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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2663 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 2663

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 22, 2004

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, 
 Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, 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. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING CASTLE NUGENT FARMS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Castle Nugent Farms, located on the southeastern shore 
        of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, is the largest parcel of 
        privately-held land in the Virgin Islands and has been an 
        operating cattle ranch for 50 years.
            (2) This land has the largest and healthiest fringing coral 
        reef anywhere in the Virgin Islands.
            (3) It consists of Caribbean dry forest and pasturelands 
        with considerable cultural resources including both pre-
        Columbian and post-European settlement.
            (4) Castle Nugent Farms contains a large historic 17th 
        century Danish estate house that sits on over 4 miles of 
        pristine Caribbean oceanfront property.
            (5) In addition to being an area for turtle nesting and 
        night heron nesting, it is the home for the Senepol cattle 
        breed, a unique breed of cattle that was developed on St. Croix 
        in the early 1900's to adapt to the island's climate.
    (b) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out a study 
regarding the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent 
Farms as a unit of the National Park System.
    (c) Study Process and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
the study required by this section.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
§ 1209.55 Review by Director. ( a ) *Notice of submission to the Director.* When the Director determines that the record in the proceeding is complete, the Director shall serve notice upon the parties that the case has been submitted to the Director for final decision.
( b ) *Oral argument before the Director.* Upon the initiative of the Director or on the written request of any party filed with the Director within the time for filing exceptions, the Director may order and hear oral argument on the recommended findings, conclusions, decision and order of the presiding officer. A written request by a party must show good cause for oral argument and state reasons why arguments cannot be presented adequately in writing. A denial of a request for oral argument may be set forth in the Director's final decision. Oral argument before the Director must be transcribed.
( c ) *Director's final decision and order.* ( 1 ) Decisional employees may advise and assist the Director in the consideration and disposition of the case. The final decision of the Director will be based upon review of the entire record of the proceeding, except that the Director may limit the issues to be reviewed to those findings and conclusions to which opposing arguments or exceptions have been filed by the parties.
( 2 ) The Director shall render a final decision and issue an appropriate order within 90 days after notification to the parties that the case has been submitted for final decision, unless the Director orders that the action or any aspect thereof be remanded to the presiding officer for further proceedings. Copies of the final decision including findings of fact and an appropriate order of the Director shall be served upon each party to the proceeding and as otherwise required by statute.
( 3 ) The Director may modify, terminate, or set aside an order in accordance with section 1373(b)(2) of the Safety and Soundness Act (12 U.S.C. 4633(b)(2)).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          12,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,792
<INVENTORY>                                        193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,323
<PP&E>                                          47,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,763
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,346
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         92
<COMMON>                                           167
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,862
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,225
<SALES>                                         26,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,693
<CGS>                                            4,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,855
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   425
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,853
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,823
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Lesotho

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Lesotho			

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Lesotho 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Lesotho

During the review period, the government made its enacted budget publicly available within a reasonable period.The government did not, however, publish its budget proposal or end-of-year report within a reasonable period.The government published information on debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt, within a reasonable period.Budget documents provided a substantially full picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue; however, it did not include financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned-enterprises.The government broke down expenditures to support executive offices.Budget executions deviated significantly from budget projections and the government did not produce and publicly issue revised budget estimates or pass a supplementary budget.The government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to audit or oversight.Military and intelligence budgets were subject to parliamentary oversight.The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence, although it published audits that covered the entire budget and contained substantive findings.The government specified in law or regulation and appeared to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and licenses.Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available.

Lesotho’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

-  Publishing a budget proposal and end-of-year report online within a reasonable period;
-  Detailing allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises;
-  Producing and publicly issuing revised budget estimates or passing a supplementary budget when budget executions deviate significantly from projections;
-  Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit;
-  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence; and
-  Making basic information on natural resource extraction publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Lesotho 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentLesotho

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
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Board of Directors
Harry's Farmers Market, Inc.

We have issued our reports dated April 2, 1997 accompanying the consolidated 
financial statements and schedules included in the Annual Report on Harry's
Farmers Market, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended January 29, 1997. We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of Harry's Farmers Market, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-74348,
effective January 21, 1994, File No. 33-81118, effective July 1, 1994, File No.
33-81120, effective July 1, 1994, File No. 33-91924 effective May 4, 1995 and
File No. 333-10403, effective August 19, 1996).

                                       GRANT THORNTON L.L.P.

Atlanta, Georgia
April 28, 1997
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6760

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DARYL WENDELL BARLEY, a/k/a Black , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville

. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr
- 00010

- JLK

- 1 )

Submitted : November 16, 2020 Decided: December 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

Daryl Wendell Barley , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Abingdon, V irginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Daryl Wendell Barley seeks to appeal the district court’s orders granting relief on
his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, and granting Barley’s motion for reconsideration but declining to
further reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. United States v. Barley , No. 4:10

- cr
- 00010

- JLK

- 1 (W.D. Va. May 18, 2020; June 3, 2020). We deny Barley’s motion for appointment of counsel and grant
his motion for leave to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Republic of the Congo National Day

# 									Republic of the Congo National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

August 15, 2022

On behalf of the United States, I extend my best wishes and congratulations to the government and people of the Republic of the Congo on the 62nd anniversary of your independence.

The United States commends the Republic of the Congo’s leadership in addressing the climate crisis and in its commitment to environmental protection.  We look forward to our continued partnership in safeguarding the Congo Basin for the benefit of the Republic of the Congo, the African continent, and all humanity.  The United States remains ready to support the Republic of the Congo in its continued efforts to foster trade and regional peace, improve maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea, promote a more open business environment, and improve governance.

We wish the Republic of the Congo a peaceful and prosperous future, and we look forward to strengthening our already robust partnership.

 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonRepublic of the CongoThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2748 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the alternative motor 

vehicle personal credit against the alternative minimum tax. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2007 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN 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 allow the 

alternative motor vehicle personal credit against the alternative minimum tax. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ALTERNATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE PERSONAL 

4 CREDIT ALLOWED AGAINST ALTERNATIVE 

5 MINIMUM TAX. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 30B(g) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to applica8 tion with other credits) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(2) PERSONAL CREDIT.—The credit allowed 

10 under subsection (a) (after the application of paramstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2748 IH

1 graph (1)) for any taxable year shall not exceed the 

2 excess (if any) of— 

3 ‘‘(A) the sum of the regular tax liability 

4 (as defined in section 26(b)) plus the tax im5 posed by section 55, over 

6 ‘‘(B) the sum of the credits allowable 

7 under this part (other than subpart C, subpart 

8 H, and this section).’’. 

9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph (A) 

10 of section 30C(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking 

11 ‘‘sections 27, 30, and 30B’’ and inserting ‘‘sections 27 and 

12 30’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

15 December 31, 2006. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GALEN BROOKS

, §

§ No. 262

, 201 8

Defendant Below, §

Appellant

, § Court Below : Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No

. 1206011471 ( K )

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below

, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: July 25, 2018

Decided: July 31 , 201 8

O R D E R

On Ju ly 12 , 2018

, the Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing the

appellant to show cause why th is appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant’s

failure to file the opening brief . Th e appellant received the notice to show cause on

Ju ly 14 , 2018 but did not respond to it, and he has not filed the opening brief

.

Accordingly, d ismissal of th e appeal is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that th e appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
- 091007nih001
- 091007nih002
- 091007nih003
- 091007nih004
- 091007nih005
- 091007nih006
- 091007nih007
- 091007nih008
- 091007nih009
- 091007nih010
- 091007nih011
- 091007nih012
- 091007nih013
- 091007nih014
- 091007nih015
- 091007nih016
- 091007nih017
- 091007nih018
- 091007nih019
- 091007nih020
- 091007nih021
- 091007nih022
- 091007nih023
- 091007nih024
- 091007nih025
- 091007nih026
- 091007nih027
- 091007nih028
- 091007nih029
- 091007nih031
- 091007nih032
- 091007nih033
- 091007nih034
- 091007nih035
- 091007nih036
- 091007nih037
- 091007nih038
- 091007nih039
- 091007nih040
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23983]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6168-000]


Carey, Christopher; Notice of Filing

September 29, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2009, Christopher Carey filed an 
application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant 
to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d and Part 45 
of the regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 18 CFR 
Part 45.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97d1d2c5d4d8f9fbfef9f2c4e2e7e7f8e5e3d7f1f2e5f4b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 13, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23983 Filed 10-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### George Thum, Respondent, *v.*Samuel Isermann, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the City Court of the city of New York, denying a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

*709Ashley, Emley *&*Rubino (Henry A. Rubino and J. Noble Emley, of counsel), for appellant.

Zeller & Miehling (Edward Miehling, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Ouriam.*

An answer was requisite. Order affirmed, with .ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.
# International Civil Aviation Organization – United States Department of State

- Transportation &#8211; ICAO (Six-Language Text Protocol) &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Seychelles, February 16, 2022 Office of Treaty Affairs
- Transportation &#8211; ICAO (Quinquelingual Text Protocol) &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Seychelles, February 16, 2022 Office of Treaty Affairs
- International Air Services Transit Agreement &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Romania, July 14, 2021 Office of Treaty Affairs
- Chicago Convention, Trilingual Protocol, and Quadrilingual Protocol &#8211; Notification of Deposit of Instrument; Dominica, March 22, 2019 Office of Treaty Affairs
Executive Order 13512

# Amending Executive Order 13390

                    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5121*et seq*.), and in order to extend the work of the Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and Rebuilding of the Gulf Coast Region, Executive Order 13390 of November 1, 2005, as amended, is further amended by striking “September 30, 2009,” and inserting in lieu thereof “April 1, 2010.”                

[FR Doc. E9-23915

Billing code 3195-W9-P
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 37

 38

 39

 40

 41

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
#### Regina Konner, Appellant, *v.*Mary J. Anderson et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

October, 1900.)

Principal and agent — Broker’s commissions not forfeited by execution of deed in name of third party.

A broker, who is shown to have been the procuring cause of a sale of real estate, cannot be deprived .of' commissions by the fact that the actual purchaser subsequently elected to have the contract signed by, and the deed taken in, the name of a third party who was associated with the said purchaser in the said transaction.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fifth district, borough of Manhattan.

Emil A. Klein (A. B. Schleimer, of counsel), for appellant.

Fettretch, Silkman *&*Seybel, for respondents.

O’Gorman, J.

This was an action to recover broker’s commissions on the sale of real estate and at the close of the plaintiff’s case the complaint was dismissed owing to the alleged insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence. In this the court erred. The testimony satisfactorily establishes plaintiff’s employment and the sale of the property in question. The purchaser procured by the plaintiff was one Weinstein. For reasons of his own, the contract was signed and deed taken in the name of one Cohen, with whom Weinstein, who supplied the purchase money, was associated in the transaction. An agent cannot be deprived of his *512commission merely because the actual purchaser takes title in another’s name. Randrup v. Schroeder, 22 Misc. Rep. 367. The gist of the action is, was the plaintiff the procuring cause of the sale? The details of the closing are but incidents of the transaction which confer or destroy no rights. Even without resorting to the rule that the construction most favorable to the plaintiff must be put upon the testimony, it is clear that a cause of action was made out when plaintiff rested, and it was error to dismiss the complaint.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Beekman, P. J., and Giegerich, J., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.