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

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2602 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2602

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
 Mountain, Michigan, as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Medical Facility''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITY, 
              IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
Mountain, Michigan, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 
be known and designated as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility''. Any reference to that medical 
facility in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper 
of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Oscar 
G. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 79.40 Selection of grantees. VA will use the following process to select applicants to receive legal services grants: ( a ) VA will score all applicants that meet the threshold requirements set forth in § 79.30 using the scoring criteria set forth in § 79.35.
( b ) VA will group applicants within the applicable funding priorities if funding priorities are set forth in the NOFO.
( c ) VA will rank those applicants who receive at least the minimum amount of total points and points per category set forth in the NOFO, within their respective funding priority group, if any. The applicants will be ranked in order from highest to lowest scores, within their respective funding priority group, if any.
( d ) VA will use the applicant's ranking as the primary basis for selection for funding. However, VA will also use the following considerations to select applicants for funding: ( 1 ) VA will give preference to applicants that have the demonstrated ability to provide the provision of legal services eligible individuals who are homeless, at risk for homelessness or have very low income, as defined by this part.
( 2 ) To the extent practicable, VA will ensure that legal services grants are equitably distributed across geographic regions, including rural communities, trust lands, Native Americans, and tribal organizations.
( 3 ) VA will give preference to applicants with a demonstrated focus on women veterans as set forth in the NOFO.
( e ) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, VA will fund the highest-ranked applicants for which funding is available, within the highest funding priority group, if any. If funding priorities have been established, to the extent funding is available and subject to paragraph (d) of this section, VA will select applicants in the next highest funding priority group based on their rank within that group.
( f ) If an applicant would have been selected but for a procedural error committed by VA, VA may select that applicant for funding when sufficient funds become available if there is no material change in the information that would have resulted in the applicant's selection. A new application would not be required.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1


The Board of Directors
Anika Therapeutics, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statement (No. 333-6275) on Form S-8 of Anika Therapeutics, Inc. of
our report dated February 18, 1998, relating to the balance sheets
of Anika Therapeutics, Inc. as of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and
the related statements of operations, stockholders equity, and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 1997, the four-month
transitional year ended December 31, 1996, and the year ended
August 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1997,
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Anika Therapeutics, Inc.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 31, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2053 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2053

 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore financial 
  stability to Medicare anesthesiology teaching programs for resident 
                              physicians.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2007

 Mr. Becerra (for himself, Mr. Ramstad, Ms. Hooley, and Mr. Sessions) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
   Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to restore financial 
  stability to Medicare anesthesiology teaching programs for resident 
                              physicians.

    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 ``Medicare Anesthesiology Teaching 
Funding Restoration Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL PAYMENT RULE FOR TEACHING ANESTHESIOLOGISTS.

    Section 1848(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (4)(A), by inserting ``except as provided 
        in paragraph (5),'' after ``anesthesia cases,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Special rule for teaching anesthesiologists.--With 
        respect to physicians' services furnished on or after January 
        1, 2008, in the case of teaching anesthesiologists involved in 
        the training of physician residents in a single anesthesia case 
        or two concurrent anesthesia cases, the fee schedule amount to 
        be applied shall be 100 percent of the fee schedule amount 
        otherwise applicable under this section if the anesthesia 
        services were personally performed by the teaching 
        anesthesiologist alone and paragraph (4) shall not apply if--
                    ``(A) the teaching anesthesiologist is present 
                during all critical or key portions of the anesthesia 
                service or procedure involved; and
                    ``(B) the teaching anesthesiologist (or another 
                anesthesiologist with whom the teaching 
                anesthesiologist has entered into an arrangement) is 
                immediately available to furnish anesthesia services 
                during the entire procedure.''.
                                 <all>
```
42054.

#### TSCHUDY v. SILER.

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where an alleged brokerage contract for the sale of a business attempts to set forth the terms of sale as to the amount to be paid and the amount of commission to be paid the broker and the owner agrees “to pay the agent his commission if [he] sell this business during his listing or to any of his prospects after the listing expires,” such agreement to pay commissions must be interpreted in the light of the terms of sale set forth, and confined to a sale on those terms.

2. Pretermitting the question of whether the alleged brokerage contract sued upon was sufficiently definite as to the terms of sale to support an action for brokerage commissions based thereon, the petition here involved is fatally defective for its failure to allege that the broker found a purchaser ready, able, and willing to purchase on the terms provided *(Hall v.*
      *321
      *Vandiver,*37 Ga. App. 656 (141 SE 332); *Howard v. Sills & Purvis,*154 Ga. 430 (114 SE 580); *Atlanta Realty Co. v. Campion,*94 Ga. App. 136 (93 SE2d 781)) or to a prospect obtained by the broker on the terms provided. An allegation that the business was sold to a prospect obtained by the broker does not constitute such an allegation nor does an allegation that the broker “has fully completed all duties devolving upon him as such business broker.” The trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer to the petition.

Submitted June 6, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966

Rehearing denied September 22, 1966.

*John L. Respess, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Fred W. Minter,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6849

LOUIS C. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LEVESTER THOMPSON, M.D.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-345)

Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: October 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Johnson v. Thompson, No. CA-96-345 (E.D. Va. May 2, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Egypt

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Egypt			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Egypt 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Egypt

During the review period, the government made its budget documents widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available online, with the exception of state-owned enterprise debt.  Budget documents did not include allocations to military state-owned enterprises, nor were audit reports for significant, large state-owned enterprises made public.  It was not clear from publicly available budget documents whether expenditures to support executive offices represented a significant outlay.  The information in the budget was generally considered reliable, but incomplete.  Audit reports from Egypt’s supreme audit institution were not public.  Egypt’s supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards natural resource contracts or licenses were specified in law and regulation and appeared to be broadly followed in practice.  The government has not consistently made public basic information on natural resource extraction awards.  The sovereign wealth fund did not disclose its source of funding or general approach to withdrawals. Egypt’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- making information on state-owned enterprise debt publicly available;
- including in its budget documents all revenues and expenditures, including those for remaining off-budget accounts, executive offices, and allocations to, earnings from, and debts of state-owned enterprises;
- ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence, audits the government’s executed budget, and makes its reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time;
- consistently making basic information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available;
- disclosing its sovereign wealth fund’s source of funding and general approach to withdrawals.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Egypt 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEgypt

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
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50210-50211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23568]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the

[[Page 50211]]

Federal Maritime Commission an application for license as a Non-Vessel-
Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean 
Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act 
of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409 and 46 CFR part 515).
    Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should 
not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary 
Applicants

Avango Logistics LLC, 552 N York Road, Bensenville, IL 60106, Officers: 
Konstantin B. Selikhov, Member (Qualifying Individual), Rostislav 
Chagovets, Member.

Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder 
Transportation Intermediary Applicants

HYH International Cargo Services, Inc., dba H.Y.H. Container Line, 9107 
NW 105th Way, Medley, FL 33178, Officer: Hans G. Hofmann, President 
(Qualifying Individual).
Ocean Star International, Inc., 10880 Wiles Road, Coral Springs, FL 
33078, Officer: Joshua S. Morales, President (Qualifying Individual).
Container Loading Solutions International USA, LLC, 755 North Busse 
Highway, Ste. 217, Bensenville, IL 60106, Officer: Paul J. Gibbs, 
President (Qualifying Individual).
Fleur De Lis Worldwide LLC, 8302 Shady Ace Lane, Humble, TX 77346, 
Officer: Julie A. Turpin, President (Qualifying Individual).
Consolcargo USA Inc. dba CSC Consolidators, 10925 NW 27th Street, Ste. 
102, Miami, FL 33172, Officers: Rocio D. Lugo, Director (Qualifying 
Individual), Peter Thomas, Vice President.
A Cargo Inc., 4634 E. Marginal Way S., Ste. C-120, Seattle, WA 98134-
2328, Officers: Marcio Fanti, President, Patrick P. Policarpio, Vice 
President (Qualifying Individuals).
DNIPRO LLC, 645 West 1st Avenue, Roselle, NJ 07203, Officers: Yelena 
Cherepashenskaya, Manager (Qualifying Individual), Igor Pluta, 
President.
Target Logistic Services, Inc., 1400 Glenn Curtiss Street, Carson, CA 
90746, Officer: Thomas F. Donahue, III, Vice President (Qualifying 
Individual).

Ocean Freight Forwarder--Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

EP Logistics, LLC, 7 Founders Blvd., Ste. E, El Paso, TX 79906, 
Officer: Octavio Saavedra, Member (Qualifying Individual).
Concord Express Cargo, Inc., 172-14 119th Avenue, Jamaica Queens, NY 
11434, Officers: Christopher E. Okafor, President (Qualifying 
Individual), Margaret X. Burnes, Secretary.

    September 25, 2009.
Tanga S. FitzGibbon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23568 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-1318 September Term 2010

 EPA-74FR66412

Filed On: January 21, 2011

Arkema Inc., 

 Petitioner

v.

Environmental Protection Agency, 

 Respondent

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

Consolidated with 09-1335

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel,

Garland, Brown, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Respondent’s petition for rehearing en banc and the joint response thereto were

circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the

judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of

the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #09-1318 Document #1289396 Filed: 01/21/2011 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32



               CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of CalAmp Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange (the "Report"), we, Richard Gold, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard Vitelle, 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 to our knowledge:

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

        (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
    the Company.



                               /s/ Richard Gold
                              ------------------------------------------
                               Richard Gold
                               President and Chief Executive Officer



                               /s/ Richard Vitelle
                              -------------------------------------------
                               Richard Vitelle
                               Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



July 9, 2009


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 4.115 Nephritis.

Albuminuria alone is not nephritis, nor will the presence of transient albumin and casts following acute febrile illness be taken as nephritis. The glomerular type of nephritis is usually preceded by or associated with severe infectious disease; the onset is sudden, and the course marked by red blood cells, salt retention, and edema; it may clear up entirely or progress to a chronic condition. The nephrosclerotic type, originating in hypertension or arteriosclerosis, develops slowly, with minimum laboratory findings, and is associated with natural progress. Separate ratings are not to be assigned for disability from disease of the heart and any form of nephritis, on account of the close interrelationships of cardiovascular disabilities. If, however, absence of a kidney is the sole renal disability, even if removal was required because of nephritis, the absent kidney and any hypertension or heart disease will be separately rated. Also, in the event that chronic renal disease has progressed to the point where regular dialysis is required, any coexisting hypertension or heart disease will be separately rated.

[41 FR 34258, Aug. 13, 1976, as amended at 59 FR 2527, Jan. 18, 1994]
#### § 78.155 Technical assistance.

VA will provide technical assistance, as necessary, to applicants and grantees to meet the requirements of this part. Such technical assistance will be provided either directly by VA or through contracts with appropriate public or non-profit private entities.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2648 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2648

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 
       the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and 
                             entertainment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2007

 Mr. Abercrombie introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the reduction in 
       the deductible portion of expenses for business meals and 
                             entertainment.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN BUSINESS MEALS AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX 
              DEDUCTION.

    (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and entertainment expenses 
allowed as deduction) is amended by striking ``50 percent'' and 
inserting ``the applicable percentage''.
    (b) Applicable Percentage.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the 
following:
            ``(3) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of paragraph 
        (1), the term `applicable percentage' means the percentage 
        determined under the following table:

 
 
 
``For taxable years beginning in         The applicable percentage is--
 calendar year--
  2007.................................  75
  2008 or thereafter...................  80.''.

    (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 274(n) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``Only 50 
Percent'' and inserting ``Portion''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```