alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 61.90 Grant for case management services—program. ( a ) *General.* VA may award grants for case management services to non-profit organizations and State, local and tribal governments for the provision of case management services to improve the retention of housing by veterans who were previously homeless and are transitioning to permanent housing and to veterans who are at risk of becoming homeless. (For purposes of this program, the term “tribal government” means an entity described in paragraph (2) of the definition of “public entity” in 38 CFR 61.1.) The goals of the grant program are: The maintenance of permanent housing by a veteran following discharge from homeless residential services, a reduction in recidivism, and an increase in exits to permanent housing. These grant funds may not be used for veterans who are receiving case management services from permanent supportive housing programs (*e.g.* Housing and Urban Development—VA Supportive Housing) or rapid re-housing/homeless prevention programs (*e.g.* Supportive Services for Veterans Families (SSVF)).
( b ) *Case management services.* Case management services include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Making home visits by the case manager to monitor housing stability;
( 2 ) Providing or coordinating educational activities related to meal planning, tenant responsibilities, the use of public transportation, community resources, financial management, and the development of natural supports;
( 3 ) Making referrals to needed services, such as mental health, substance use disorder, medical, and employment services; and
( 4 ) Participating in case conferencing with other service providers who are working with the veteran.
( c ) *Time limit.* Case management services may be provided for a particular veteran for up to 6 months, unless VA receives and approves a written request for additional time before the 6-month time limit expires.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 05-923 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NARCOTIC DRUGS 

Cooperating Nation Information 

Exchange System 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and JAMAICA 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Kingston August 26 and 

September 23, 2005 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 JAMAICA 

 Narcotic Drugs: Cooperating Nation 

 Information Exchange System 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Kingston August 26 and September 23, 2005; 

 Entered into force September 23, 2005. 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23420]



[[Page 49862]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled 
for 15 October 2009, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the 
National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street, 
NW., Washington DC, 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include 
buildings, parks and memorials.
    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission 
are available on our Web site: http://www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding 
the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be 
addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at 
the above address or call 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign 
language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the 
Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: 22 September in Washington, DC.
Thomas Luebke,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23420 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 186 (Monday, September 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 49387]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23081]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, September 16, 2009, 11 a.m. 
to September 18, 2009, 3 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on September 11, 2009, 74 FR 46781.
    The meeting has been changed to an AED meeting to be held on 
October 29, 2009, 8:30 a.m. to October 30, 2009, 3 p.m. The meeting is 
closed to the public.

    Dated: September 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23081 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.253 Chemical-cartridge respirators; requirements and tests. ( a ) Except for the tests prescribed in §§ 84.206 and 84.207, the minimum requirements and performance tests for chemical-cartridge respirators prescribed in Subpart L of this part are applicable to replaceable-cartridge and single-use vinyl chloride chemical-cartridge respirators.
( b ) The following bench tests are applicable to cartridges designed for use with chemical-cartridge respirators for entry into and escape from vinyl chloride atmospheres containing adequate oxygen to support life: ( 1 ) Where two cartridges are used in parallel on a chemical-cartridge respirator, the bench test requirements will apply to the combination rather than the individual cartridges.
( 2 ) Four cartridges or pairs of cartridges will be equilibrated at 25 ±5 °C by passing 85 ±5 percent relative humidity air through them at 25 liters per minute for six hours.
( 3 ) The equilibrated cartridges will be resealed, kept in an upright position, at room temperature, and tested according to paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section for other than single-use respirators or according to paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7) of this section for single-use respirators within 18 hours.
( 4 ) The cartridges or pairs of cartridges for other than single-use respirators, equilibrated and stored as described in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of this section, will be tested on an apparatus that allows the test atmosphere at 85 ±5 percent relative humidity and 25 ±5 °C, to enter the cartridges or pairs of cartridges continuously at a concentration of 10 ppm vinyl chloride monomer at a total flowrate of 64 liters per minute.
( 5 ) The maximum allowable penetration after 90 minutes testing of cartridges or pairs of cartridges for other than single-use respirators, according to paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall not exceed 1 ppm vinyl chloride.
( 6 ) The single-use respirators, equilibrated and stored as described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, will be tested on an apparatus that allows a test atmosphere at 85 ±5 percent relative humidity and 25 ±5 °C to be cycled through the respirator by a breathing machine at a concentration of 10 ppm vinyl chloride monomer at the rate of 24 respirations per minute at a minute volume of 40 ±0.6 liters. Air exhaled through the respirator will be 35 ±2 °C with 94 ±3 percent relative humidity.
( 7 ) The maximum allowable penetration after 144 minutes testing of respirators, according to paragraph (b)(6) of this section, shall not exceed 1 ppm vinyl chloride.
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 Cogenco International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David W. Brenman, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 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.


Date: February 10, 2005                     /s/  David W. Brenman
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 David W. Brenman, President
                                                 Principal Executive Officer,
                                                 Principal Accounting Officer,
                                                 Principal Financial Officer
                                                 and Director
Exhibit 32.2

                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 China Resources Development,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Tam Cheuk Ho, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 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/ Tam Cheuk Ho

Tam Cheuk Ho
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2004
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00420-CV

CCG COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 

GROUP LLC, Appellant/CrossAppellee

V.

INDEPENDENT BANK, Appellee/CrossAppellant

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 393rd District Court

of Denton County (19-2594-393)

January 9, 2020

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           45167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1144395
<ALLOWANCES>                                     25000
<INVENTORY>                                    3643754
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6267855
<PP&E>                                         3845596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2184177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9426366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2354934
<BONDS>                                         687298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          2967920
<PREFERRED>                                    2967920
<COMMON>                                      10199120
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9426366
<SALES>                                        4253973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3744905
<CGS>                                          2310882
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2310882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                953411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               26904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 447738
<INCOME-TAX>                                    159141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             288597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    288597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
§ 1070.33 Procedure when testimony or production of documents is sought; general. ( a ) If, as part of a proceeding in which the United States or the CFPB is not a party, official information is sought through a demand for testimony, CFPB records, or other material, the party seeking such information must (except as otherwise required by Federal law or authorized by the General Counsel) set forth in writing: ( 1 ) The title and forum of the proceeding, if applicable;
( 2 ) A detailed description of the nature and relevance of the official information sought;
( 3 ) A showing that other evidence reasonably suited to the requester's needs is not available from any other source; and
( 4 ) If testimony is requested, the intended use of the testimony, a general summary of the desired testimony, and a showing that no document could be provided and used in lieu of testimony.
( b ) To the extent he or she deems necessary or appropriate, the General Counsel may also require from the party seeking such information a plan of all reasonably foreseeable demands, including but not limited to the names of all employees and former employees from whom testimony or discovery will be sought, areas of inquiry, expected duration of proceedings requiring oral testimony, identification of potentially relevant documents, or any other information deemed necessary to make a determination. The purpose of this requirement is to assist the General Counsel in making an informed decision regarding whether testimony, the production of documents, or the provision of other information should be authorized.
( c ) The General Counsel may consult or negotiate with an attorney for a party, or the party if not represented by an attorney, to refine or limit a request or demand so that compliance is less burdensome.
( d ) The General Counsel will notify the CFPB employee and such other persons as circumstances may warrant of his or her decision regarding compliance with the request or demand.
42179.

#### STARLING v. HARRIS.

Submitted July 8, 1966

Decided September 7, 1966.

*Boberts & Thornton, Jack M. Thornton,*for appellant.

*Lawrence S. Bosenstrauch,*for appellee.

Jordan, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court of May 5, 1966, continuing in effect until further order of court a stay in proceedings previously granted by order of August 25, 1965, upon application of the defendant under the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act (50 USCA, § 521). *Held:*

The record in this case discloses that the original stay was granted upon the verified application of the defendant showing among other things that he was a member of the United States Army stationed in Korea, that he could not obtain leave to attend court, and that his presence was essential to a proper defense to this action in tort arising out of an automobile collision to which there were no eyewitnesses other than the parties and to which action the defendant claimed a good defense; and there being no evidence produced on the subsequent hearing to show any change in circumstances of the defendant, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in continuing the stay until further order of court even though the original application contained the statement that the defendant “expects to be available in March, 1966 to defend this case.” *Cox v. Yates,*96 Ga. App. 466 (100 SE2d 649); *Parker v. Parker,*207 Ga. 588 (2) (63 SE2d 366); *Gates v. Gates,*197 Ga. 11 (2) (28 SE2d 108); Boone v. Lightner, 319 U. S. 561 (63 SC 1223, 87 LE 1587).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Maldives

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Maldives			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Maldives 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Maldives

During the review period, the government made budget documents widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.  Budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, and budget documents were considered generally reliable.  Information on debt obligations, including state-owned enterprise debt, was publicly available.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence, but its audit reports were delayed.  The sovereign wealth fund did not have a sound legal framework or disclose its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

Maldives’ fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing audit reports within a reasonable period; and
- Ensuring the sovereign wealth fund has a sound legal framework and discloses its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Maldives 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentMaldives

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
Editorial Note on Part 1204
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1204 appear at 77 FR 4646, Jan. 31, 2012.

§ 1204.6 What does it cost to get records under the Privacy Act? ( a ) *Must I agree to pay fees?* Your Privacy Act request is your agreement to pay all applicable fees, unless you specify a limit on the amount of fees you agree to pay. FHFA or FHFA-OIG will not exceed the specified limit without your written agreement.
( b ) *How does FHFA or FHFA-OIG calculate fees?* FHFA and FHFA-OIG will charge a fee for duplication of a record under the Privacy Act in the same way it charges for duplication of records under FOIA in 12 CFR 1202.11. There are no fees to search for or review records.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                               18 U.S.C. SS.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 for the period ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John N. Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.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 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/ John N. Fermanis
     --------------------
     Chief Financial Officer
     November 13, 2006


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 16, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30353 Conference Calendar

TERENCE SIAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STATE OF LOUISIANA; PERKINS, Captain; C. PAUL PHELPS CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Anger Management Counsel & Correctional Staff, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-355

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Terence Sias, Louisiana prisoner # 127791, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) of his pro se, in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint. Sias’s complaint alleged that he was denied the constitutional right of access to the courts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.No. 04-30353 -2- Sias does not provide a clear assertion that indicates the manner in which the defendants allegedly denied his right of access to the courts. He also does not present a coherent argument showing that he has been prejudiced in his ability to prepare and transmit a necessary legal document to a court. He therefore has failed to establish that he has suffered a constitutional deprivation. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 351-54 (1996); Ruiz v. United States , 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). Sias’s allegations are vague and conclusory and are therefore insufficient to establish a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
See Arnaud v. Odom , 870 F.2d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 1989). Sias also seeks an injunction and raises claims relating to disciplinary reports, retaliation, and the deprivation of good time credits. This court will not consider these claims because they were not presented to the district court. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). To the extent that Sias seeks injunctive relief regarding his claim of denial of access to the courts, he fails to establish that such relief is warranted. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 8. Sias’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Sias’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does the dismissal of this appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.No. 04-30353 -3- 1996). This court cautions Sias that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.