alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Position

Proposed IFC Investment in Braskem Idesa S.A.P.I. for the Etileno XXI Project

May 17, 2012

The United States thanks staff and management for their responsiveness to questions, especially 

on the environmental issues for which the IFC is effectively leading for external financiers. The 

United States has had a long dialogue with IFC staff, as well as with staff from other 

development institutions that are co-investing along IFC in this project.

The United States appreciates the significant economic benefits that this project will generate for 

Mexico. Reform of the hydrocarbons sector through greater private sector participation should 

contribute to long-term sustainability of this sector. This is the first major petrochemical project 

in Mexico to be undertaken by a private sector company in more than 20 years, and is by far the 

largest foreign direct investment by a Brazilian company. 

Notwithstanding these positive aspects of the operation, the United States has serious questions

about the adequacy of IFC’s additionality, given the globalized market for petrochemical 

investments, the financial strength of the companies, the high profitability of the project, and the 

potential for the sponsors to finance this through increased equity shares and loans from 

commercial banks. Braskem and its parent companies - Odebrecht and Petrobras - have strong 

balance sheets, have been able to raise significant capital on the markets and have financed other 

petrochemical investments and acquisitions in recent years. 

In addition, the United States would like to highlight several environmental issues. The lack of 

recent established baseline data for air, water and noise quality for this highly industrialized area, 

makes it hard to determine if this project, as constructed and operated, will comply with IFC 

standards. For a project of this magnitude, baseline data should be part of the initial assessment. 

The United States appreciates staff's clarification that a corrective action plan would be legally 

required for non-compliant levels of air, water, or noise pollution. The United States expects that 

corrective action plans will require steps to ensure that the IFC pollution limits for ambient air, 

water and noise are not exceeded.

Therefore, consistent with our position when this project was considered at the Inter-American 

Development Bank, the United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on additionality and 

environmental policy grounds.
Exhibit
8.1

SUBSIDIARIES
OF SCORPIO TANKERS INC.

|                                            |  |                                                
|------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Company                                     |  | Incorporated
    in                            
|                                            |  |                                                
|Noemi
    Shipping Company Limited          |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|Senatore
    Shipping Company Limited       |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|Venice
    Shipping Company Limited         |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Harmony Shipping Company Limited    |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Heritage Shipping Company Limited   |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Conqueror Shipping Company Limited  |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Matador Shipping Company Limited    |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Gladiator Shipping Company Limited  |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Highlander Shipping Company Limited |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Spirit Shipping Company Limited     |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Coral Shipping Company Limited      |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Diamond Shipping Company Limited    |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Amber Shipping Company Limited      |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Topaz Shipping Company Limited      |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Ruby Shipping Company Limited       |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Garnet Shipping Company Limited     |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Onyx Shipping Company Limited       |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Sapphire Shipping Company Limited   |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Emerald Shipping Company Limited    |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|STI
    Chartering and Trading Limited      |  | The
    Republic of The Marshall Islands       
|Sting
    LLC                               |  | State
    of Delaware, United States of America
|                                            |  |
257 La. 611

#### Louis L. EDMONSTON v. Eddie J. BADEAUX et al.

No. 51121.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1971.

In re: Eddie J. Badeaux and Carey A. Martin applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension. 242 So.2d 58.

Writ denied. There is no error of law in the judgment complained of.
256 La. 778

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Charles A. PATOUT et al.

No. 50614.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 236 So.2d 40.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                           1,876
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  343,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    348,431
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               709,646
<PP&E>                                         338,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                 172,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 906,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          520,835
<BONDS>                                         79,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,379
<OTHER-SE>                                     182,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   906,361
<SALES>                                      1,206,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,206,766
<CGS>                                        1,115,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,115,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,818
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (59)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 228 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.228

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, as the ``Norma Comnick Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NORMA COMNICK POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2141 Ferry Street in Anderson, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Norma Comnick Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Norma 
Comnick Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
World Bank’s Greater Beirut Water Supply Project, Lebanon 

U.S. Position 

December 16, 2010 

The Greater Beirut Water Supply Project for Lebanon will help address Greater Beirut region’s 

severe water supply problems, which impede economic growth and public welfare. The project 

positively extends collaboration between the World Bank and the Lebanese Authorities to 

improve the delivery of essential services to the people, particularly poorer households. The 

project will construct a wastewater treatment plant and a network of tunnels to transport water 

that will be piped to storage reservoirs in Hadath and Hazmieh and enhance the capacity of the 

Beirut Mount Lebanon Water Establishment. 

While this project’s aims are noble and will address a critical need, the United States is 

reluctantly abstaining for the following reasons. 

1. Untimely Disclosure of the Resettlement Action Plan: The disclosure of the RAP did not 

meet the Bank’s disclosure policy. In addition, since the full RAP was not disclosed publicly in 

hard copy or in Arabic, the RAP’s executive summary should have provided more detail on the 

implementation schedule and the compensation process for local residents. 

2. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): The EIA left gaps that, experience shows, 

merit attention. For example, it left unclear the potential for and impact of future water diversion 

and the handling of large volumes of spoil from excavation. 

3. Public Consultations: The United States is concerned that consultations were not widely 

advertised among affected peoples and were not well attended. Given Lebanon’s political and 

social environment, and this project’s history, the Bank should have advocated for more 

comprehensive consultations.
EXHIBIT 32.1
  CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of PREMIER OIL FIELD SERVICES, INC. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 his 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 operation of the Company.
 
 /s/ Lewis Andrews

President and Chief Executive officer

Dated: April 12, 2011



/s/ Lewis Andrews

President, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer

Dated: April 12, 2011
  This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31,
2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert D. Pomeroy,
Jr., as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:



(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.



|/s/ Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr. |                                                 
|-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------
|Name:                      | Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr.                          
|Title:                     | Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board



Date: March 6, 2018
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2006

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 6/29 7/3 7/6 15.00 15.00 14.00 46.00 -2.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 7/6 7/10 7/13 15.00 15.00 14.00 38.00 6.00

7/13 7/17 7/20 15.00 16.00 14.00 41.00 4.00

7/20 7/24 7/27 23.00 16.00 15.00 46.00 8.00

7/27 7/31 8/3 27.00 17.00 15.00 47.00 12.00

8/3 8/7 8/10 27.00 17.00 15.00 47.00 12.00

8/10 8/14 8/17 27.00 17.00 16.00 47.00 13.00

8/17 8/21 8/24 20.00 18.00 16.00 56.00 -2.00

8/24 8/28 8/31 18.00 18.00 16.00 61.00 -9.00

8/31 9/5 9/7 15.00 18.00 16.00 61.00 -12.00

9/7 9/11 9/14 12.00 18.00 16.00 61.00 -15.00

9/14 9/18 9/21 12.00 17.00 15.00 52.00 -8.00

9/21 9/25 9/28 12.00 17.00 15.00 48.00 -4.00

654.00 651.00 3.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

14-DAY BILL 8/29 8/31 9/1 25.00 25.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

8-DAY BILL 9/5 9/6 9/7 12.00 12.00 0.00

Matures 9/15

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS 7/10 7/13 7/17 9.00 17.22 -8.22

20-Year TIPS (R) 7/20 7/25 7/31 7.00 1.00

2-Year Note 7/24 7/26 7/31 22.00

5-Year Note 7/24 7/27 7/31 14.00 22.52 20.48

3-Year Note 8/2 8/7 8/15 21.00

10-Year Note 8/2 8/9 8/15 13.00

30-Year Note ® 8/2 8/10 8/15 12.00 -2.00 22.38 23.62

2-Year Note 8/24 8/29 8/31 22.00

5-year Note 8/24 8/30 8/31 14.00 23.81 12.19

10-Year Note (R) 9/7 9/12 9/15 8.00 8.00

2-Year Note 9/25 9/27 10/2 * 22.00

5-year Note 9/25 9/28 10/2 * 14.00 23.66 12.34

178.00 109.58 56.07

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 59.07

R = Reopening

* The September two and five-year note auctions settle in October and thereby are not part of this quarter's cash flow.
#### Harry KATZ, Jr., Appellant, v. Gregory D. GALPHIN, Appellee.

No. HH-58.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 30, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 3, 1978.

*791Harry Katz, Jr. of Katz & Katz, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Frank D. Upchurch, Jr. of Upchurch & Upchurch, St. Augustine, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record, the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties, we find there is competent substantial evidence to support the final judgment and no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and McLANE, RALPH M., Associate Judge, concur.

BOYER, J., dissents.

BOYER, Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

This case involves a dispute between a homeowner and a builder regarding a contract whereby the builder agreed to build a home for the owner on property owned by the owner in accordance with plans and specifications furnished by the owner’s architect. The record reveals that all parties agree that there was a clear understanding from the very beginning that the owner would insist upon quality work and rigid adherence to the plans and specifications. After many months of haggling the owner finally took over the job and completed the building. The builder sued the owner, alleging in Count I of his complaint a breach of contract by failure on the part of the owner to pay the builder a progress payment and sought by Count II a recovery on the theory of quantum meruit.

The evidence is, of course, conflicting on most issues. However, there is no conflict as to the clear understanding and contractual arrangement for quality construction in accordance with the plans and specifications. The record is equally clear that there were substantial deviations from those requirements. Accordingly, in my view, “substantial compliance” was insufficient. The owner knew what he wanted and was willing to pay the price. The builder was aware of the owner’s desires, acquiesced therein and agreed thereto. The owner was therefore entitled to that to which the parties agreed, quality construction in accordance with the plans and specifications.

The case was tried before the court without a jury whereupon a final judgment was entered in favor of the builder for the sum of $18,000.00. There is no indication as to which Count of the complaint recovery was allowed nor is there any explanation of the amount of the judgment.

. Taking the evidence in its light most favorable to the appellee builder, as we must on appeal, the record clearly reveals that upon considering the amount claimed by the builder to be due and the amounts required to. have been expended by the owner to complete the home in accordance with the plans and specifications and to correct deficiencies and deviations from the plans and specifications, the maximum amount of recovery to which the plaintiff (builder) could have been entitled was $4,810.98. Accordingly, I would reverse.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2381 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2381

  To extend the funding authorization for the America's Agricultural 
             Heritage Partnership, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 8, 2021

  Mrs. Axne introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the funding authorization for the America's Agricultural 
             Heritage Partnership, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting the 
Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area Act''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING AUTHORIZATION AND CAP.

    (a) Funding Authorization.--Section 707 of division II of the 
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
333) is amended by striking ``September 30, 2021'' and inserting 
``September 30, 2036''.
    (b) Total Funding Cap.--Section 708(a) of division II of the 
Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
333) is amended by striking the last sentence.

SEC. 3. REDESIGNATION OF HERITAGE AREA.

    (a) Redesignation.--The America's Agricultural Heritage Partnership 
established by section 703 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands 
Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 104-333) is 
hereby redesignated and shall be known as the ``Silos & Smokestacks 
National Heritage Area''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the heritage area 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
Silos & Smokestacks National Heritage Area.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32136]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-73-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

December 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with 
an effective date of January 1, 1998:

41 Revised Sheet No. 50
41 Revised Sheet No. 51

    Northern states that the filing revises the current GSR surcharge 
which is designed to recover Northern's gas supply realignment costs 
and applicable carrying charges. Therefore, Northern has filed the 41 
Revised Sheet No. 50 and 51 to revise the GSR surcharge effective 
January 1, 1998.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to 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 and Regulations. All such petitions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make Protestant a party 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 inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32136 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M