alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2515 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2515

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out 
  the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the 
   States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
Conservation Program Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Lower colorado river multi-species conservation 
        program.--The term ``Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 
        Conservation Program'' or ``LCR MSCP'' means the cooperative 
        effort on the Lower Colorado River between Federal and non-
        Federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada approved by 
        the Secretary of the Interior on April 2, 2005.
            (2) Lower colorado river.--The term ``Lower Colorado 
        River'' means the Colorado River from Lake Mead to the 
        Southerly International Boundary with Mexico, including its 
        historic floodplain and its mainstem reservoirs to their full 
        pool elevations.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (4) States.--The term ``States'' means each of the States 
        of Arizona, California, and Nevada.

SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION AND WATER ACCOUNTING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to participate in the 
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
    (b) Water Accounting.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into an 
agreement with the States providing for the use of water from the Lower 
Colorado River for habitat creation and maintenance.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary such sums as may be necessary to participate in the Lower 
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, to remain available 
until expended.
    (b) Nonreimbursable and Nonreturnable.--All amounts appropriated to 
and expended by the Secretary for the LCR MSCP shall be nonreimbursable 
and nonreturnable.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 31, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2515

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out 
  the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program in the 
   States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and for other purposes.
```
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Mauritania

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Mauritania			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Mauritania 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Mauritania

During the review period, the government made budget documents widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  Information on debt obligations was limited, with debt obligations for state-owned enterprises available in companies’ financial reports.  Budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams, including natural resource revenues.  The information in budget documents was generally reliable.  However, the government maintained some off-budget accounts not subject to adequate audit or oversight.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were specified in law and regulation, but there have been reports of inconsistent application.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was publicly available.  The sovereign wealth fund did not disclose its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals. Mauritania’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- subjecting off-budget accounts to adequate audit and oversight;
- disclosing detailed debt obligations;
- ensuring the criteria and procedures used to award natural resource extraction contracts and licenses are consistent with the procedural requirements set by law or regulation; and
- disclosing the sovereign wealth fund’s source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Mauritania 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentMauritania

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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flow and Notes thereto
incorprated in Part I, Item 1. of this Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,035
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,444
<PP&E>                                          10,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 601,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     996,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   601,254
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,994
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 87A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.087.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 87A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5726 March 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2014.087.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 87A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5726 March 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 087A/01 | Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — third supplement to the 32nd complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 087A/01

Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — third supplement to the 32nd complete edition

1

---

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

EN
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10 (a)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (Reg. No. 333-30844) of our report dated February 10, 2000
accompanying the financial statements of the Futurity, Futurity II, Futurity
Focus and Futurity Accolade Sub-Accounts included in Sun Life of Canada
(U.S.) Variable Account F, to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 10, 2000 accompanying the financial statements of the Regatta,
Regatta Gold, Regatta Classic and Regatta Platinum Sub-Accounts included in
Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable Account F, and to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated March 22, 2000 accompanying the financial
statements of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), appearing in the
MFS Regatta Choice Prospectus and the Futurity III Prospectus, which are part
of such Registration Statement, and to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated February 10, 2000 appearing on the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) for the year ended December 31,
1999, which includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the use of statutory
accounting practices which differ from accounting principles generally
accepted in the United States of America.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Accountants" in
each Prospectus and under the heading "Financial Statements" in the Statement
of Additional Information relating to each Prospectus, which are incorporated
by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 1.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 26, 2000
# C_2019192EN.01000502.xml

| 7.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 192/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/5

---

Communication from the Commission amending Communication 2012/C 72/07 — Guidelines for the deduction of quotas under Article 105(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009

(2019/C 192/03)

Following the complete entry into force of the landing obligation set up by Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), the Communication from the Commission — Guidelines for the deduction of quotas under Article 105(1), (2) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 (2) is amended as follows:

| (1) | point 3(b) is replaced by the following:






  ‘(b) | where the stock concerned is caught in a mixed fishery and a significant loss of quota would prevent the exploitation of the associated species in that mixed fishery catch; or’; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

point 3(b) is replaced by the following:

‘(b)

where the stock concerned is caught in a mixed fishery and a significant loss of quota would prevent the exploitation of the associated species in that mixed fishery catch; or’;

| (2) | point 5 is deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

point 5 is deleted.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22).

(2)  OJ C 72, 10.3.2012, p. 27.

---
§ 66.109 Termination. ( a ) The Secretary may terminate an Award prior to its normal expiration date: ( 1 ) At the written request of the awardee; or
( 2 ) If the Secretary finds that the awardee has materially failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Award or to carry out the purpose for which it was made.
( b ) In the event an Award is terminated, the Secretary shall notify the awardee in writing of this determination, the reasons for termination, the effective date, and any procedural rights available.
STATE OF JEFFERSON SURVEYING, LLC

– AMMENDMENT ADDING ADDITIONAL UAS Page 1 of 

### 2

January 27, 2016

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12

- 140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590

Submitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)

Re: Addendum to Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam :

S tate of Jefferson Surveying, Inc ., ha s prepared the following addendum to our Exemption # 1 3561

. This

a ddendum allows for the inclusion of the following additional UAS

Systems to Add Prior Exemptions

DJI Phantom 3 Professional 14192, 13697, 13696

DJI Inspire 1 Pro 14416, 14116, 14331

DJI Matrice 13076, 12697, 12378

3DR Solo 13102, 13113, 13126

Aibotix X6 14190, 13604, 11545

Aeryon SkyRanger 12423, 12073, 11265

Riegl RiCopter 13576, 13212, 11581

Each system was previously approved for similar purposes and therefore would not set a precedent.

This Addendum makes no other changes to th e currently approved exemption #13561 rea sons for

exemption request, and/or operating parameters.

The name and contact information of the applicant remains the same:

S inc e r e l y

,

Brian Christense n

President

S tate of Jefferson Surveying, Inc

. Phone: 530 340

- 0814

Email: brian@sojsurveying.com

App e ndix A

– Users Man ua lsSTATE OF JEFFERSON SURVEYING, LLC

– APPENDIX A

– USERS MANUALS AP P E N DIX A

– USERS MANUAL S

Users Man ua ls and/or documentation for each of these systems can be downloaded here

.

State of Jefferson Surveying, LLC will keep the most current copy with each UAS.

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

DJI Inspire 1 Pro

DJI Matrice

3DR Solo

Aibotix X6

Aeryon SkyRanger

Riegl RiCopter
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Candela Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gerard E. Puorro, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:  | November 10, 2003                |   | /s/ Gerard E. Puorro |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|
|   | Gerard E. Puorro                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
§ 42.32 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held— ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) Any place as may be agreed upon by the defendant and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at a place and time ordered by the ALJ.
# Official Journal L 278I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 278I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6230 October 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 278I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6230 October 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | European Council Decision (EU) 2019/1810 taken in agreement with the United Kingdom of 29 October 2019 extending the period under Article 50(3)TEU | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

European Council Decision (EU) 2019/1810 taken in agreement with the United Kingdom of 29 October 2019 extending the period under Article 50(3)TEU

1

| 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.
# L_2009017EN.01S00301.xml

| 22.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 17/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 17/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
_____________

No. 94-4054EA

_____________

Danny L. Ball; *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

John L. Grigsby, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

Larry Norris, Director, *

Arkansas Department of * Appeal from the United States

Correction; PHP Healthcare, * District Court for the Eastern

Inc.; Dr. Jackie Wade, * District of Arkansas.

Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Dr. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jay Owens, Cummins Unit, *

Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Delois Ford, Unit *

Nurse, Originally sued as "Mrs. *

Ford"; Sue Guirl, Warden; Lt. *

Roger Ferrell, Mississippi *

County Work Release Center, *

Arkansas Department of *

Correction, *

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

_____________

Submitted: May 16, 1996

 Filed: June 21, 1996

 _____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Danny L. Ball appeals the dismissal of Ball's 42 U.S.C. § 9183

action. Having reviewed de novo the evidence presented at a pretrial

evidentiary hearing to determine whether Ball's case would survive a motion

for judgment as a matter of law, see Hobbs v.
-2-

Lockhart, 46 F.3d 864, 868 (8th Cir. 1995), we conclude Ball's evidence did

not establish a jury question on his claim that defendants acted with

deliberate indifference to Ball's serious dental needs when they delayed

sending him to an oral surgeon. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976). We affirm.

Ball failed to show any personal involvement on the part of the

Arkansas Department of Correction employees, PHP Healthcare, Inc. (PHP),

and PHP Nurse Delois Ford in denying or delaying his dental treatment.

Ball cannot predicate his Eighth Amendment claims against these defendants

on a risk of harm of which they were unaware or on a respondent superior

theory. See Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994); Martin v.

Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985).

Ball's testimony established that he saw PHP Dentist Jackie Wade for

tooth pain only once. Wade prescribed penicillin for two abscesses, and

Ball did not seek dental treatment again until several months later. At

that time, PHP Dentist Jay Owens told Ball he had two abscesses and an

impacted wisdom tooth, prescribed penicillin and pain relievers, and at

some point referred Ball to an outside oral surgeon who removed six of

Ball's teeth. Ball produced no evidence that Wade or Owens intentionally

delayed Ball's treatment or his referral to a specialist. See Estelle, 429

U.S. at 104-05. The only damage Ball attributed to the delay in his dental

surgery was pain, and Ball's testimony showed his pain relief was

compromised because he shared his pain medication with another inmate.

Further, at oral argument, Ball's counsel made clear that Ball would have

been pain free if he had taken all of his pain medication. Thus, Ball

failed to show he suffered any detrimental effects from the delay in dental

treatment. See Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326-27 (8th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
42169.

#### BUSSIE v. WILSON et al.

Argued July 6, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966

Rehearing denied September 19, 1966.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. When the defendant has made a motion for a summary judgment under the provisions of *Code Ann. Ch.*110-12, which motion is supported by affidavits, depositions, or other evidentiary matter showing a prima facie right on the part of the defendant to have a summary judgment rendered in his favor, the duty is cast upon the plaintiff to produce rebuttal evidence at the hearing thereof, by the introduction of depositions or affidavits, sufficient to show to the court that there is a genuine issue of fact to be decided by the jury. *Scales v. Peevy,*103 Ga. App. 42, 47 (118 SE2d 193).

2. “Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, -shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated [t] herein.” *Code Ann.*§ 110-1205.

3. An affidavit which shows on its face that it is not made on the personal knowledge of the affiant is insufficient to show to the court that there is a genuine dispute for the jury to- decide. *Cochran v. Southern Business Univ.,*110 Ga. App. 666 (139 SE2d 400); *Planters Rural Tel. Cooperative v.*Chance, 108 Ga. App. 146 (132 SE2d 90).

4. In the case sub judice the plaintiff’s case is based upon the fact that an automobile in which he was riding was being driven by one Jim Pope as the agent of the owner Jesse L. Wilson at the time it collided with a telephone pole injuring the plaintiff. The affidavit of Jim Pope in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment states that he was not the driver of the automobile and that another named person was the driver, while the counter-affidavit of the plaintiff affirmatively shows that he does not know who the driver was but that he believes Pope was the driver. It then gives his reasons for such belief. Accordingly, such affidavit is not sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact as to- such controlling issue in the case and the trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*

*299*Henritze, Baker ■& Bailey, Kirby G. Bailey,*for appellant.

*Greer, Morris & Murray, Richard G. Greer,*for appellees.