alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1070.58 Appeal of adverse determination of request for access or amendment. ( a ) *Appeal.* A requester may appeal a denial of a request made pursuant to § 1070.53 or § 1070.56 within ten (10) business days after the CFPB notifies the requester that it has denied the request.
( b ) *Content of appeal.* A requester may submit an appeal in writing as set forth in § 1070.53(a). The appeal shall be addressed to the General Counsel and labeled “Privacy Act Appeal.” The appeal must also: ( 1 ) Specify the background of the request; and
( 2 ) Provide reasons why the requester believes the denial is in error.
( c ) *Determination.* The General Counsel will make a determination as to whether to grant or deny an appeal within thirty (30) business days from the date it is received, unless the General Counsel extends the time for good cause. ( 1 ) If the General Counsel grants an appeal regarding a request for amendment, he or she will take the necessary steps to amend the record and, when appropriate and possible, notify prior recipients of the record of its action.
( 2 ) If the General Counsel denies an appeal, he or she will inform the requester of such determination in writing, including the reasons for the denial, and the requester's right to file a statement of disagreement and to have a court review its decision.
( d ) *Statement of disagreement.* ( 1 ) If the General Counsel denies an appeal regarding a request for amendment, a requester may file a concise statement of disagreement with the denial. The CFPB will maintain the requester's statement with the record that the requester sought to amend and any disclosure of the record will include a copy of the requester's statement of disagreement.
( 2 ) When practicable and appropriate, the CFPB will provide a copy of the statement of disagreement to any prior recipients of the record.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                            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 OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
L. Van Nostrand, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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: May 14, 2004                    /s/ Robert L. Van Nostrand
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Robert L. Van Nostrand
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

                                       39
TOWN OF GYPSUM, COLORADO

ORDINANCE NO. 09

SERIES 2015

AN ORDINANCE SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES FOR EACH 

FUND, AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF GYPSUM, COLORADO, 

FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY 

2016, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

WHEREAS, a proposed budget has been submitted to this governing body on

November 10, 2015, for its consideration, and;

WHEREAS, upon due and proper notice, published or posted in accordance with 

the law, said proposed budget was open for inspection by the public at a designated 

place, and;

WHEREAS, the budget has been prepared to comply with all terms, limitations 

and exemptions, and laws or obligations which are applicable to or binding upon the 

Town, including, but not limited to enterprise, reserve transfer and expenditure 

exemptions, under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (“TABOR”) and 

other laws or obligations which are applicable to or binding upon the Town; and

WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in expenditures, like 

increases were added to the revenues so THAT the budget remains in balance as 

required by law.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF 

GYPSUM, COLORADO:

The estimated expenditures for each fund as follows:

GENERAL FUND 8,507,734

WATER FUND 996,247

SEWER FUND 1,771,239

CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 206,034

SANITATION FUND 416,520

SPRING CREEK SID 4,934

PARKS AND RECREATION 1,283,349
2

The estimated revenues for each fund are as follows:

GENERAL FUND 7,556,282

WATER FUND 1,298,636

SEWER FUND 1,010,700

CONSERVATION TRUST FUND 33,300

SANITATION FUND 307,775

SPRING CREEK SID 0

PARKS AND RECREATION 2,018,550

THAT, the budget as submitted, amended, and hereinabove summarized by 

fund, and the same hereby is approved and adopted as the budget of the Town of 

Gypsum, for the year stated above.

THAT, the budget hereby approved and adopted shall be signed by Stephen M.

Carver, Mayor and made a part of the public records of the Town.

INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED by the Town Council of the Town of 

Gypsum, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the Gypsum Town Hall, on November 

10, 2015.

TOWN OF GYPSUM

____________________________________

Stephen M. Carver, Mayor

ATTEST:

____________________________________

Danette Schlegel

Town Clerk

FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved on December 8, 2015.

TOWN OF GYPSUM

____________________________________

Stephen M. Carver, Mayor 

ATTEST:

____________________________________

Danette Schlegel

Town Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Correction: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 
NIST Construction Grant Program Application Requirements

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On Tuesday, September 8, 2009, a notice was published in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 4603) on proposed information collection under 
the NIST Construction Grant Program.
    The second paragraph under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, I. Abstract, 
is corrected to read, ``This request is for the information collection 
requirements associated with applying for grant funding. The 
information is used to determine eligibility and to perform the 
requisite technical and construction reviews of the proposals to 
determine if an award should be granted.''
    All other information in the notice is correct and remains 
unchanged.

    Dated: September 25, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23583 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
# C_2017006EN.01003001.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/30

---

Action brought on 25 October 2016 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-541/16)

(2017/C 006/37)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(6) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (1) on common rules for access to the international road haulage market; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(6) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 (1) on common rules for access to the international road haulage market;

1

| — | order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | The Commission submits that Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 regulates exhaustively how hauliers may to carry out cabotage operations on the terms laid down in that article. The provision does not provide for a maximum number of loading and/or unloading sites within the same cabotage operation. The limit of a maximum of three cabotage operations does not mean that a cabotage operation must include a set number of loading and/or unloading sites. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission submits that Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 regulates exhaustively how hauliers may to carry out cabotage operations on the terms laid down in that article. The provision does not provide for a maximum number of loading and/or unloading sites within the same cabotage operation. The limit of a maximum of three cabotage operations does not mean that a cabotage operation must include a set number of loading and/or unloading sites.

| — | Under the Danish rules cabotage can consist either of a number of loading sites or a number of unloading sites, but not both. The Danish rules preclude non-resident hauliers from carrying out cabotage operations consisting of a number of loading and unloading sites, which constitutes a restriction on how those hauliers may carry out cabotage operations in Denmark as provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Under the Danish rules cabotage can consist either of a number of loading sites or a number of unloading sites, but not both. The Danish rules preclude non-resident hauliers from carrying out cabotage operations consisting of a number of loading and unloading sites, which constitutes a restriction on how those hauliers may carry out cabotage operations in Denmark as provided for under Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009.

either

or

and

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72).

1

---
42372.

#### MULLIS v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. “The jurisdiction of the superior courts of this state, to take cognizance of and to try and punish misdemeanors, is granted by the Constitution. Such jurisdiction, however, is not exclusive, and it is competent for the General Assembly to confer concurrent jurisdiction over such matters on city or county, or other courts, but the legislature is not authorized to deny jurisdiction to the superior courts altogether.” *Porter v. State of Ga.,*53 Ga. 236, and citations.

2. Although appellant assigns 12 enumerations of error, only enumeration of error numbered 8 need be considered in deciding this case. The error assigned here is: “The appellant was not subject to rule by the court because the grounds of the alleged contempt did not pertain to matters pending before the court. . .” This enumeration of error is well taken. Although the General Assembly has seen fit to empower the County Court of Atkinson County with concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court to try and punish for misdemeanor offenses, such Act (Ga. L. 1958, p. 3178) does not make it mandatory that all misdemeanor offenses be tried by such court. Prior to the time that a case is filed in such court no jurisdiction attaches. Therefore the court in the *527case sub judice had no jurisdiction to require that all such cases be returnable to such court. Accordingly, since the trial court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter the order issued by the trial court holding such officer in contempt was void.

Submitted October 3, 1966

Decided October 11, 1966

Rehearing denied October 27, 1966.

*Sumner & Boatright, J. Laddie Boatright,*for appellant.

*Ben T. Willoughby, Solicitor, Vickers Neugent, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00531- CR

Nathan Ke vin Carter , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 700 60, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Nathan Kevin Carter seeks to appea l a judgme nt of conviction for burg lary of a building. The trial court has cer tified that (1) this is a plea barg ain case and Carter has no rig ht of appea l and (2) Carter has waived the rig ht of appea l. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l for want of jurisdiction. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 7, 2012 Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from registrant's
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,863
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,863
<PP&E>                                           6,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (437)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,208
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                        15,771
<OTHER-SE>                                    (91,197)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,582
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,197
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (91,197)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (91,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (91,197)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…Yemen

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: Yemen			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Yemen 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Yemen

During the review period, the government did not produce within a reasonable period any budget documents, including an executive budget proposal, end-of-year report, or enacted budget.  The government published limited information on debt obligations.  It did not publish state-owned enterprise debt, in part because most state-owned enterprises are in Sana’a, which is outside central government territorial control.  Actual revenues and expenditures likely differed from the budget extensions.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence; however, it did not conduct an audit of the government’s executed budget.  The government did not fully specify in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.  The government did not issue any natural resource awards during the review period.

Yemen’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Passing a budget and making budget documents available to the public within a reasonable period;
- Publishing substantially complete information on debt obligations, including for state-owned enterprises,
- Ensuring budget documents are substantially complete and reliable;
- Ensuring actual revenues and expenditures reasonably correspond to budget projections;
- Producing and publishing audit reports of the government’s executed budget within a reasonable period; and
- Clarifying laws and regulations for awarding contracts and licenses for natural resource extraction.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Yemen 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentYemen

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
* 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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60620

Summary Calendar

PATRICK J. HIGGINS, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEORGE CHANDLER, Individually and in his Official

Capacity as Assistant Director of the Jackson County

Restitution Center; BECKY FULTON, Individually and

in her Official Capacity as Director of the Jackson

County Restitution Center; CHARLES FAULK, Individually

and in his Official Capacity as a Mississippi Department

of Corrections Correctional Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:97-CV-577-RR)

July 6, 1999

Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick J. Higgins, a former Mississippi state prisoner, appeal s the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust his prison

administrative remedies. Higgins contends that, although he was incarcerated in

a correctional facility at the time that he suffered the alleged constitutional

violation, he was not a state prisoner because his conviction and sentence had been1 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); Underwood v. Wilson , 151 F.3d 292 (5 th

Cir. 1998).

2 United States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160 (5 th Cir. 1994) (en banc); Robertson v. Plano

City of Texas , 70 F.3d 21 (5 th Cir. 1995).

2 stayed pending an appeal in the case.

Our review of the record and briefs of the parties persuades that we should

affirm. Higgins’ complaint reflects that he was detained in a correctional facility

as a result of a criminal charge at the time that the alleged constitutional violation

occurred. Therefore, Higgins was required to pursue and exhaust his prison

adminis t rative remedies prior to filing a judicial complaint seeking relief under

section 1983. 1

Higgins contends for the first time on appeal that he was illegally extradited

from Illinois by Mississippi officials and was hel d illegally in custody between

June 1994 and August 1998. This claim involves facts that were not alleged in

pleadings before the district court and th at have no bearing on Higgins’ section

1983 complaint, and the claim does not rise to the level of plain error. 2

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal C 44/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 44 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 666 February 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 44

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 666 February 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2023/C 44/01 | Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 16 January 2023 amending the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 17 June 2019 on the implementing rules relating to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

2023/C 44/01

Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 16 January 2023 amending the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 17 June 2019 on the implementing rules relating to Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN