alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                    12,231,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             15,072,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          32,354,000
<PP&E>                                     5,527,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               633,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           164,982,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     23,915,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     119,000
<OTHER-SE>                               136,613,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             164,981,000
<SALES>                                   27,568,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          27,568,000
<CGS>                                     40,892,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             29,067,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (42,391,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (42,391,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                             (42,391,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.71)







</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 400/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 400 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6324 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 400

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6324 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 400/01 | Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the role of the EU in strengthening the World Health Organization | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 400/02 | Euro exchange rates — 23 November 2020 | 4 |
| 2020/C 400/03 | Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 | 5 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2020/C 400/04 | Special Report 24/2020 ‘The Commission’s EU merger control and antitrust proceedings: a need to scale up market oversight’ | 7 |
| | European Ombudsman |
| 2020/C 400/05 | Annual Report 2019 | 8 |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2020/C 400/06 | Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries | 9 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2020/C 400/01

Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the role of the EU in strengthening the World Health Organization

1

European Commission

2020/C 400/02

Euro exchange rates — 23 November 2020

4

2020/C 400/03

Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

5

Court of Auditors

2020/C 400/04

Special Report 24/2020 ‘The Commission’s EU merger control and antitrust proceedings: a need to scale up market oversight’

7

European Ombudsman

2020/C 400/05

Annual Report 2019

8

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2020/C 400/06

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

9

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case 3:22-cr-00292-N Document 29 Filed 09/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 57
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS 

The Department of the Treasury’s FY 2010 budget request for International Programs is included 

in the State, Foreign Operations, and Other Related Programs Appropriations.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 153

Expressing the sense of the Congress in support of the President of the

Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1993

Mr. SOLOMON (for himself and Mr. GILMAN) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress in support of the

President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin.

Whereas the United States strongly supports the principle of

democracy and supports the forces of democracy throughout the world;

Whereas the Russian people, in their 1,000 year history, have

never had an opportunity to elect a truly representative

parliament in free and fair elections;

Whereas the members of the current parliament of the Russian Federation, known as the Congress of People’s Deputies, were elected under the auspices of a constitution

imposed on the peoples of the Russian Federation by the

dictatorship of the Soviet Communist Party;
2

•HCON 153 IH

Whereas a majority of those voting in the April 1993 referendum voiced their desire for early elections for a new legislature for the Russian Federation;

Whereas the President of the Russian Federation, Boris

Yeltsin, was duly elected to that office in a free, fair, and

competitive vote held in June 1991;

Whereas a majority of those voting in the April 1993 referendum voiced their support for President Yeltsin and his

policies, meant to establish truly democratic government

in the Russian Federation; and

Whereas the current political and constitutional impasse in

the Russian Federation has brought the country to a

state of deep crisis and imperils that process of democratic reform: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) recognizing the democratic intent of the ac4 tions taken by President Yeltsin on September 21,

5 1993, supports his insistence on free and fair elec6 tions to allow the peoples of the Russian Federation

7 the opportunity to elect a truly representative legis8 lature;

9 (2) applauds President Clinton for voicing his

10 firm support for the President of the Russian Fed11 eration;

12 (3) fully expects that the President of the Rus13 sian Federation will ensure that elections are held as

14 planned by December 1993; and
3

•HCON 153 IH

1 (4) calls upon the President of the United

2 States, the Secretary General of the United Nations,

3 and the community of nations to offer assistance in

4 facilitating the electoral process in the Russian Fed5 eration.

Æ
Exhibit 23.1


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-215794) pertaining to the 2013 Stock Option and Grant Plan, the 2017 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, and the 2017 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Jounce Therapeutics, Inc., of our report dated March 10, 2017, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Jounce Therapeutics, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2016.





/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston, Massachusetts


March 10, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

SILVES HUBBARD, §

PLAINTIFF, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-286-K-BK

 §

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, §

ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SSA, §

DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3-346, Plaintiff’s Petition and Brief for 

Award of Attorney Fees and Court Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, Doc. 22, is now 

before the Court for the issuance of findings and a recommended disposition. For the reasons 

that follow, Plaintiff’s application should be GRANTED.

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), a court must award attorney’s fees and 

expenses if: (1) the claimant is a “prevailing party,” (2) the position of the United States was not 

“substantially justified,” and (3) there are no special circumstances that make an award 

unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2001). The 

award of attorney’s fees must be reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).

Plaintiff seeks $3,936.02 in attorney’s fees, plus reimbursement of the $402.00 filing 

fee. Doc. 22 at 8-9. Having considered Plaintiff’s motion; Defendant’s no-opposition response,

Doc. 23, and the applicable law, the Court finds the request reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff’s Petition 

and Brief for Award of Attorney Fees and Court Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

Doc. 22, be GRANTED in the amount of $4,338.02.

Case 3:22-cv-00286-K-BK Document 24 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 672
2

EAJA awards are payable directly to the prevailing party, not the attorney. Astrue v. 

Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 592-93 (2010). Accordingly, the award of attorney’s fees should be made 

payable directly to Plaintiff but sent in care of her attorney. Jackson v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 

531 n.11 (5th Cir. 2013).

SO RECOMMENDED on January 10, 2023.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided 

by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and 

legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except 

upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th 

Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-00286-K-BK Document 24 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 673
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:02 AM 

To: Bryson, Joe; Chappell, Linda; Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: Question on 111(d) RIA table 

Nationwide you estimate that states/utilities will pay $10 billion for DS EE in 2020? If that’s the 

case, it’s a very large amount of money. 

From: Bryson, Joe [mailto:Bryson.Joe@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:58 AM 

To: Chappell, Linda; Higgins, Cortney; Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: Question on 111(d) RIA table 

Those values are correct. 

Why do you ask? 

Best, 

Joe 

Joe Bryson 

US EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division 

(202) 343-9631 

From: Chappell, Linda 

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:48 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney; Wayland, Robertj; Bryson, Joe 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry 

Subject: RE: Question on 111(d) RIA table 

Hi Courtney, 

I believe those estimates for demand side EE costs are correct. I am including Joe Bryson in this 

conversation to confirm. 
Linda 

Linda M. Chappell Ph.D. 

Air Economics Group, OAQPS, US EPA 

109 TW Alexander Drive, Mail Code C439-02 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

telephone 919-541-2864; 919-541-0839; email- chappell.linda@epa.gov 

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:46 AM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry; Chappell, Linda 

Subject: Question on 111(d) RIA table 

Hi Bob, 

Is there a typo for the table below (either in units or the values)? The pagination of what we have 

is off, because I compiled the RIA chapters in one document, but the title should be sufficient to 

find the table in the RIA. 

From RIA. Page 3A-2-19 

Table 3-6. Annualized Gross Cost of Demand-Side Energy Efficiency (3% discount rate, 

billions 2011$) 

2018 2020 2025 2030

Option 1 4.1 10.2 28.9 42.7

Option 2 3.6 8.0 20.6 29.8

 Source: Greenhouse Gas Abatement Measures TSD 

Regards, 

Cortney
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7753

LARRIANTE SUMBRY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CECIL DAVIS, Superintendent of Indiana State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-05-2779-HFF) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 22, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larriante Sumbry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Larriante Sumbry, an Indiana inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sumbry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Feris International, Inc. (the “Company”)
      hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:




(i)  The
      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal years ended: December
      31, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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





Date:
                December 26, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Patricia LinsonName:
                Patricia LinsonTitle:
                President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

April 12, 2024

SC-2024-0176

Ex parte Heratio Sanchez Moore PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: 

Heratio Sanchez Moore v. State of Alabama) (Madison Circuit Court: CC19-2561; Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-1047).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on April 12, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-361-000]

Take notice that on November 3, 2000, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers), tendered for filing an executed Non-Firm Point to Point Transmission Service Agreement with Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership (Customer) pursuant to the Joint Open Access Transmission Service Tariff filed on December 31, 1996 by Consumers and The Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison).

The agreement has an effective date of October 25, 2000.

Copies of the filed agreement were served upon the Michigan Public Service Commission, Detroit Edison, and the Customer.

                    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before November 24, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 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. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at                     *http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.*

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29590  Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Subject: Meeting with Holcim (US) Inc.

Date: September 20, 2011

Participants:

Holcim UESPA

Jason Morin Gary Gorski

Erika Guerra Nichole Distefano

Bill Bumpers

Josh Lewis

Lorie Schmidt

Janet McCabe

On September 20, 2011, a meeting was held with Holcim (US) Inc. The meeting covered THC 

and particulate matter emissions.
On behalf of JULIO A. CASTILLO, Clerk of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals,

the District of Columbia Bar does hereby certify that

Megan Ball

was duly qualified and admitted on August 31, 2021 as an attorney and counselor entitled to

practice before this Court; and is, on the date indicated below, an Active member in good

standing of this Bar.

In Testimony Whereof,

I have hereunto subscribed my

name and affixed the seal of this

Court at the City of

Washington, D.C., on August 24, 2022.

JULIO A. CASTILLO

Clerk of the Court

Issued By:

David Chu - Director, Membership

District of Columbia Bar Membership

For questions or concerns, please contact the D.C. Bar Membership Office at 202-626-3475 or email

memberservices@dcbar.org.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 35-1 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 398
February 4, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALEXSANDRA P. DANILVO N/K/A ALEXANDRA P. SCHAEFER, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00020-CV V.

JUERGEN A. SCHAEFER, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on November 19, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Treasury Inspector General For

Tax Administration FY 2024

President's Budget Request:

Summary of Capital Investments

$000,000s

Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Percent A

Capital Investments Total 3.298  ‐ 9.895  ‐ 13.193 3.711  ‐ 11.132  ‐ 14.843 3.764  ‐ 11.293  ‐ 15.057 1% 

Major IT sub‐total

non‐Major IT sub‐total 0.854  ‐ 2.563  ‐ 3.417 0.830  ‐ 2.489  ‐ 3.319 0.871  ‐ 2.612  ‐ 3.483 5% 

Standard/Non‐Standard IT sub‐total 2.444  ‐ 7.332  ‐ 9.776 2.881  ‐ 8.643  ‐ 11.524 2.894  ‐ 8.682  ‐ 11.576 1% 

IT Total 3.298  ‐ 9.895  ‐ 13.193 3.711  ‐ 11.132  ‐ 14.843 3.764  ‐ 11.293  ‐ 15.057 1% 

non‐IT Total

TIGTA Major IT Investments

TIGTA non‐Major IT Investments

Applications and Collaboration 0.854  ‐ 2.563  ‐ 3.417 0.830  ‐ 2.489  ‐ 3.319 0.871  ‐ 2.612  ‐ 3.483 5% 

015‐05‐0119‐0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.854  ‐ 2.563  ‐ 3.417 0.830  ‐ 2.489  ‐ 3.319 0.871  ‐ 2.612  ‐ 3.483 5% 

TIGTA Standard/Non‐Standard IT Investments

Cybersecurity 0.464  ‐ 1.392  ‐ 1.856 0.638  ‐ 1.915  ‐ 2.553 0.654  ‐ 1.963  ‐ 2.617 3% 

015‐05‐0101 Salaries and Expenses 0.464  ‐ 1.392  ‐ 1.856 0.638  ‐ 1.915  ‐ 2.553 0.654  ‐ 1.963  ‐ 2.617 3% 

Enterprise Architecture & Management 0.184  ‐ 0.551  ‐ 0.735 0.173  ‐ 0.519  ‐ 0.692 0.185  ‐ 0.556  ‐ 0.741 7% 

015‐05‐0119‐0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.184  ‐ 0.551  ‐ 0.735 0.173  ‐ 0.519  ‐ 0.692 0.185  ‐ 0.556  ‐ 0.741 7% 

Infrastructure End User Systems and Support 0.672  ‐ 2.015  ‐ 2.687 0.809  ‐ 2.427  ‐ 3.236 0.813  ‐ 2.439  ‐ 3.252 1% 

015‐05‐0119‐0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.672  ‐ 2.015  ‐ 2.687 0.809  ‐ 2.427  ‐ 3.236 0.813  ‐ 2.439  ‐ 3.252 1% 

Infrastructure Mainframe and Servers Services andSupport

0.581  ‐ 1.742  ‐ 2.323 0.610  ‐ 1.830  ‐ 2.440 0.619  ‐ 1.856  ‐ 2.475 1% 

015‐05‐0119‐0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.581  ‐ 1.742  ‐ 2.323 0.610  ‐ 1.830  ‐ 2.440 0.619  ‐ 1.856  ‐ 2.475 1% 

Infrastructure Telecommunications 0.544  ‐ 1.631  ‐ 2.175 0.651  ‐ 1.953  ‐ 2.604 0.623  ‐ 1.868  ‐ 2.491 ‐4% 

015‐05‐0119‐0 TIGTA Salaries and Expenses 0.544  ‐ 1.631  ‐ 2.175 0.651  ‐ 1.953  ‐ 2.604 0.623  ‐ 1.868  ‐ 2.491 ‐4% 

TIGTA non‐IT Investments

FY 2022 Actuals FY 2023 Estimated Obligations FY 2024 Estimated Obligations 

DME O&M Total DME O&M Total DME O&M Total

Change

from CY

to BY 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Summary of Capital Investments Page 1 of 1