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

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Tanzania			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania 

During the review period, the government made significant progress by ensuring publicly available budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue.  The government made its enacted budget and end-of-year report available online.  It did not publish a full executive budget proposal.  Information on debt obligations was available online.  Although the enacted budget was substantially complete, actual revenue and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget, and the government tabled a supplementary budget.  The intelligence budget was not subject to parliamentary or civilian public oversight.  The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence.  It reviewed the government’s accounts and made reports publicly available within a reasonable period.  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 publicly available.

Tanzania’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Making its executive budget proposal publicly available within a reasonable period;
- Ensuring actual revenue and expenditures reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget or issuing a supplementary budget when they do not; and
- Subjecting intelligence budgets to parliamentary or civilian public oversight.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Tanzania  

Tags

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

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
- Home
- Leadership
- Resources
- Remarks and Releases
- Assembly of Local Leaders
- Contact Us

HomeSubnational Diplomacy Unit...Resources – Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy

# 									Resources – Special Representative for City and State Diplomacy							

## Department of State by State

The State Department benefits the American people by advancing U.S. national security, promoting our economic interests, providing services and reaffirming our country’s exceptional role in the world. To learn more, view the Department of State by State Map.

## National Museum of American Diplomacy

The National Museum of American Diplomacy (NMAD) tells the story of the history, practice, and challenges of American diplomacy. Through exhibitions and programs – including diplomacy simulations and educational videos – NMAD inspires the American public to discover diplomacy and how it impacts their lives every day. Visit the National Museum of American Diplomacy website.

Back to Top
#### Charles Lym, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Block, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

November, 1900.)

Inquest — Rights of defendant’s counsel.

Upon an inquest, the defendant’s counsel may object to incompetent or illegal evidence and cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses, but he cannot, even by his cross-examination, attempt to establish a defense.

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

M. Feltenstein, for appellant.

I. D. Morrison, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

On an inquest, the defendant’s counsel has the right to stand by and object to the reception of incompetent or illegal evidence, for, even when no defense is interposed, it is the *693duty of the court to see that competent and sufficient evidence is produced to justify a judgment; and the counsel for the defendant may interpose objections to assist in the attainment of that object. He may even cross-examine the witnesses produced by the plaintiff, but he may not, even by his cross-examination, attempt to establish a defense. Hartness v. Boyd, 5 Wend. 563. An examination of the record shows that the justice did not in fact violate this rule. It is true that when this appellant’s counsel interposed an objection, the justice at first refused to entertain it, but he subsequently offered to rule upon the objection, if the appellant insisted, which, however, he did not do. Thereafter the appellant’s counsel neither interposed an objection nor offered to cross-examine. The one objection that was made did not call for any ruling, for no reason was stated why the question was deemed to be improper. The only apparent objection was that the question was leading. That, however, was not a fatal objection, and if overruled by the justice would not have warranted a reversal of the judgment. We have carefully examined the record and fail to find that any improper evidence was admitted, and the judgment was fully justified by the evidence that was received. The appeal does not present any question as to the stipulation for setting aside the judgment. Ho order, was ever entered upon it. The appellant was the first to attempt to violate it. It provided for a trial on July 10, 1900, and the appellant undertook to avoid it by giving a bond for a long' adjournment. The tender of the bond was ineffectual because it was not offered on the return day or upon any day to which the cause was adjourned, but after judgment. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                            <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                 JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                         316,499
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  7,050,400
<ALLOWANCES>                   1,562,197
<INVENTORY>                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               6,088,994
<PP&E>                         1,379,263
<DEPRECIATION>                 817,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 10,255,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          3,448,912
<BONDS>                         0
<COMMON>                       79,774
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    449
<OTHER-SE>                     5,678,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   10,255,838
<SALES>                        5,504,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               5,504,204
<CGS>                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  5,363,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             (30,372)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                110,017
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            110,017
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   110,017
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .01

        

<PAGE>


</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2662 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to collect certain data pertaining 

to cancelled and diverted flights of air carriers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2007 

Mrs. SCHMIDT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to collect certain 

data pertaining to cancelled and diverted flights of air 

carriers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MONTHLY AIR CARRIER REPORTS. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor6 tation shall require under section 41708 of title 49, United 

7 States Code, each air carrier that submits to the Secretary 

8 airline service quality performance reports to also submit 

9 to the Secretary a monthly report on each flight of the 

10 air carrier that is diverted from its scheduled destination 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2662 IH

1 to another airport and each flight of the air carrier that 

2 departs the gate at the airport at which the flight origi3 nates but is cancelled before wheels-off time. 

4 (b) CONTENTS.—A report under subsection (a) shall 

5 include, at a minimum, the following information: 

6 (1) For a diverted flight— 

7 (A) the flight number of the diverted 

8 flight; 

9 (B) the scheduled destination of the flight; 

10 (C) the date and time of the flight; 

11 (D) the airport to which the flight was di12 verted; 

13 (E) wheels-on time at the diverted airport; 

14 (F) the time, if any, passengers deplaned 

15 the aircraft at the diverted airport; and 

16 (G) if the flight arrives at the scheduled 

17 destination airport— 

18 (i) the gate-departure time at the di19 verted airport; 

20 (ii) the wheels-off time at the diverted 

21 airport; 

22 (iii) the wheels-on time at the sched23 uled arrival airport; and 

24 (iv) the gate arrival time at the sched25 uled arrival airport. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2662 IH

1 (2) For flights cancelled after gate departure— 

2 (A) the flight number of the cancelled 

3 flight; 

4 (B) the scheduled origin and destination 

5 airports of the cancelled flight; 

6 (C) the date and time of the cancelled 

7 flight; 

8 (D) the gate-departure time of the can9 celled flight; and 

10 (E) the time the aircraft returned to the 

11 gate. 

12 SEC. 2. PUBLICATION. 

13 The Secretary of Transportation shall compile the in14 formation provided in the monthly reports filed pursuant 

15 to section 1 in a single monthly report and publish such 

16 report on the Web site of the Department of Transpor17 tation. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00280-CR

AMANDA CHRISTINE ADAMS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-395-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Amanda Christine Adams entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of 

possession with intent to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol within one thousand feet of a 

school, a drug free zone. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years confinement. 

We reverse and remand for a new hearing on punishment. 

In the first issue, Adams argues that the trial court abused its discretion on the 

issue of punishment because she was not permitted to present evidence prior to the 
Adams v. State Page 2

pronouncement of her sentence. The State concedes that the trial court erred by failing 

to allow Adams to present evidence relevant to sentencing before sentence was 

pronounced citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 37.07 Sec. 3 (a) (1) (West Supp. 2016); 

Borders v. State, 846 S.W.2d 834, 835 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). We sustain Adams’s first issue 

on appeal. Because of our disposition of the first issue, we need not address the second 

issue on appeal.

1 TEX.R.APP.P. 47.1.

We reverse the trial court’s sentence imposed and remand the cause back to the 

trial court for a new hearing on punishment.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Reversed and remanded

Opinion delivered and filed July 26, 2017

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

1 Because no more relief could be obtained from Appellant’s second issue than is granted herein, we need 

not address it.
#### CULLEN V. MITCHUM-MILL REMNANT CO.

(Decided April 11, 1912.)

Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. Samuel B. Browne.

No counsel marked for appellant. Boyles & Kohn, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 150.140 Must I adopt and follow written policies and procedures in exercising fiduciary powers? You must adopt and follow written policies and procedures adequate to maintain your fiduciary activities in compliance with applicable law. Among other relevant matters, the policies and procedures should address, where appropriate, the following areas: ( a ) Your brokerage placement practices.
( b ) Your methods for ensuring that your fiduciary officers and employees do not use material inside information in connection with any decision or recommendation to purchase or sell any security.
( c ) Your methods for preventing self-dealing and conflicts of interest.
( d ) Your selection and retention of legal counsel who is ready and available to advise you and your fiduciary officers and employees on fiduciary matters.
( e ) Your investment of funds held as fiduciary, including short-term investments and the treatment of fiduciary funds awaiting investment or distribution.
Home2022 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Rood, Elizabeth – Turkmenistan – August 2022

# 									Rood, Elizabeth – Turkmenistan – August 2022							

Certificate of Competency

August 31, 2022

UNITED STATES SENATE

 

SUBJECT: Ambassadorial Nomination: Certificate of Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service Act, Section 304(a)(4)

POST: Turkmenistan

CANDIDATE: Elizabeth Rood

 

Elizabeth Rood, a career member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Minister-Counselor, is the Deputy Chief of Mission, and currently Chargé d’Affaires, a.i., at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Russia. Before that, she served as a Faculty Advisor at the U.S. Army War College. Previously, she served as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tbilisi, Georgia, much of that time as Chargé d’Affaires, a.i. Prior to that, she was Political Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Earlier, Rood directed the State Department’s Office of Export Control Cooperation in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, the Office of Caucasus Affairs and Regional Conflicts in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, and the Foreign Service Institute’s Stability Operations Division. Additionally, she served as Principal Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Peshawar, Pakistan. In earlier assignments, she served as the State Department’s representative on the U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team in Paktika Province in southeastern Afghanistan, as well as Deputy to the U.S. Special Negotiator for the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria conflicts. Previous assignments include the Nonproliferation Bureau; the U.S. Mission to the International Organizations in Vienna, Austria; the U.S. Consulate General in Duesseldorf, Germany; and U.S. Embassies in Vienna, Austria, and Moscow, Russia. Rood’s demonstrated success as a leader, coupled with nearly three decades of Foreign Service experience including previous regional experience, make her a well-qualified candidate to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Turkmenistan.

 

Rood is the recipient of numerous State Department performance awards, including three Senior Foreign Service Performance Awards. A native of North Carolina, she holds an MA from the University of Maryland and an AB from Randolph-Macon Woman’s College. She speaks French, Russian, German, Pashto, Dari, and Georgian.

Back to Top
#### CHANNON-EMERY STOVE CO. v. UNITED STATES

[61 C. Cls. 37; 271 U. S. 679]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court June 1, 1926.
# C_2022309EN.01000201.xml

| 16.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 August 2022

(2022/C 309/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0285 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,47 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4395 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84715 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4515 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9689 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 140,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8130 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,380 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 392,30 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6773 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8915 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 18,4733 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4496 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3148 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,0600 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5985 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4106 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 342,59 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,7318 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,9352 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5138 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 104,20 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5709 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,246 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,393 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3007 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4925 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,9935 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0285

JPY

Japanese yen

137,47

DKK

Danish krone

7,4395

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84715

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4515

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9689

ISK

Iceland króna

140,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8130

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,380

HUF

Hungarian forint

392,30

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6773

RON

Romanian leu

4,8915

TRY

Turkish lira

18,4733

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4496

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3148

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,0600

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5985

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4106

KRW

South Korean won

1 342,59

ZAR

South African rand

16,7318

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,9352

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5138

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 104,20

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5709

PHP

Philippine peso

57,246

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,393

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3007

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4925

INR

Indian rupee

81,9935

---

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

---
42291, 42292.

#### PAYNE v. LARSEN (two cases).

Submitted September 9, 1966

Decided October 28, 1966

Rehearing denied November 14, 1966.

*Ralph Spain, George A. Durden,*for appellant.

*Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Edward W. Killorin, George W. Hart,*for appellee.

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Even assuming that the special demurrers were neither in proper form nor meritorious, the orders sustaining them must be affirmed, since it cannot be determined whether there was harmful error in the absence of the transcripts of the evidence, which appellants designated to be omitted from the records on appeal. *Whitner v. Whitner,*80 Ga. App. 831 (57 SE2d 458); *Whitner v. Whitner,*207 Ga. 97, 99 (60 SE2d 464); *Daniel v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.,*89 Ga. App. 895, 900 (81 SE2d 547); *Welfare Finance Co. v. Corbin,*91 Ga. App. 485 (85 SE2d 819).

2. The verdicts and judgments, although purportedly appealed from in the notices of appeal, were not enumerated as error and are not reviewable in the absence of any transcripts of the evidence.

*Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.*

*Frankum, J., concurs. Pannell, J., concurs specially.*

Pannell, Judge,

concurring specially. I concur in the ruling in both divisions of the opinion, but in view of Paragraph (b) of Section 13 of the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 ((Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 29) as amended by Section 1 of the Act approved March 25, 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 240) and as amended by Section 10 of the Act approved March 15, 1966 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493, 500); see *Code Ann.*§ 6-809), I feel that something further should be said. This portion of Section 13 as amended is as follows: “No appeal shall be dismissed or its validity affected for any cause or consideration of any enumerated error refused, except for (1) failure to file notice of appeal within the time required as provided in this Act or within any extension of time granted hereunder; (2) where the decision of judgment is not then applicable [appealable]; or (3) where the questions presented have become moot. At any stage of the proceedings, either before or after *595argument, the court shall by order, either with or without motion, provide for all necessary amendments, require the trial court to make corrections in the record or transcript or certify what transpired below which does not appear from the record on appeal, require that additional portions of the record or transcript of proceedings be sent up, or require that a complete transcript of evidence and proceedings be prepared and sent up, or take up any other action to perfect the appeal and record so that the appellate court can and will pass upon the appeal and not dismiss it.” In my opinion the legislature has no authority, once this court has jurisdiction of the appeal, to determine when or under what circumstances this court may refuse to consider an enumeration of error. It is also my opinion that the requirements relating to transcript and requiring this court to have a complete transcript sent up on appeal applies only where doing so would prevent a dismissal.
Exhibit 10.1

 

May 1, 2015

Mr. Larry A. Potts

Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer & Director Corporate Security

6650 S. EI Camino Road

Las Vegas, NV 89118

 

Dear Larry:

 

With regard to your Employment Agreement dated as of January 1, 2006 (executed August 2, 2006), and as amended by a letter agreement dated October 2, 2008, an amendment to the Employment Agreement dated as of December 30, 2008, a letter agreement dated September 28, 2011, and a letter agreement dated April 30, 2014 (as so amended, the “Agreement”), we are pleased to confirm the following changes to the Agreement:

 

With regard to Section 2 of the Agreement, the term will be extended from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017.  The renewal terms contained in Section 2 remain unchanged.

 

With regard to Section 3 of the Agreement, your title is revised to be Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer & Director Corporate Security, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer.

 

If these changes are agreeable, please sign an acknowledgment copy and return to me.

 

Thank you.

 

	
SCIENTIFIC   GAMES CORPORATION
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   Gary L. Melampy
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Gary   L. Melampy, VP & Chief HR Officer
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Acknowledged   this 1st day of May, 2015
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Larry A. Potts
    	
 
    
	
Larry   A. Potts
Exhibit 32(b)

             CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with  the  IGENE  Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended
September  30,  2005, as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the  date  hereof (the "Report"),  I,  Edward  J.
Weisberger,  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 the  best
of my knowledge:

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

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


Date: February 15, 2006         By:  /s/ EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                     ____________________________
                                         EDWARD J. WEISBERGER
                                         Chief Financial Officer




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.