alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1920. BILLY THARPE PIERCE v. THE STATE.

In 2011, Billy Tharpe Pierce pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and

one count of cruelty to children in the first degree, and the trial court sentenced him

to a total of 60 years’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed his convictions on direct

appeal. See Pierce v. State, Case No. A12A0269 (affirmed May 11, 2012). Recently,

Pierce filed a motion for an out-of-time appeal, which the trial court denied on

December 13, 2017. Pierce then filed this appeal on February 23, 2018.

1 We lack

jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, Pierce’s appeal is untimely. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed

within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a).

The proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer

jurisdiction on this Court. See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756)

(1995). Because Pierce filed his notice of appeal 72 days after entry of the trial court’s

order, it is untimely. 

Second, “[a]n out-of-time appeal is a judicial creation thatserves as the remedy

for a frustrated right of appeal.” Kilgore v. State, 325Ga. App. 874, 875 (1) (756 SE2d

9) (2014). Because Pierce already has had a direct appeal, he is not entitled to an outof-time appeal. See Richards v. State, 275 Ga. 190, 191 (563 SE2d 856) (2002)

(“[T]here is no right to directly appeal the denial of a motion for out-of-time appeal

filed by a criminal defendant whose conviction has been affirmed on direct appeal.”).

1 Pierce directed his appeal to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case

here. See Pierce v. State, Case No. S18A1111 (transferred May 7, 2018).

August 02, 2018
Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/02/2018
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4691 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize the charitable 

mileage rate with the business travel rate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2022 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Ms. SMITH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to equalize 

the charitable mileage rate with the business travel rate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer Driver Tax 

5 Parity Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CHARITABLE MILEAGE RATE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 170(i) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(i) STANDARD MILEAGE RATE FOR USE OF PAS10 SENGER AUTOMOBILE.— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4691 IS

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of computing 

2 the deduction under this section for use of a pas3 senger automobile, the standard mileage rate shall 

4 be— 

5 ‘‘(A) during any taxable year beginning 

6 after December 31, 2021, and before January 

7 1, 2024, the standard mileage rate with respect 

8 to use of a passenger automobile for purposes 

9 of determining the deduction allowable under 

10 sections 162 and 212, and 

11 ‘‘(B) during any taxable year beginning 

12 after December 31, 2023, 24 cents per mile. 

13 ‘‘(2) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—In the case of 

14 any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 

15 2024, the 24 cents amount in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) 

16 shall be increased by an amount equal to— 

17 ‘‘(A) 24 cents, multiplied by 

18 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter19 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

20 year in which the taxable year begins, deter21 mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2023’ for 

22 ‘calendar year 2016’ in subparagraph (A)(ii) 

23 thereof. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4691 IS

1 Any increase determined under the preceding sen2 tence which is not a multiple of 1 cent shall be 

3 rounded to the nearest multiple of 1 cent.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 December 31, 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Climate in Zion National Park 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Temperature (°F) 

Average high 54 59 66 75 86 95 100 99 91 79 64 54 

Average low 30 34 39 45 54 63 70 68 61 48 37 30 

Record high 73 90 91 95 106 114 115 111 110 99 86 81 

Record low –15 0 10 21 19 36 41 36 33 18 6 –5 

Days above 100°F 0 0 0 0 0 6 16 10 2 0 0 0 

Days below 32°F 20 13 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 18 

Precipitation (inches) 

Average 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.3 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.6 

Record high 9.3 6.7 7.1 5.4 3.0 4.0 4.9 5.1 6.7 5.5 4.0 4.7 

Record daily snowfall 12.5 8.0 7.2 4.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.5 8.0 

Days with thunderstorms 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 14.0 15.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
No. 89-1022.

#### Pepsico, Inc. *v.*Sharp.

Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:20-cv-22578-MGC Document 11-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2020 Page 9 of 9
HomeAbout NRCGrant Opportunities

# Contact Us About Grant Opportunities

For answers to many frequently asked questions, see our Grant Opportunities pages. If after reviewing these pages you wish to send us a comment or question, select a grants category and complete appropriate sections of the form.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Grant Awards
          - Frequently Asked Questions
          - Contact Us About Grant Opportunities

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 8, 2020
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section




National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Historic Preservation Tax Incentives





Contact Us
  Case  Studies of Successful Projects
 About the Incentives About the Incentives
20% Credit Basics
Annual and Statistical Reports Archive
 These featured case studies highlight projects across the country that successfully used the 20% tax credit. This credit is the largest Federal program specifically supporting historic preservation. It generates much needed jobs and economic activity, enhances property values in older communities, creates affordable housing, and augments revenue for Federal, state and local governments, leveraging many times its cost in private expenditures on historic preservation. Choose a topic below to see how this program has been instrumental in preserving the historic buildings and places that give our cities, towns, Main Streets, and rural areas their special character. Adapted for a New Use
Affordable Housing
Community Centers and Services
Continued Historic Use
Disaster Recovery
Green Rehabilitation Projects
Industrial Properties
Neighborhood Revitalization
Recreational Properties
 Last updated: September 17, 2022
 Tools Site Index
Contact Us


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### § 4100.0-8 Land use plans.

The authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on public lands under the principle of multiple use and sustained yield, and in accordance with applicable land use plans. Land use plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination), related levels of production or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource condition goals and objectives to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve management objectives. Livestock grazing activities and management actions approved by the authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as defined at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(b).

[53 FR 10233, Mar. 29, 1988]
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section




National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Contact Us
  Return to Previous Page
 Thing to Do
Tent Camping on the Natchez Trace
Natchez Trace Parkway, Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail two blue tents are set up surrounded by grass and green leaves of the trees.Tent Camping at the Meriwether Lewis Site on the Natchez Trace Parkway
NPS Photo three campgrounds All camping must take place within designated campgrounds. bicycle-only campgrounds   Alerts & Conditions
 Duration
2-14 Days
 
 Pets Allowed
Yes
 Activity Fee
No
 
 
 Season
Year Round
 Natchez Trace Parkway, Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail Tags natchez trace parkway
natchez trace national scenic trail
camping
tent camping
tent
natchez trace
natchez trace parkway
mississippi
tennessee
 
 Tags natchez trace parkway
natchez trace national scenic trail
camping
tent camping
tent
natchez trace
natchez trace parkway
mississippi
tennessee
 Last updated: April 10, 2023


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Yellowstone
National Park
ID, MT, WY


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Rumor Control
 Embed
Embed Video

Close
Copy
Visit our keyboard shortcuts docs for details
Duration:2 minutes, 2 secondsShould you worry about earthquakes near North America's largest volcano? Are animals fleeing the park? Public Affairs Chief Al Nash sets the record straight on a few stories circulating about Yellowstone.
 Last updated: August 24, 2018
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: PO Box 168
Yellowstone National Park,
WY
82190-0168
 Phone: 307-344-7381 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
#### Union Pacific Railroad Company v. John Westlund, Administrator.*

Filed December *7,*1904.

No. 13,203.

Error to the district court for Daivson county: Homer M. Sullivan, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*John N. Baldwin*and *Edson Rich,*for plaintiff in error.

*Warrington & Stewart, George W. Thomas, H. M. Sinclair*and *Roscoe Pound, contra.*

*

 Rehearing allowed. See opinion, p. 734, *post.*

Ames, C.

The record in this case is substantially identical with that in *Union P. R. Co. v. Fickenscher, ante,*p. 187, and the opinion in that case is therefore decisive of this.

It is recommended that the judgment of the district court be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Oldham, C.,

concurs.

*734By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Reversed.

The following opinion on rehearing was filed December 7, 1906. *Judgment of reversal adhered to:*

Sedgwick, C. J.

This action was brought in the district court for Dawson county to recover damages caused by a fire alleged to have originated in the carelessness of the defendant. The case was argued and submitted with the motion for rehearing in the case of *Union P. R. Co. v. Fickenscher, ante,*p. 187, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed.
(No. 1146

Claimant awarded $3,750.00.)

#### David Anderson, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Equity and good *conscience*— when *award may he made.*Although the State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees, while in the performance of their duty, yet an award may be made as a matter of equity and good conscience in his favor, and compensation fixed according to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Gilson Brown, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank R. Eagleton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered .the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by David Anderson, a patrolman employed by the Highway Department of the State of Illinois, on Roads 3 and 4 in Madison county, on account of injuries sustained by him in the following manner: On October 6, 1925, he was assisting his supervisor, Edward M. Stubblefield, in placing a barricade about one-quarter of a mile north of Name old, where some repair work was being done. It was *378about dusk in the evening and Mr. Anderson was placing red lanterns and putting up the barricades. He had his work about completed, the lights were up, and as he stepped inside the barricade to put another piece along the center of the road an approaching automobile, running at a rapid rate of speed, crashed into the barricade, knocked the barricade against Mr. Anderson, pushing him over into a ditch, face downward in about ten inches of water. He was rendered unconscious, was pulled out of the ditch by his supervisor, Mr. Stubblefield, who was the only witness to the accident, and taken home by a passing automobile. He suffered a severe blow to his head, an injury to his breast and hip, and was confined to his home in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital at Granite City, where he was later removed, for a period of over a month. Since leaving the hospital in December, 1925, he has not been able to do any work; walks with a cane and is a physical wreck; that nurses’ bills, amounting to $84.00 and $144.00-have not been paid; that hospital and doctor bills have not been paid, and that claimant is permanently disabled and wholly incapacitated from performing any labor.

A demurrer filed by the Attorney General of the State of Illinois to the declaration is sustained, as a matter of law.

On the grounds of equity and good conscience, we believe that the claimant in this case should receive an award, and we accordingly award to him the sum of $3,750.00, being the amount he would be entitled to receive were. he employed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# 10 CFR 31.5 (c) (9):  Aircraft at "Particular Location"

## HPPOS-137 PDR-9111210369

See the memorandum from J. R. Wolf to N. Bassin dated March 13, 1979.

This OELD opinion states that under 10 CFR 31.5 (c) (9) (i), transfers to general licensees are permitted under this provision only if "the device remains in use at a particular location." An acceptable interpretation of this language is that a specific airplane should be regarded as a "particular location."

The basis for this opinion is that the "particular location" requirement appears in the regulations "to achieve a workable system for identifying users under the general license" (Statement of Consideration, 39 FR 43531, December 16, 1974). Because of the documentation requirements applicable to aircraft, transfers between the manufacturing company and an airline, or between subsequent parties in possession should in no way impair the Commission's ability to identify the users. In addition, a report to the Commission will be required under the second sentence of 10 CFR 31.5 (c) (9) (i).

**Regulatory references:**10 CFR 31.5

**Subject codes:** 3.5, 3.8

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Lathrop Brown, Respondent, v. Walter Cozzens and Others, as Members of and Together Constituting the Board of Inspectors of Elections of Election District No. 9, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, and Others, Respondents. Frederick C. Hicks, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 5.)

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Order modified in accordance with opinion in *People ex rel. Brown*v. *Freisch, No. 1 (ante,*p. 370), decided herewith, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order to be settled before the presiding justice.
### §3233. Short title

This chapter may be cited as the "Railroad Retirement Tax Act."

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 438.)
### §4025. Grant program

#### (a) General authority

The Secretary is authorized to award grants to Indian tribes for the purpose of developing and implementing plans for the investment of Indian tribal trust funds.

#### (b) Use of funds

The purposes for which funds provided under this section may be used include (but are not limited to)—

(1) the training and education of employees responsible for monitoring the investment of trust funds;

(2) the building of tribal capacity for the investment and management of trust funds;

(3) the development of a comprehensive tribal investment plan;

(4) the implementation and management of tribal trust fund investment plans; and

(5) such other purposes related to this subchapter that the Secretary deems appropriate.

(Pub. L. 103–412, title II, §205, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4243.)
1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2479

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Michael S. Shirley, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2001

Filed: January 14, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, HANSEN, Circuit Judge, and BATTEY,1

 District

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael S. Shirley appeals from the district court’s2

 refusal to hold an

evidentiary hearing on his motion for downward departure. We affirm.
-2-

On March 1, 2001, Shirley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine and to criminal forfeiture. On May 11, 2001, Shirley filed a

motion for downward departure on the basis of his physical condition, U.S.S.G. §

5H1.4 (2001), and on the basis of an over-representation of the seriousness of his

criminal history as reflected in the criminal history category, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3

(2001). The motion included a request for an evidentiary hearing and was

accompanied by a brief in support of the motion. On May 14, 2001, the district court

issued an order denying the motion for an evidentiary hearing and for downward

departure. On May 31, 2001, the district court sentenced Shirley to 188 months of

imprisonment and four years of supervised release.

Conceding that the district court was aware of its authority to depart downward

and that its decision not to do so is thus unreviewable, Shirley contends that the

district court abused its discretion by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the

motion for downward departure.

The United States Sentencing Guidelines require that the district court afford

the parties “adequate opportunity to present information to the court regarding”

disputed sentencing factors. U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a) (2001). The court must resolve the

disputed factors in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c)(1).

U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(b) (2001). Rule 32(c)(1) requires that the district court “afford

counsel . . . the opportunity to comment on the probation officer’s determinations .

. . and must rule on any unresolved objections to the presentence report. The court

may, in its discretion, permit the parties to introduce testimony or other evidence on

the objections.” See also, United States v. Granados, 202 F.3d 1025, 1027-28 (8th

Cir. 2000); United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 404 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Shirley’s brief in support of the motion for downward departure contained

pertinent facts and argument that informed the district court of the bases for the
-3-

motion. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for

an evidentiary hearing. 

 The sentence is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
###### Editorial Note on Part 126

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 126.301 Is there any other way for a concern to obtain certification?

No. SBA certification is the only way to qualify for HUBZone program status.