alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 2:20-cv-14187-KMM

JOHN TRIPODI, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner John Tripodi’s pro se Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (“Pet.”) (ECF No. 1). The matter was 

referred to the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, United States Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report 

and Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s Petition be DISMISSED as time barred. 

(“R&R”) (ECF No. 13). Petitioner did not file objections and the time to do so has passed. The 

matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Reid makes the following findings: (1) Petitioner 

is not entitled to statutory tolling under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d); (2) Petitioner is not entitled to 

equitable tolling; (3) failure to review this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition on the merits will not result 

in a fundamental miscarriage of justice; (4) Petitioner has not met his burden for establishing the 

need for an evidentiary hearing; and (5) Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. 

R&R at 3–10. This Court agrees. 

Case 2:20-cv-14187-KMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2020 Page 1 of 2
2 

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Petition, the R&R, the pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 13) is ADOPTED. Petitioner John Tripodi’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED and no certificate of appealability shall issue. 

The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED 

AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ___ day of October, 2020. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

30th

Case 2:20-cv-14187-KMM Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/30/2020 Page 2 of 2
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 00-004 January 01, 2000

ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

TRANSITION SAFELY THROUGH Y2K ROLLOVER

Four nuclear power plants in California and one in Washington in the

Pacific Time Zone have reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that

they have transitioned safely through the Y2K rollover.

As of 3:15 a.m. E.S.T., the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear

plants in California and Washington Nuclear reported no operational

problems to the NRC after midnight. This completes the successful

transition of all 103 operating nuclear plants and two gaseous diffusion

facilities through the Y2K transition.

Although all of the commercial nuclear power plants have completed the

rollover into the new millennium, the NRC will continue to closely monitor

operations in the coming days when other problems might arise.

Years of hard work by the NRC and the nuclear industry have paid off

in a smooth transition through the new millennium, NRC Chairman Richard A.

Meserve said.

##
# TITLE 27—INTOXICATING LIQUORS

Chap.
Sec.
1.
General Provisions [Repealed]
1
2.
Prohibition of Intoxicating Beverages [Repealed, Omitted, or Transferred]
11
2A.
Beer, Ale, Porter, and Similar Fermented Liquor [Repealed or Omitted]
64a
3.
Industrial Alcohol [Omitted]
71
4.
Penalties [Repealed]
91
5.
Prohibition Reorganization Act of 1930 [Repealed]
101
6.
Transportation in Interstate Commerce
121
7.
Liquor Law Repeal and Enforcement Act [Omitted]
151
8.
Federal Alcohol Administration Act
201
9.
Liquor Enforcement Act of 1936 [Repealed]
221
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.B


                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2002 of El Paso Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Company") as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Keith B. Forman, Chief Financial Officer of El Paso Energy Partners Company,
general partner of El Paso Energy Partners, L.P., certify (i) that the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



                                       /s/ Keith B. Forman
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Keith B. Forman
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       El Paso Energy Partners Company, general
                                       partner of El Paso Energy Partners, L.P.

                                       August 13, 2002
HomeAbout NRCEEO/Civil Rights ProgramEqual Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights ProgramInternal Civil Rights ProgramHow to File an EEO Complaint

# EEO Counselors

EEO counselors provide guidance on informal approaches for resolving EEO conflicts at the lowest level. EEO counselors are available to all employees (current and former) and applicants for employment who feel they have been discriminated against because of their race, color, national origin, religion (including reasonable accommodation for religious practice), gender (including gender-based wage discrimination or harassment), age (40 and over), mental or physical disability (including reasonable accommodation), sexual orientation, and/or genetic information. In addition, EEO counselors are available to all employees (current and former) and applicants, who believe they have been subjected to reprisal or workplace harassment for participating in a protected activity or opposing practices made unlawful by the related Federal Civil Rights Statutes, Regulations, and Policies.

If you have an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) concern that involves the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), you may contact an NRC EEO counselor in the related headquarters or regional office, as identified in the following tables on this page:
        - Headquarters
        - Region I
        - Region II
        - Region III
        - Region IV

If you need assistance in obtaining an EEO counselor, have questions regarding the EEO Complaint Process or the agency’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program, or need a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in any part of the EEO complaint process, please contact Jeanne Dempsey, Deputy Director (301-415-7380). Determinations regarding requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.

## Headquarters

## Region I

## Region II

## Region III

## Region IV

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 01, 2024
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 8

**Question 8:** Under what circumstances are planned special exposures permitted?

**Answer:** The statement of considerations indicates that the intent of the planned special exposure was that it be used infrequently in circumstances where the elimination of the 5 (N-18) lifetime cumulative limit might create a severe handicap to the licensee's operation. See Regulatory Guide 8.N6, for further detailed guidance.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1206)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel CASTORENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-10996.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Delonia Anita Watson, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jose Angel Castoreña, Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, pro se.

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Angel Castoreña, federal prisoner # 23875-077, appeals the denial of his mo*182tion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that he is entitled to a reduced sentence under Amendment 505 to the Sentencing Guidelines and the Supreme Court’s decisions in *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

A district court exercises sound discretion in determining whether to grant a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2) motion, and we review its decision for abuse of discretion only. *United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas,*105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Castorena’s motion. This court’s previous opinion denying relief under § 3582(c)(2) with respect to Douglas’s Amendment 505 claim is the law of the case. *See United States v. Becerra,*155 F.3d 740, 752 (5th Cir.1998). Castorena’s *Blakely*and *Booker*claims are not cognizable in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because neither case is based on a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines. *See United States v. Shaw,*30 F.3d 26, 29 (5th Cir.1994).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### §658. Compensation of arbitrators and neutrals

(a) Compensation.—The district court shall, subject to regulations approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States, establish the amount of compensation, if any, that each arbitrator or neutral shall receive for services rendered in each case under this chapter.

(b) Transportation Allowances.—Under regulations prescribed by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, a district court may reimburse arbitrators and other neutrals for actual transportation expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of duties under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4662; amended Pub. L. 105–315, §10, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2997.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to compensation of arbitrators and neutrals for provisions relating to district courts that may authorize arbitration.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra, J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 2, 2012 

# Order

March 2, 2012

144517(88)(89)

NIGHTWATCH CAPITAL GROUP, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellee,
SC: 144517
v CoA 299378
Oakland CC: 08-096312-CZ QUESTOR MANAGEME NT COMPANY, L.L.C., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

___________________ ___________________

On order of the Chief Justice, motions for the temporary admission to practice of
Lawrence J. Fox and Charles J. Vinicombe are considered and they are granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4460 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
regularly review and update policies and manuals related to inspections 
                           at ports of entry.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eradicating Narcotic Drugs and 
Formulating Effective New Tools to Address National Yearly Losses of 
life Act'' or the ``END FENTANYL Act''.

SEC. 2. ENSURING TIMELY UPDATES TO U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION 
              FIELD MANUALS.

    (a) In General.--Not less frequently than triennially, the 
Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall review and 
update, as necessary, the current policies and manuals of the Office of 
Field Operations related to inspections at ports of entry to ensure the 
uniform implementation of inspection practices that will effectively 
respond to technological and methodological changes designed to 
disguise illegal activity, such as the smuggling of drugs and humans, 
along the border.
    (b) Reporting Requirement.--Shortly after each update required 
under subsection (a), the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Homeland 
Security of the House of Representatives that summarizes the policy and 
manual changes implemented by such update.

            Passed the Senate December 14, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 4460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to 
regularly review and update policies and manuals related to inspections 
                           at ports of entry.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61213-CIV-SMITH/VALLE

STEPHEN WATKINS,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant. 

 /

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation 

on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion and Petition for Attorney’s Fees [DE 36], which recommends

granting Plaintiff’s Consent Motion and Petition for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2412(d) [DE 35]. No objections have been filed. 

Accordingly, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motion, the 

record, and given that no objections have been filed, it is

ORDERED that:

1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Unopposed 

Motion and Petition for Attorney’s Fees [DE 36] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and 

incorporated by reference into this Court’s Order.

2) Plaintiff’s Consent Motion and Petition for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2412(d) [DE 35] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded 

Case 0:20-cv-61213-RS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

$7,167.94 in attorney’s fees, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel once the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes no debt to the United States.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 11th day of January, 2023.

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61213-RS Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/11/2023 Page 2 of 2
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Regarding Transfer of Control of a Corporation Holding NRC Licensees

## HPPOS-124 PDR-9111210287

See the letter from V. L. Miller to A. C. Myers (Attorney at Law) dated March 24, 1981.

NRC approval for transfer of control of a corporation, which owns subsidiaries with NRC licenses, is not required if (1) the name of the licensee does not change, and (2) the personnel actually involved in licensed operations are not substantially changed.

HPPOS-257 contains a related topic. Guidance was sought concerning NRC policy regarding transfer of control of a corporation that owns two subsidiaries holding NRC source material licenses. NRC approval would not be required on such a transfer, provided that (1) the name of the licensee does not change, and (2) the personnel actually involved in the day-to-day licensed operations are not substantially changed. Otherwise, an application for license amendment should be submitted by the subsidiary for NRC review. Also, a license amendment must be applied for if expansion or relocation of the places of use of radioactive material are planned.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 30.34, 10 CFR 40.46, 10 CFR 70.36

**Subject codes:** 3.8, 12.19

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lee H. Allen, 

Present — - Taylor, P. J., McCum, Love, Vaughan and Piper, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfonso ELIZALDE-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40070.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alfonso Elizalde-Sanchez (Elizalde) appeals his sentence for being present in the United States after having been deported following a felony conviction. For the first time on appeal, Elizalde asserts that the district court’s belief during sentencing that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory, is reversible error under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). In his plea agreement, Elizalde waived his right to appeal *270his sentence, and this waiver encompasses his *Booker*claim. *See United States v. Burns,*433 F.3d 442, 446-50 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir.2005). This portion of the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Elizalde asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. Elizalde’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Elizalde contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *AlmendarezTorres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Elizalde properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
10.79


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO MANUFACTURE AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT


 


This
First Amendment to the Manufacture and Supply Agreement (the “First Amendment”) is made effective as of December 23,
2020 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Pharmaceutics International, Inc. (“PII”) and AIM
Immuno Tech Inc. (“Customer”).


 


EXPLANATORY
STATEMENT


 


PII
and Customer entered into a Manufacture and Supply Agreement dated as of December, December 22, 2020 (the “Agreement”).
The parties have agreed to amend the terms of the Agreement upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Capitalized terms
not otherwise defined herein shall be as defined in the Agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements set forth herein and in the Agreement, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


The
following language shall be added to Section 16 Miscellaneous.


 


“16.12
Customer is a public company therefore, any agreements in Customer’s judgement, that are required to be publicly disclosed
as a material event under Federal and state securities laws, rules and regulations, including events that AIM has customarily
disclosed in the past, including this agreement, will be considered material and as such reports will be filed in AIMs 8K, 10K
and 10Qs that address Customer’s contractual relationships.”


 


Except
as modified by the terms of this First Amendment, the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect and, by their signatures
below, the parties hereto agree to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as amended hereby.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First Amendment under seal as of the Effective Date.


 


	AIM
    IMMUNOTECH INC.	 	PHARMACEUTICS
    INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Peter W. Rodino, III, J.D.	 	By:	/s/
    John Guthrie
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:
    	Peter
    W. Rodino, III, J.D.	 	Name:	John
    Guthrie
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:
    	Chief
    Operating Officer	 	Title:	CFO
M&I 2003 Sch B-3B F.Z07.xls

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

SCHEDULE OF M&I VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO BE APPLIED IN FY 2004 ACCOUNTING

2005 M&I WATER RATES

(REFLECTED IN 2005 DEFICIT/CAPITAL RATES)

Date Voluntary Payments 

Facility/Contractor Payments Received Deficit * Capital ** ToContra Costa Canal

Contra Costa WD 68,266.00 9/5/03 1/ 68,266.00 68,266.

55,506.00 10/2/03 1/ 55,506.00 55,506.63,162.00 12/01/03 1/ 63,162.00 63,162.62,524.00 12/24/03 1/ 62,524.00 62,524.

209,766.72 12/24/03 1/ 209,766.72 209,766.

40,832.00 2/04/04 1/ 40,832.00 40,832.

149,366.00 3/4/04 1/ 149,366.00 149,366.187,668.42 3/4/04 1/ 187,668.42 187,668.4

40,796.00 4/03/04 1/ 40,796.00 40,796.

208,949.64 4/03/04 1/ 208,949.64 208,949.160,552.00 5/1/04 1/ 160,552.00 160,552.169,106.00 6/05/04 1/ 169,106.00 169,106.390,940.44 6/05/04 1/ 390,940.44 390,940.4

92,778.00 6/30/04 1/ 92,778.00 92,778.

 7/21/04 1/ 86,198.00 86,198.

86,198.00

Folsom D&R

Sacramento County WA 39,495.10 10/30/03 39,495.10 39,495.

Sacramento River

Riverview Golf & CC 132.51 10/18/03 132.51 132.Riverview Golf & CC 39.57 N/A 2/ 39.57 39.Total 2,026,078.40 2,026,078.40 0.00 0.00 2,026,078.4

1/ District's FY 2004 Rate Differential Payment2/ Excess voluntary payments for FY 1992 and FY 1995 were applied at the contractor's request as a result of retroactive adjustment due to Sly Park D&R a* Payment will be reflected in the contractor's deficit rate for 2005 Water Rates. See 2005 Water Rates, Sch. A-6, footnote section.** Payment will be reflected in the contractor's capital rate for 2005 Water Rates. See 2005 Water Rates, Sch. A-2Ba, footnote section.9/22/2004