alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Central African Republic

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Central African Republic			

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic

During the review period, the government made significant progress by publishing information on debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt. The government made its enacted budget and quarterly reports publicly available online. It did not publish an executive budget proposal or an end-of-year report within a reasonable period. Information on major state-owned enterprise debt was not publicly available. Publicly available budget documents provided a reasonably

complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue, except allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises. The government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to public oversight. There was sufficient parliamentary oversight of military and intelligence budgets. The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence in principle but did not audit the government’s executed budget and was not authorized to publish reports. The government specified in law the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses. However, the government exercised limited control over natural resource extraction and did not consistently follow laws and procedures in practice or make basic information on awards publicly available.

The Central African Republic’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing an executive budget proposal and an end-of-year report within a reasonable period;
- Providing information on allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises in budget documents;
- Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit;
- Ensuring the supreme audit institution audits the government’s executed budget and publishes its audit reports within a reasonable period;
- Consistently following laws for awarding natural resource extraction contracts in practice; and
- Ensuring basic information on natural resource awards are accurate and publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Central African Republic 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsCentral African RepublicDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
# Official Journal C 30A/24 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 30A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6224 January 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 30A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6224 January 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2019/C 30 A/01 | Notice of open competitions — Security — EPSO/AD/364/19 — Security Officers (AD 7) — Field 1. Security operations — Field 2. Technical security — Field 3. Information and document security — EPSO/AST/147/19 — Security Assistants (AST 3) — Field 1. Security operations — Field 2. Technical security — Field 3. Information and document security | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2019/C 30 A/01

Notice of open competitions — Security — EPSO/AD/364/19 — Security Officers (AD 7) — Field 1. Security operations — Field 2. Technical security — Field 3. Information and document security — EPSO/AST/147/19 — Security Assistants (AST 3) — Field 1. Security operations — Field 2. Technical security — Field 3. Information and document security

1

---

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

EN
#### WILLIAM LEATHER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[61 C. Cls. 388; 271 U. S. 660]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court April 19, 1926.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                [Letterhead]



The Board of Directors
FFY Financial Corporation:

      We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
No. 33-85088 on Forms S-8 of FFY Financial Corporation of our report dated
July 24, 1997, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition
of FFY Financial Corporation and subsidiary as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and
the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended June 30, 1997, which
report is incorporated by reference in the June 30, 1997 annual report on Form
10-K of FFY Financial Corporation.


/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
September 26, 1997
42241, 42242.

#### KENNESAW LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY v. FLANIGAN (two cases).

Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided October 10, 1966

Rehearing denied October 26, 1966.

*Jones & Kemp, Charles M. Jones,*for appellant.

*L. U. Hilton,*for appellee.

Hall, Judge.

A petition in tort for fraud and deceit predicated upon false and fraudulent representations, made by a duly authorized agent of an insurance company in the sale of a life insurance policy, that the plaintiff would share in the company’s profits, that the defendant guaranteed an annual return of not less than 6 percent, and possibly as much as 15 percent, and that the plaintiff could at her option withdraw any part or all of the sums paid to the company, failed to state a cause of action because the representations upon which the action is predicated were promises and conjectures as to future acts and events. *Crozier v. Provident Life &c. Ins. Co.,*53 Ga. App. 572, 574 (186 SE 719); *Cosby v. Asher,*74 Ga. App. 884, 887 (41 SE2d 793); *Ambrose v. Brooks,*109 Ga. App. 881, 882 (137 SE2d 573); *Clinton v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,*110 Ga. App. 417, 419 (138 SE2d 687); *Strickland v. Levy’s of Savannah,*112 Ga. App. 665, 666 (145 SE2d 831).

The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s general demurrers to the plaintiff’s petitions.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50563 Conference Calendar

__________________
JESSE LEE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PAUL L. FRANKS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. W-95-CV-88

- - - - - - - - - - (October 17, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesse Lee Washington appeals the district court's dismissal as frivolous of his pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint in which he argued that the defendants violated his civil rights by disciplining him. An IFP claim that has no arguable basis in law or fact may be dismissed as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);No. 95-50563 -2- Booker v. Koonce , 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). This court's review is for an abuse of discretion. Booker , 2 F.3d at 115. Although the Constitution mandates that a prisoner receive due process at a disciplinary proceeding, it does not guarantee error-free decision-making. See McCrae v. Hankins , 720 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 1983). In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, a finding of guilt requires only the support of "some facts" or "any evidence at all." See Gibbs v. King , 779 F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 476 U.S. 1117 (1986). Further, Washington was not constitutionally entitled to have the officer who wrote the disciplinary report present at the hearing.
See Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Nor was it constitutionally mandated that Washington be represented by counsel at the hearing. Id. at 570. Thus, the allegedly ineffective performance of Washington's counsel substitute does not implicate due process. Washington's remaining claims are frivolous. Washington does not have standing to challenge Sergeant Lamb's alleged use of a racial slur to one of his witnesses. See Murray v. City of Austin, Tex. , 947 F.2d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 112 S. Ct. 3028 (1992). Washington's assertion that the magistrate judge participated in an "injustice conspiracy" because he was drinking and eating donuts with TDCJ officials is utterly without merit. See Liteky v. United States , 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994). Finally, the district court did not err by dismissing Washington's complaint without holding an evidentiary hearing. See Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d at 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).No. 95-50563 -3- Washington's motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. Washington's motion for injunctive relief also is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In accordance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, I, Gary L. Shell, Chief Financial Officer of Sharps Compliance Corp. (the "Company"), state and attest, to the best of my knowledge, that the Company's Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2002, and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The information contained in this Form
10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/
GARY L. SHELL

Gary
L. Shell
Vice President,
and Chief Financial Officer
September 21, 2002

---

QuickLinks
MATS 

 Higgins, Cortney 

 to: RobertJ Wayland 

 11/16/2012 11:58 AM 

 Cc: Bill Maxwell, Karen Thundiyil 

 

EO12866_MATS_Reconsideration_2060-AR62_Proposal_20121116.pdf.pdf 

Hi Bob, 

We have no further comments. Is the attached version the final one (this 

is from the 10:28 am email)? If so, can you have OP upload it into 

ROCIS? 

 

Thanks, 

Cortney
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 12:10 PM

To: 'info@gulfcoastuas.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) ; Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha

(FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information



### February 20, 2015

Mr. Clayton L. Mounger 4490 Blanche Noyes Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport Baton Rouge, LC 70807

Dear Mr. Mounger:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1024). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the materials listed below, however the materials were not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o GCUAS Operating Manual

o GCUAS Aircraft Inspection Program

o GCUAS Training Syllabus

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by March 6, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division2 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00752- CR

Da vid Ja c ob G ar c ia, App e lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY , 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 05-1 075- K2 77, H ONO RAB LE KEN ANDERSON, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s br ief wa s orig inally due Mar ch 23, 2006
. T h e t i m e for filing w as
e xten de d to May 22 , 20 06 , on c ouns e l’ s mot ion
. On June 9, 20 06 , n o b ri e f h avin g be e n f ile d, thi s Court ordere d appellant’ s attorney , Mr. J ohn R. Duer, to file a brief on ap p ell ant’s beha lf no later than J une 30, 2006. Counsel did not file a brie f as or dere d.

The a ppeal is abated. The district court shall conduct a hear ing to de termine whe ther Mr. Duer , t h e attorney

it appointed, has aba

ndoned the a

ppeal. Te x . R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2). The court shall make appropr iate finding s and re commendations. I f nec essar y , the cour

t shall a p p oint
s u b s t i tu t e c o u n s el wh o wi l l ef fe ct i v el y re p re s en t ap p el l an t o n ap p ea l
. A r ec o rd fr o mt h i s h ea ri n g, including c opies of all finding s and orde rs and a transcr iption of t he court repor ter’s note s, shall be2

forwa rded to the Cler

k of this Court for filing as a suppleme ntal rec ord no later t h an Au gu st 11, 2006. Rule 38.8(b)(3)
.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Waldrop Filed: Jul y

28, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh
21 APRIL 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 West Front Street

Suite 354

Tyler, TX 75702

Re: Lee Vincent v. State

12- 15-00019-CR

Ms. Lusk:

Attached, please find a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding the opinion issued by the 

Court and the right to file a PDR. In accordance with Rule 48.4, this letter was sent, by certified 

mail to the defendant’s last known address, however, we have yet to receive the green card back. 

As such, we are also enclosing a copy of our internal postage order receipt showing that on 31 

March 2015, we sent the letter to Mr. Vincent by certified mail.

Because the USPS tracking could not confirm any information about delivery, we have again 

sent a letter regarding the opinion issued, and will confirm when this letter has been delivered. 

Sincerely,

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson
IMb Tracing Number: 94147102008306680692

Print Date & Time: 03/31/15 12:58 PM

Ship Date: 03/31/15

Account: 780979

Type: Stamp

Postage Amount: $6.69

Address: Mr. Lee Vincent

Inmate: 01978797

Gurney Unit

1385 Fm 3328

Palestine TX 75803-5000

Piece Count: 2618

Postage Class: First-Class Mail

Mailpiece: Letter

Services: Return Receipt, Certified Mail

Weight: 2 oz

Balance: $66.42

Description:

Insurance: None

Reference Number:
27 MARCH 2015

Mr. Lee Vincent

Inmate: 01978797

Gurney Unit

1385 FM 3328

Palestine, TX 75803 

Re: Opinion

 

Mr. Vincent

Please find enclosed a copy of opinion issued by the Twelfth Court of Appeals in your case. The 

Court has affirmed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary 

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your 

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion. That is by, 24 

April 2015. 

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know. 

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
§ 17.503 Improper disclosure. ( a ) Improper disclosure is the disclosure of confidential and privileged healthcare quality assurance review records or documents (or information contained therein), as defined in § 17.501, to any person who is not authorized access to the records or documents under the statute and the regulations in §§ 17.500 through 17.511.
( b ) “Disclosure” means the communication, transmission, or conveyance in any way of any confidential and privileged quality assurance records or documents or information contained in them to any individual or organization in any form by any means.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5705)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1
       
<S>                                              <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                                252788
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         145752
<ALLOWANCES>                                           67469
<INVENTORY>                                            22121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      357688
<PP&E>                                                472222
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (442031)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        499854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 135459
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                               42805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            321590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          499854
<SALES>                                               802286
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      805942
<CGS>                                                 266185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         266185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      549773
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (10016)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (10016)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (10016)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .002
        

</TABLE>
#### § 83.2 How will DOL use the designations established under the procedures in this part?

DOL will adjudicate compensation claims for members of classes of employees added to the Cohort according to the same general procedures that apply to the statutorily defined classes of employees in the Cohort. Specifically, DOL will determine whether the claim is for a qualified member of the Cohort with a specified cancer, pursuant to the procedures set forth in 20 CFR part 30.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23680]



[[Page 51762]]

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

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

22 CFR Part 226

RIN 0412-AA65


Administration of Assistance Awards to U.S. Non-Governmental 
Organizations; Correction to Financial Reporting for Grants and 
Cooperative Agreements

AGENCY: Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains an amendment to the regulations 
published as an interim final rule in the Federal Register of Thursday, 
January 19, 1995, (60 FR 3743). The rule relates to the administration 
of assistance awards to U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations.

DATES:  Effective on October 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gushue, Telephone: 202-712-
5831, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8d5dfcdcbd0cdddf8cdcbd9d1dc96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05686270766d7060457076646c612b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 19, 1995, USAID issued an interim final rule at 22 CFR 
part 226 which implemented Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-110.

Need for Amendment

    As published, the regulation unduly limits the use of financial 
reporting forms to Standard Form 269 and Standard Form 270. The purpose 
of the amendment is to relieve this restriction and allow any such 
forms as OMB approves. OMB now requires Federal Agencies to use the 
Federal Financial Report (Standard Form 425 or 425a) to give recipients 
of grants and cooperative agreements a standard format for reporting 
the financial status of their grants and cooperative agreements (68 FR 
17097, 73 FR 47246).

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 226

    Grants administration.

0
Accordingly, 22 CFR part 226 is amended by making the following 
technical amendment:

PART 226--ADMINISTRATION OF ASSISTANCE AWARDS TO U.S. NON-
GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  22 U.S.C. 2381(a) and 2401.


0
2. Revise Sec.  226.52 to read as follows:


Sec.  226.52  Financial reporting.

    USAID requires recipients to use the Standard Form 425 or Standard 
Form 425a, Federal Financial Report, or such other forms authorized for 
obtaining financial information as may be approved by OMB.

Drew Luten,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Management, USAID.
[FR Doc. E9-23680 Filed 10-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6116-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SIP ADOPTION ORDER 

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) held a public comment period fi•om 

July 10 to August 14, 2015 and offered to hold a public hearing on August 11 to receive 

comments on the proposal to: 

• Include select Benton Clean Air Agency Regulation 1 sections in the Washington State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). 

These proposed changes are necessary to align state and local air quality SIP-approved rules and 

to clarify for SIP and federal enforceability purposes where Benton has corresponding local rules 

that apply in lieu of Chapter 173-400 WAC. 

Ecology published a public hearing and comment period notice in the Daily Journal of 

Commerce on August 10, 2015. This allowed Ecology to meet the requirement for more than the 

31 days of advanced notice. No comments were received; Ecology met all state and federal 

procedural requirements. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the referenced document, constituting the revision, is approved 

and adopted by the Department of Ecology as part of the Washington State Implementation Plan. 

All provisions of the Washington State Implementation Plan inconsistent with the attached 

documents are superseded. 

16uaAo . LOk 

Maia Bellon, Director 

Department of Ecology 

Dae