alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Position on ADB’s Second Road Network Development Project in Azerbaijan

October 4, 2012

The United States appreciates the Bank’s clarifications on this project and notes very positive 

aspects of this project. For example, the surprisingly high cost per kilometer in this project is 

due to the need to import so much equipment and material and also to address a number of sitespecific engineering challenges. The costs are comparable to other road projects in Azerbaijan, 

all of which tend to cost more per kilometer than the regional average. The United States is also 

convinced that this project is an appropriate use of the Multitranche Financing Facility (MFF) 

despite the fact that the road being built is only 63 kilometers long. In this case, splitting the 

project into two tranches makes sense in order to spread the high cost over time and allow for 

some capacity-building along the way. 

However, the United States still has significant concerns with the project’s very high 

implementation risk. The ADB’s first MFF in this sector, approved back in 2007, suffered 

numerous delays and this proposed project is itself on ADB’s docket only because the World 

Bank has had to “defer” on it as so many of its own road projects in Azerbaijan are delayed. It is 

also troubling to read that staff in the local Project Implementation Unit are still unable to handle 

project management, especially given the robust pipeline of MDB projects in this sector over the 

years. The United States wonders whether it would have been advisable to carry out some 

standalone capacity building technical assistance first, prior to embarking on a new project. 

Under these circumstances, the United States believes that this project demands an extraordinary 

level of monitoring and supervision to keep the project disbursing and on track. 

Finally, this project has potentially significant environmental impacts, given the proximity to the 

wetlands, which merits close analysis and a robust response to minimize and avoid any negative 

impacts. The United States appreciates the additional diligence that the ADB staff invested on 

top of the World Bank’s original environmental impact assessment (EIA). However the 

disclosure of the final EIA, which took a closer look at the biodiversity impact on the wetlands 

and recommended a stronger environmental monitoring plan, did not meet the expected minimal 

period for this operation to meet U.S. legislative requirements. Early and widespread disclosure 

is an important way to mitigate environmental issues arising from a project. In addition, the 

EIA’s focus on cumulative impacts was also weak with respect to analysis on ambient air 

quality. 

With these comments in mind, and in keeping with its legislative mandate, the United States 

wishes to abstain on this loan to Azerbaijan. 

***
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2472 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 82422 Cadiz Jewett Road in Cadiz, Ohio, 

as the ‘‘John Armor Bingham Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2472 EH

1 SECTION 1. JOHN ARMOR BINGHAM POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 82422 Cadiz Jewett Road in 

4 Cadiz, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John 

5 Armor Bingham Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John Armor Bingham 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2472 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice’’. Cadiz, Ohio, as the ‘‘John Armor Bingham Post al Service located at 82422 Cadiz Jewett Road in
Exhibit 12.3

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. and SubsidiariesRATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES(THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

|                                                                     |  |   |        |  |   | For the Twelve Months Ended December 31,
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | - | ------ |  | - | ----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|Earnings                                                             |  |   |        |  |   |                                         
|Net Income                                                           |  | $ | 19,423 |  | $ | 44,799                                  
|Federal Income & State Tax                                           |  |   | 14,667 |  |   | 26,343                                  
|                                                                    
|Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax                   |  |   | 34,090 |  |   | 71,142                                  
|Fixed Charges*                                                       |  |   | 11,731 |  |   | 29,175                                  
|                                                                    
|Total Earnings Before Federal and State Income Tax and Fixed Charges |  | $ | 45,821 |  | $ | 100,317                                 
|                                                                    
|*Fixed Charges                                                       |  |   |        |  |   |                                         
|Interest on Long-Term Debt                                           |  |   | 9,342  |  |   | 19,517                                  
|Amortization of Debt Discount, Premium and Expense                   |  |   | 442    |  |   | 922                                     
|Interest Component on Lease Payment                                  |  |   | 1,058  |  |   | 1,760                                   
|Other Interest                                                       |  |   | 889    |  |   | 6,976                                   
|                                                                    
|Total Fixed Charges                                                  |  | $ | 11,731 |  | $ | 29,175                                  
|                                                                    
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                   |  |   | 3.9    |  |   | 3.4                                     
|                                                                    

---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31629]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[Sec. 5a Application No. 61]


National Classification Committee--Agreement

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Extension of deadlines for filing comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board is granting a 3-week 
extension of the deadlines for filing opening and reply comments in 
this proceeding. All other dates and deadlines remain the same.

DATES: Opening comments are now due by January 29, 1998. Reply comments 
are now due by February 26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10 copies of notices of intent to 
participate (still due by November 28, 1997) and comments, referring to 
``Section 5a Application No. 61,'' to: Surface Transportation Board, 
Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423. Opening and reply comments must be served on the 
persons identified as ``parties of record'' on the service list.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565-1600. 
[TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proceeding involves the issue of 
whether, under 49 U.S.C. 13703(d) and (e), it is in the public interest 
to renew the bureau agreement of the National Classification Committee, 
which administers the National Motor Freight Classification. For 
additional information, see the notice published in the Federal 
Register on November 13, 1997.

    Decided: November 25, 1997.

    By the Board, Vernon A. Williams, Secretary.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31629 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### Richard C. LINDSEY, Appellant, v. Billy Ray SAVAGE, Appellee.

No. 76-1242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 27, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1977.

James F. Littman, Stuart, and Charles H. Damsel, Jr., of Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Wallace B. McCall of Johnson, Ackerman & Bakst, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

Appellant suffered an adverse judgment in a suit against him for malicious prosecution. He now contends the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict for appellant because the plaintiff failed to prove two essential elements of malicious prosecution, the absence of probable cause and malice.

We have examined the briefs and record in this case in the light of appellant’s contentions and find them to be without merit. As to both issues we conclude that a jury question existed. Thus, denial of a motion for directed verdict was proper.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and PARHAM, HARRY C., Associate Judge, concur.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Continental MaterialsCorporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 29,2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JosephJ. Sum, 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-OxleyAct of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| May 13, 2003 |   |                                                      |
|--------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|         |   |                                                      |
|         |   |                                                      |
|         | By:    | /s/   Joseph J. Sum                        |   |
|         |   | Joseph J. Sum  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4843

_____________________________ G ERRY L. P ARKER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

. August 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Gerry L. Parker, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 235 (Monday, December 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31999]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-2-86-000]


Pacific Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filling

December 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 26, 1997, Pacific Gas Transmission 
Company (PGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1-A: Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 5; and as part of 
its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1: Fifteenth Revised 
Sheet No. 7. PGT requests that the above-referenced tariff sheets 
become effective January 1, 1998.
    PGT asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
Paragraphs 37 and 23 of the terms and conditions of First Revised 
Volume No. 1-A and Second Revised Volume No. 1, respectively, of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, ``Adjustment for Fuel, Line Loss and Other Unaccounted 
For Gas Percentages.'' These tariff changes reflect that PGT's fuel and 
line loss surcharge percentage will remain at 0.0007% per Dth per 
pipeline-mile for the six-month period beginning January 1, 1998. Also 
included, as required by Paragraphs 37 and 23, are workpapers showing 
the derivation of the current fuel and line loss percentage in effect 
for each month the fuel tracking mechanism has been in effect.
    PGT further states that a copy of this filing has been served on 
PGT's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed 
as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 
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 motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31999 Filed 12-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
257 La. 276

#### James D. RANKIN v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 51030.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: New York Life Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Claiborne. 240 So.2d 758.

Writ denied. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is correct.
### NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-7309 TOMMY G. GOBER,

Claimant-Appellee,

v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 05-3156, Judge Lawrence B. Nagel. ON MOTION Before MAYER, SCHALL, and MOORE Circuit Judges. 

### MOORE, Circuit Judge.
ORDER 

### The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and to remand for further proceedings. Tommy G. Gober filed a service connection claim for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide exposure, as well as a number of other claims. The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied Gober's herbicide claim. The Board determined that Gober was not entitled to the presumption of service connection due to herbicide exposure by interpreting a controlling regulation to exclude the presumption of service connection for veterans who served on ships off the coast of Vietnam but who never set foot within the land borders of Vietnam.On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims reversed the Board's

herbicide determination, interpreting the regulation so that the presumption of service connection also applied to veterans who served on ships off the coast of Vietnam but did not set foot within Vietnam's borders. The Secretary appealed to this court. We recently issued our decision in Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Haas held, inter alia, that only veterans present on the landmass or inland waters of Vietnam were entitled to the presumption of service connection due to herbicide exposure. Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erred in concluding that veterans who did not set foot within Vietnam's borders were entitled to the presumption of service connection for herbicide exposure, we remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

All sides shall bear their own costs. FOR THE COURT 

# MAR 2 7 2009 /s/

### Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly FILED Clerk U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Date

cc: Allan T. Fenley, Esq. Todd M. Hughes, Esq. s20 

# MAR 2 7 2009 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: MAR 2 7 2009
JAN HORBALY CLERK

2007-7309 2
EXHIBIT
3.10 AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS OF THE COMPANY ADOPTED 3/24/04 SECTION
3.2.  NUMBER, TERM AND
ELECTION.  (first sentence only)The number of directors
constituting the full Board of Directors shall be eight. ADOPTED 3/24/04 SECTION
2.2.  SPECIAL MEETINGS.  Special meetings of the stockholders, which may be held for any purpose
or purposes, may be called at any time by the Chairman of the Board, the Chief
Executive Officer, the President or the Board of Directors, or by any
stockholder or stockholders of record entitled to vote at such meeting,
provided such stockholder or stockholders beneficially or of record own in the
aggregate at least 25% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
Corporation. If a special meeting is called, the person calling the meeting
shall submit the request, specifying the time of such meeting and the general
nature of the business proposed to be transacted, such request to be delivered
personally, or sent by registered mail or by telegraphic or other facsimile
transmission to the Chairman of the Board, the President or the Secretary of
the Corporation. No business may be transacted at such special meeting other
than such business specified in the request. The officer receiving the request
shall cause notice to be given to the stockholders entitled to vote at such
meeting, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.4 of this Article II,
that a special meeting will be held at the time requested by such person(s)
calling the meeting, provided that such meeting is not less than ten (10) or
more than sixty (60) days after receipt of the request. This Section 2.2 may be
amended only by action of the stockholders. ADOPTED 3/24/04 SECTION
3.12.  VACANCIES AND NEWLY CREATED DIRECTORSHIPS.
Vacancies on the Board of Directors, which have occurred as a result of
stockholder action, may only be filled by action of the stockholders with or
without a stockholder meeting, until at least 20 days after such occurrence of
such vacancy, after which time such vacancies may be filled by action of the
stockholders or by the directors then in office. If at any time, by reason of
death or resignation or other cause, the Corporation should have no directors
in office, then any officer, or any stockholder, or any executor,
administrator, trustee or guardian of a stockholder, or other fiduciary
entrusted with like responsibility for the person or estate of a stockholder
may call a special meeting of the stockholders in accordance with the
provisions of these By-Laws, or may apply to the Court of Chancery for a decree
summarily ordering an election as provided in Section 211 of Delaware General
Corporation Law. This Section 3.12 may be amended only by action of the
stockholders.
UNITED STATES POSITION

PROPOSED INVESTMENT BY IFC IN MINERVA S.A. FOR MINERVA BEEF PROJECT

MAY 20, 2013

The United States would like to thank IFC staff for their extensive engagement with our office 

ahead of this proposed investment. Our conversations gave us the opportunity to understand 

better how IFC has worked with this client to design an investment in a controversial sector.

The United States would like to highlight some of the mitigating measures IFC staff has 

incorporated into this investment. This includes: the use of geographic information systems;

consideration of biodiversity conservation; indigenous people’s land rights; and controls against 

slave labor. Minerva goes further to integrate its supplier database into nation-wide supplier 

verification systems, which significantly contributes to the sustainability of this sector. The 

United States also appreciates Minerva’s adherence to Brazilian federal beef programs, the 

moratorium on Amazon beef, and prohibition on purchases of beef from suppliers whose land 

tenure rights are not valid or who use child labor.

Nevertheless, the United States requests to be recorded as abstaining on this proposed investment 

for two reasons. First, as a Category A project, this proposal does not meet the United States’ 

legislative requirements for timely disclosure of environmental impact assessments. 

Secondly, the proposal does not require the timely implementation of measures to mitigate 

environmental impacts. Minerva’s environmental and social action plan does not require 

implementation of relevant IFC Performance Standards for all its investments in Uruguay or 

Paraguay until December 2015. Although the United States recognizes it is not uncommon for 

an IFC client to come in to compliance with these policies post-Board approval, the United 

States believes that, given the project’s inherent social and environmental risks, a two and onehalf year implementation period for compliance is too long.