alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40115 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Rosario Garza**

**- Gonzalez,** 
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 1704

- 4

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Rosario Garza

- Gonzalez ple a d ed guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana , and was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release. The district court’s written judgment imposed two special conditions of supervised

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 19, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40115 Document: 00516060660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2021No. 20

- 40115

2 release: one re quiring him to immediately report to the nearest probation office if he returns to the United States and another directing that active supervision would automatically reactivate if he did so report

. Garza

Gonzalez and the Government agree that these special conditions are improper because they were not orally pronounced at hi s sentencing.

Because Garza

- Gonzalez had no opport unity at his sentencing to object to these special conditions that were later included in his written judgment, “ instead of reviewing for plain error, we review the

. . . court ’ s imposition of those conditi ons for an abuse of discretion .” United States v. Mudd , 685 F.3d 473, 480 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Bigelow , 462 F.3d 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006) ) (alteration in original)

. “The pronouncement requirement is not a meaningless formality. ” United States v. Diggles , 957 F.3d 551, 559

– 63 (5th Cir.) (en banc) , cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 825 (2020) . “[I] t is part of the defendant’s right to be present at sentencing, which in turn is based on the right to mount a defense. ” Id. “[ I ]f the written judgment conflicts with the sentence pronounced at sentencing, that pronouncement controls .” Mudd , 685 F.3d at 480 (alteration in original) (quoting Bigelow , 462 F.3d at 381). Because these two special conditions were not announced during the sentencing he aring, the district court abused its discretion by including them in the written judgment. See id. ; Diggles , 957 F.3d at 559

– 63

. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is **VACATED IN**  **PART** and the matter is **REMANDED** to the district court for the li mited purpose of conforming the written judgment to the oral pronouncement of

sentence

. Case: 20-40115 Document: 00516060660 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2021
§ 6.14 Cash value; other than special endowment at age 96 plan policy. Provisions for cash value shall become effective at the completion of the first policy year on any plan of United States Government Life Insurance other than the special endowment at age 96 plan policy; all values, reserves, and net single premiums being based on the American Experience Table of Mortality, with interest at the rate of 31 ⁄ 2 percent per annum. The cash value shall be the reserve together with any dividend accumulations. For each month after the first policy year the reserve at the end of the preceding policy year shall be increased by one-twelfth of the increase in reserve for the current policy year. Upon written request therefor and upon complete surrender of the insurance with all claims thereunder made by the insured the United States will pay to the insured the cash value of the policy less any indebtedness. Unless otherwise requested by the insured, a surrender will be deemed completed as of the end of the month in which the application for cash surrender is delivered to the Department of Veterans Affairs, or as of the date of the check for the cash value, whichever is later. If the application is forwarded by mail, properly addressed, the postmark date will be taken as the date of delivery. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1944)
[48 FR 1963, Jan. 17, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 29025, June 7, 1996]
#### § 1203.23 Comments by other parties.

Any party to the underlying adversary adjudication other than the applicant and agency counsel may file comments on an application for award within 30 calendar days after it is served, or on a response within 15 calendar days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in proceedings on the application unless the adjudicative officer determines that the public interest requires such participation in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.704 Elections within class of dependents. ( a ) *Children.* Where children are eligible to receive monthly benefits under more than one law in the same case, the election of benefits under one law by or on behalf of one child will not serve to increase the rate allowable for any other child under another law in that case. The rate payable for each child will not exceed the amount which would be paid if all children were receiving benefits under the same law. Where a child is no longer eligible to receive pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation because of having elected dependents' educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 35, the child will be excluded from consideration in determining the rate payable for another child or children.
( b ) *Parents.* If there are two parents eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation and only one parent files claim for this benefit, the rate of dependency and indemnity compensation for that parent will not exceed the amount which would be paid to him or her if both parents had filed claim for dependency and indemnity compensation. The rate of death compensation for the other parent will not exceed the amount which would be paid if both parents were receiving this benefit.
[26 FR 1602, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 4993, May 29, 1962; 34 FR 839, Jan. 18, 1969; 39 FR 20205, June 7, 1974; 54 FR 34981, Aug. 23, 1989]
§ 1009.4 Disclosures in advertising and on the premises. ( a ) *Required disclosures.* Each depository institution lacking Federal deposit insurance must include a clear and conspicuous notice disclosing that the institution is not federally insured: ( 1 ) At each station or window where deposits are normally received, its principal place of business and all its branches where it accepts deposits or opens accounts (excluding automated teller machines or point of sale terminals), and on its main internet page; and
( 2 ) In all advertisements except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Format and type size.* The disclosures required by this section must be clear and conspicuous and presented in a simple and easy to understand format, type size, and manner.
( c ) *Exceptions.* The following need not include a notice that the institution is not federally insured: ( 1 ) Any sign, document, or other item that contains the name of the depository institution, its logo, or its contact information, but only if the sign, document, or item does not include any information about the institution's products or services or information otherwise promoting the institution; and
( 2 ) Small utilitarian items that do not mention deposit products or insurance, if inclusion of the notice would be impractical.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Uzbekistan

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Uzbekistan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Uzbekistan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Uzbekistan

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the public, including online, but not its executive budget proposal.Information on debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt, was not publicly available.Publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue.Budget documents did not include detailed information on expenditures by ministry or information on allocations to or earnings from state-owned enterprises, however it did break down expenditures to support executive offices.However, the government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight.Military and intelligence budgets were not sufficiently subject to parliamentary or civilian public oversight.Detailed information on natural resource revenue was not publicly available.The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.Audits covered the entire annual executed budget and contained substantive findings and recommendations.The government specified in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts or licenses and made basic information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available.The government’s sovereign wealth funds had a sound legal framework and disclosed its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

Uzbekistan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

-  Making its executive budget proposal publicly available within a reasonable period;
-  Publishing information on government debt obligations, including for major state-owned enterprises;
-  Including in budget documents allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises;
-  Breaking down in the budget expenditures by ministry or government agency;
-  Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate audit and oversight; and
-  Subjecting military and intelligence budgets to parliamentary or civilian public oversight.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Uzbekistan 

Tags

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

Back to Top

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

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

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

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
# C_2021501EN.01001001.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 501/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 501/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 December 2021

(2021/C 501/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1273 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85355 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2463 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0424 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1335 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,365 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 365,58 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6123 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9494 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,6908 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5765 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4340 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7918 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6635 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5396 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 331,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,0414 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1814 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5250 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 202,70 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7488 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,746 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 82,8024 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,945 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,2923 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,6094 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,3105 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1273

JPY

Japanese yen

128,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85355

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2463

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0424

ISK

Iceland króna

147,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1335

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,365

HUF

Hungarian forint

365,58

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6123

RON

Romanian leu

4,9494

TRY

Turkish lira

15,6908

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5765

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4340

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7918

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6635

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5396

KRW

South Korean won

1 331,35

ZAR

South African rand

18,0414

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1814

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5250

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 202,70

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7488

PHP

Philippine peso

56,746

RUB

Russian rouble

82,8024

THB

Thai baht

37,945

BRL

Brazilian real

6,2923

MXN

Mexican peso

23,6094

INR

Indian rupee

85,3105

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
§ 17.57 Use of community nursing homes. ( a ) Nursing home care in a contract public or private nursing home facility may be authorized for the following: Any veteran who has been discharged from a hospital under the direct jurisdiction of VA and is currently receiving VA hospital based home health services. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1720; sec. 108, Pub. L. 99-166)
( b ) To the extent that resources are available and are not otherwise required to assure that VA can furnish needed care and treatment to veterans described in 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1) and (a)(2), the Under Secretary for Health may furnish care under this paragraph to any veteran described in 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(3) if the veteran agrees to pay the United States an amount as determined in 38 U.S.C. 1710(f).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1710, 1720; sec. 19011, Pub. L. 99-272)
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1720(b)
[51 FR 25067, July 10, 1986. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21965, 21966, May 13, 1996 and further redesignated at 63 FR 39515, July 23, 1998; 79 FR 54615, Sept. 12, 2014]
SCALE 1:24,000

MILLERS FALLS QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST

AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-G

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Millers Falls Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by

Janet R. Stone and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen

2010

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1961.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Office of the

Massachusetts State Geologist. Image available online at:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/stategeologist/frame_maps.htm

Geology mapped by J.R. Stone in 1975 (unpublished). Distribution

of bedrock outcrops and shallow bedrock areas from Balk (1956b).

Some postglacial units mapped using 2005 orthophoto images.

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 8 of 24)

(G

R

E

E

N

FIELD)

(O

RA

N

G

E)

(NORTHFIELD)

(SHUTESBURY) 72°22'30"W

72°30'0"W

72°22'30"W

72°30'0"W

42°37'30"N

42°37'30"N

42°30'0"N

42°30'0"N

Stone, J.R., and DiGiacomo-Cohen, M.L., compilers, 2010,

Surficial geologic map of the Heath-Northfield-SouthwickHampden 24-quadrangle area in the Connecticut Valley

region, west-central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-G.

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/G.
# C_2021504EN.01004501.xml

| 14.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 504/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 504/45

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 December 2021

(2021/C 504/18)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1278 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,19 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85158 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2310 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0418 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 148,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,1598 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,401 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 367,07 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6221 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9494 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 16,0525 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5795 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4388 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7967 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6651 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5420 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 333,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9694 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1777 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5210 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 155,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7678 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,731 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 82,8238 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,612 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3190 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,5354 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,4225 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1278

JPY

Japanese yen

128,19

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85158

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2310

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0418

ISK

Iceland króna

148,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,1598

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,401

HUF

Hungarian forint

367,07

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6221

RON

Romanian leu

4,9494

TRY

Turkish lira

16,0525

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5795

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4388

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7967

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6651

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5420

KRW

South Korean won

1 333,60

ZAR

South African rand

17,9694

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1777

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5210

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 155,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7678

PHP

Philippine peso

56,731

RUB

Russian rouble

82,8238

THB

Thai baht

37,612

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3190

MXN

Mexican peso

23,5354

INR

Indian rupee

85,4225

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
#### Abrams and Rolfe *against*Wood and others.

IN TRESPASS.

ON motion to open a judgment, by default, entered at *Novcmber Term,*1817. '

(a) l. JudgSTÍ plead.

(b) 2. Change of venue.

_ *Scott*for defendant. *Chetwood*for plaintiff.

An affidavit of *Samuel Gordon*was read, stating, that before the return of the writ, he met *Rolfe,*one of the defendants, and told him he was coming to *Trenton;*that *Rolfe*gave him a copy of the writ, and 15 dollars, to retain Mr. *Diving,*as attorney in this cause; that he was accidentally prevented from coming to *Trenton,*and therefore did not retain Mr. *Ewing;*that he believed it would be sufficient to engage an attorney at *December*court, in *Middlesex,*where he understood the cause was to be tried, and therefore he did not inform either of the defendants, that he had not retained an attorney for them, until, to his great surprise, he was told by *Rolfe,*that judgment had been entered against them. An affidavit of *Rolfe’s*states ; that he gave the money mentioned by *Gordon,*for the purpose stated by him, and did believe it had been applied as directed, and that Mr. *Ewing*was attending to the suit, until he went to employ counsel to try his cause, when he heard of the judgment; that he and *Abrams,*have a just defence; that they reside in *Middlesex;*that the writ was served there ; and that the *34cause of action, if any, arose between *Governor’s*and *Gibbet*islands in tbe harbour of *New- York.*

(a)

*Miller vs. Alexander, Coxe 400. Den, Riker vs. Ball, Pen. *974. Alderman vs. Diament, 2 Hal. 199. Gulick vs. Thompson, post 292. Crane vs. Condit, 1 Har. 349. Halsey vs. Van Wagenen, 1 Har. 350. Binsse vs. Barker, 1 Green, 263. Silvers vs. Reynolds, 3 Har. 238. Bell ads. Kelly, 3 Har. 270. Davis ads. Winants, 3 Har. 306. Truax vs. Roberts, post 288.*

(b)

*Hall ads. Bank, post 718. Kerr vs. Bank, post 363. Worley vs. Scudder, 5 Hal. 231. Bell vs. Morris Canal, 3 Green 63. Thorn vs. Central R. R., 2 Dutch. 121. Wildes vs. Mairs, 1 Hal. 320. Meldrum vs. Sarvis, Coxe 203. Murray vs.*N. *J. R. R. Co., 3 Zab. 63. McMenomy vs. Williamson, 6 Hal. 316. Den. Lee vs. Evaul, Coxe 201.*

By the *Court.*

The facts authorize the opening of the judgment. Let the defendants pay the costs, and plead within ten days.

Mr. *Scott*then moved upon the above mentioned affidavit of *Rolfe,*that the venue be changed from *Essex*to *Middlesex.*

*Chetwood*objected: and

*By the *Court.*

The affidavit does not state facts, sufficient for that purpose. The cause of action did not arise in *Middlesex,*and there is no proof that the witnesses of either party reside there. Let the venue remain in *Essex.*
1

The Honorable WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 95-1732

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Leroy Philmon, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 16, 1996

 Filed: January 22, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After a jury found Leroy Philmon guilty of conspiring to

distribute cocaine in February 1994, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846, the district court1

 sentenced him to 144 months imprisonment

and four years supervised release. Philmon appeals his sentence,

and we affirm.

Co-conspirator Thomas Craig Walton--who supplied the cocaine

that was the subject of the conspiracy for which Philmon was

convicted--testified at sentencing that he supplied cocaine to

Philmon on a steady basis beginning in late 1992 and continuing

through late 1993. The district court included drug quantities

from these previous transactions in calculating the total drug

quantity for which Philmon was responsible under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3
-2-

(relevant conduct). Philmon argues that, because the prior

transactions comprising the relevant conduct increased his base

offense level by ten levels and tripled his sentencing range, the

court should have used the clear-and-convincing standard of proof

rather than the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. We

disagree. See United States v. Pugh, 25 F.3d 669, 676 (8th Cir.

1994) (four-fold increase in potential sentence not large enough to

require heightened evidentiary standard). 

Philmon further argues that the prior transactions did not

constitute relevant conduct. This argument also fails. Based on

Walton's testimony, which the district court credited, we conclude

that the court did not clearly err in finding that the prior

transactions were part of the same course of conduct as the charged

conspiracy, and thus were relevant conduct. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.3(a)(2) & comment. (n. 9(B)); United States v. Balano, 8 F.3d

629, 630 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d

1468, 1472 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Philmon's pro se motion for

appointment of new counsel.

A true copy.

Attest:

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