open 

Discussion)

12:30-1:00 Additional Topics and Public Comment
42355.

#### DeMAYO v. WALTON.

Eberhardt, Judge.

A general demurrer was properly sustained to a petition alleging that plaintiff took his automobile to the defendant’s service station where he requested an employee to check and determine “whether or not there was sufficient antifreeze in the radiator to withstand freezing weather,” and that upon having checked, the employee represented to plaintiff that the amount of antifreeze in his radiator was sufficient to withstand a freeze of 10 degrees below zero and therefore he did not need any more; that relying upon the representation he proceeded home and when the temperature dropped to 17 degrees above zero the engine block burst, resulting in damage.

No fraud is alleged, and hence plaintiff seeks to recover upon the basis of error in the employee’s opinion as to whether there was sufficient antifreeze in the radiator to withstand the freeze that came. Mere error in opinion does not afford the basis of a cause of action. *Snow's Laundry &c. Co. v. Georgia Power Co.,*61 Ga. App. 402 (6 SE2d 159). It is not even alleged that the employee knew at the time he was speaking that his opinion as to whether there was need for additional antifreeze was erroneous. If the recovery were grounded upon deceit an essential element of the action is that there must have *484been an intent on the part of the party making a false representation to deceive the plaintiff, and that does not appear. *Scott v. Fulton Nat. Bank,*92 Ga. App. 741 (89 SE2d 892).

Submitted October 5, 1966

Decided October 13, 1966.

*Marvin G. Russell, Turner Paschal,*for appellant.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Robert W. Patrick, James K. Rankin,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
#### § 1080.1 Scope.

The rules of this part apply to Bureau investigations conducted pursuant to section 1052 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5562.
§ 1022.130 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Annual file disclosure* means a file disclosure that is provided to a consumer, upon consumer request and without charge, once in any twelve month period, in compliance with section 612(a) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681j(a).
( b ) *Associated consumer reporting agency* means a consumer reporting agency that owns or maintains consumer files housed within systems operated by one or more nationwide consumer reporting agencies.
( c ) *Consumer report* has the meaning provided in section 603(d) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(d).
( d ) *Consumer reporting agency* has the meaning provided in section 603(f) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(f).
( e ) *Extraordinary request volume* occurs when the number of consumers requesting or attempting to request file disclosures during any twenty-four hour period is more than 175 percent of the rolling ninety-day daily average of consumers requesting or attempting to request file disclosures. For example, if over the previous ninety days an average of one hundred consumers per day requested or attempted to request file disclosures, then extraordinary request volume would be any volume greater than 175 percent of one hundred, *i.e.,* 176 or more requests in a single twenty-four hour period.
( f ) *File disclosure* means a disclosure by a consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 609 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681g.
( g ) *High request volume* occurs when the number of consumers requesting or attempting to request file disclosures during any twenty-four hour period is more than 125 percent of the rolling ninety-day daily average of consumers requesting or attempting to request file disclosures. For example, if over the previous ninety days an average of one hundred consumers per day requested or attempted to request file disclosures, then high request volume would be any volume greater than 125 percent of one hundred, *i.e.,* 126 or more requests in a single twenty-four hour period.
( h ) *Nationwide consumer reporting agency* means a consumer reporting agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a nationwide basis as defined in section 603(p) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(p).
( i ) *Nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency* has the meaning provided in section 603(w) of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681a(w).
( j ) *Request method* means the method by which a consumer chooses to communicate a request for an annual file disclosure.
#### §§ 1026.44-1026.45 [Reserved]
#### § 18.532 Notice of subrecipients.

Where a recipient passes on Federal financial assistance from VA to programs or activities of subrecipients, the recipient shall provide the subrecipients written notice of their obligations under the Act and these regulations with respect to such programs and activities.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-0400)

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6101-6107)

[50 FR 34133, Aug. 23, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51372, Aug. 26, 2003]
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Mozambique

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Mozambique			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Mozambique 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Mozambique

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing its enacted budget within a reasonable period.  The government also made its executive budget proposal and end-of-year report publicly available online.  Publicly available budget documents provided a complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams but did not include allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.  Information on debt obligations, including state-owned enterprise debt, was publicly available.  However, the government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight.  For portions of the budget that were relatively complete, information was generally considered reliable.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.  It reviewed the government’s accounts, and its reports were published within a reasonable period.  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.  The government published basic information on natural resource extraction awards.

Mozambique’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Ensuring budget documents include detailed information on allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises; and

- Subjecting off-budget accounts to adequate audit and oversight.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Mozambique 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentMozambique

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
# C_2014102EN.01003602.xml

| 7.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/36

---

Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Banco de Santander and Others v Commission

(Case T-6/14)

2014/C 102/57

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Banco de Santander, SA (Santander, Spain); Santander Investment, SA (Santander, Spain); and Naviera Séneca, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

| — | annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---