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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 0:20-CV-61236-WPD/SNOW

PIERO A. BUGONI,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BROWARD COUNTY FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants. 

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ March 16, 2021 Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [DE 51], the Court’s April 6, 2021 Order to Show Cause 

[DE 52], the Court’s April 15, 2021 Order of Dismissal [DE 54], the Plaintiff’s Show of Cause 

Against Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, postmarked April 14, 2021, stating that 

Plaintiff did not receive any Motion to Dismiss from Defendants [DE 56], Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Compel Proper Service, postmarked April 14, 2021, requesting that the Court order Defendants 

to serve the Motion to Dismiss by Certified Mail and to file the delivery receipt with the Court 

[DE 57], the Court’s April 20, 2021 Order Requiring Response from Defendants [DE 58], 

Defendants’ April 26, 2021 Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and Response to Plaintiff’s 

Response to Order to Show Cause [DE 60], Defendants’ April 27, 2021 Notice of Filing 

Supporting Affidavits [DE 63], and the May 25, 2021 Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 67]. 

Case 0:20-cv-61236-WPD Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 1 of 3
The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 67] have been filed, and the time for 

filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s 

factual findings in the Report [DE 14] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this 

opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 

(1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). 

 Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 

Report [DE 67] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with 

the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 67] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Proper Service [DE 57] is hereby DENIED;

3. This case shall remain CLOSED;

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address 

below.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 

14th day of June, 2021.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Piero A. Bugoni, 

160 W. Camino Real #191

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Case 0:20-cv-61236-WPD Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 2 of 3
Case 0:20-cv-61236-WPD Document 69 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 3 of 3
No: 24-016 March 1, 2024 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Annual Assessments for Nation’s Nuclear Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued annual letters to the nation’s operating 

commercial nuclear reactors assessing their performance in 2023. 

Of the 94 reactors currently in the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process, 88 reached the 

highest performance category in safety and security. Those reactors (including Vogtle Unit 4, 

which was authorized for operation last year) remain under the NRC’s “baseline” inspection 

program, involving thousands of inspection hours for each reactor. 

Six reactors were in the second performance category, as they need to resolve one or two 

items of low safety significance. For this performance level, regulatory oversight includes 

additional inspection and follow-up of corrective actions. Reactors in this category are Calvert 

Cliffs Unit 1 (Maryland), Columbia (Washington), River Bend (Louisiana), V.C. Summer (South 

Carolina); and Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 (Tennessee). 

There were no reactors in the third or fourth categories, which trigger additional NRC 

oversight, or the fifth category, which requires a reactor to shut down to address its performance 

problems. 

Later this spring and summer, the NRC will host public meetings or other events to 

discuss the details of the plants’ annual assessment results. Separate announcements will be 

issued for the public assessment meetings. 

The NRC’s website outlines oversight of commercial nuclear power on the Reactor 

Oversight Process page. The NRC routinely updates each plant’s current performance and posts 

the latest information as it becomes available to the action matrix summary. Assessment letters 

are posted at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/oversight/listofasmrpt.html (click on 

“2023006” for each plant). All plants also received an NRC inspection plan for the coming year 

in their annual assessment letter.
(No. 789

Claimant awarded $2,009.49 with interest.)

#### Continental Trust and Savings Bank, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Margaret True Bland, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 16, 1924.*

Inheritance *tax*— when *refund awarded.*When an inheritance tax has been assessed and paid, and an appeal is taken to the county court, and upon a hearing thereon, the tax is reassessed and reduced, claimant is entitled a refund of the difference between the amount of the tax paid, and the amount found due upon appeal.

Robert D. Elder, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General ; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice. Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for refund of inheritance taxes. The claimant, the Continental and Commercial Trust and Savings *29Bank, a corporation of the State of Illinois, was duly appointed executor of the estate of Margaret True, who died testate October 29,1919, and her will was admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois, December 15, 1919.

On 24th day of April, 1920, an order was entered fixing the inheritance tax at $40,088.84, which was paid by the executor, less a discount of *6%,*to-wit, the sum of $2004.44, leaving a net payment of $38,084.40 so paid.

On May 10th, 1920, a petition was filed in the county court praying an appeal from the final order fixing tax above set forth. A hearing was had thereon March 26, 1924, and terminated in the county court entering an order fixing the tax at $37,973.59 and that 5% should be deducted therefrom so that the net amount of tax going to the State would be $36,-074.91.

The claimant therefore claims the difference between the said amount of $38,084.40 so paid and the sum of $36,074.91, to-wit, $2009.49, with 3% interest per annum thereon from April 27, 1920.

All the necessary proof in support of said claim is produced and the Attorney General states that he has duly investigated the claim and consents to its allowance.

The court accordingly awards the claimant the sum of $2,009.49 with interest to be computed thereon from April 27, 1920.
Company and Address Brand and Type Source/Plant

Boral Materials Technologies Apache Class F Arizona Electric Power Co-op

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 Fly Ash Cochise, Arizona

San Antonio, TX 78216

(210)349-4069

Boral Materials Technologies Irvington Class F Irvington Facility

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 Fly Ash Tucson, AZ

San Antonio, TX 78216

(210)349-4069

Boral Materials Technologies Monticello Class F Monticello Plant

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 Fly Ash Monticello, TX

San Antonio, TX 78216

(210)349-4069

Boral Materials Technologies Snowflake Class F Stone Container

45 Northeast Loop 410, Suite 700 Fly Ash Snowflake, Arizona

San Antonio, TX 78216

(210)349-4069

Headwaters Resources Navajo Class F Salt River Project

16817 155th Pl SE Fly Ash Navajo Power Plant

Renton, WA 98058 Page, Arizona

(425)970-3155

Lhoist North America Hi -Cal Hydrated Lime Nelson Plant

Mile Marker 112, Route 66 Peach Springs, Arizona

P.O. Box 370

Peach Springs, AZ 86434

928-769-2271

Mineral Resource Technologies (Cemex) Coronado Class C Salt River Project

920 Memorial City Way Suite 100 Fly Ash St. Johns, Arizona

Houston, TX 77024

(281)685-4312

SRMG/Phoenix Cement Cholla Class F APS Power Plant

8800 E. Chaparral Rd. Suite 155 Fly Ash Joseph City, Arizona

Scottsdale, AZ 85250-2606

(480)850-5757

SRMG/Phoenix Cement Escalante Class F Tri-State Generation

8800 E. Chaparral Rd. Suite 155 Fly Ash Prewitt, New Mexico

Scottsdale, AZ 85250-2606

(480)850-5757

SRMG/Phoenix Cement Four Corners Class F APS Power Plant

8800 E. Chaparral Rd. Suite 155 Fly Ash Fruitland, New Mexico

Scottsdale, AZ 85250-2606

(480)850-5757

APPROVED MATERIALS SOURCE LIST

FLY ASH, NATURAL POZZOLAN, AND LIME

REVISED JULY 6, 2011
Company and Address Brand and Type Source/Plant

APPROVED MATERIALS SOURCE LIST

FLY ASH, NATURAL POZZOLAN, AND LIME

REVISED JULY 6, 2011

SRMG/Phoenix Cement Gallup Class F Gallup Fly Ash Facility

8800 E. Chaparral Rd. Suite 155 Fly Ash Gallup, New Mexico

Scottsdale, AZ 85250-2606

(480)850-5757

SRMG/Phoenix Cement San Juan Class F San Juan Generating Station

8800 E. Chaparral Rd. Suite 155 Fly Ash Waterflow, NM

Scottsdale, AZ 85250-2606

(480)850-5757
No: 23-014 March 1, 2023 

CONTACT: Office of Public Affairs, 301-415-8200 

NRC’s Nicholas Melly Honored as a 2023 Federal Engineer of the Year

Nicholas (Nick) Brian Melly P.E., a fire protection engineer who 

has headed breakthrough research and regulatory activities to advance the 

understanding of nuclear power plant fire safety, has been chosen as the 

NRC’s Engineer of the Year and one of 10 finalists for the Federal 

Engineer of the Year award by the National Society of Professional 

Engineers. Melly received the honor during the NSPE’s 44th annual 

ceremony.

Melly, who works in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research, is an internationally recognized fire safety expert with unique 

knowledge and skills. His work at the NRC has focused on researching 

High Energy Arcing Faults, a type of challenging fire event associated with catastrophic failures 

of high-voltage electrical systems. Initially, he identified key safety issues, knowledge gaps, and 

research needs. He then spearheaded a multi-year international research effort that leveraged the 

expertise and resources of 10 countries to better understand the risk posed by this phenomenon. 

“We are pleased to honor Nick as our NRC Engineer of the Year and very happy that the 

NSPE recognized his important contributions by ranking him in the top 10 of federal engineers 

for 2023,” said Raymond Furstenau, RES office director. “His work has made a tangible impact 

on the safety of nuclear power plants and sets the stage for future research and regulatory 

activities in this important area.”

Melly, who holds a bachelor’s degree in fire protection engineering from the University 

of Maryland, directed more than 50 complex, full-scale experiments using prototypical nuclear 

power plant equipment representing real-world configurations. His research has led to improved 

understanding of HEAF-induced electromagnetic phenomena, development of advanced hazard 

modeling and simulation techniques, identification of fire mitigation measures, and the issuance 

of guidance that advanced nuclear power plant safety. 

Federal agencies employing at least 50 engineers may nominate candidates for the award. 

Twenty-three engineers from throughout the federal government were honored at the ceremony.
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


Women's Rights
National Historical Park
New York


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  Education Programs
 A Ranger stands next to a bronze statue of a man and woman, and talks to a group of kids.Rangers are available to lead education programs for field trips. NPSWomen’s Rights National Historical Park shares the story of the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention and the early years of the Women's Rights Movement in America. While many classes find their way to Seneca Falls in a big yellow school bus, students can also travel to the park virtually--learning about our story through distance learning technology. Learn more about the opportunities for a variety of grade levels, and class types below.
Our staff is excited to share this history with you! Please contact us to schedule an educational program.

Face of a child with short blond hair looking closely through a magnifying glass at the camera.Connect Through Distance Learning
Bring the park and a ranger to your classroom through distance learning opportunities from Women's Rights.
West side of the visitor center with a large mural of portraits in purple, black and gold.Curriculum Materials
Share the story of the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention and the early Women's Rights Movement with a variety of grade levels.
A park ranger speaks to a group of children facing the camera. Plan a Field Trip
Bring your class to Seneca Falls for hands-on learning opportunities!

3D Virtual Tours
 Last updated: November 3, 2023
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: 136 Fall Street
Seneca Falls,
NY
13148
 Phone: 315 568-0024 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
###### Editorial Note on Part 115

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 115 appear at 72 FR 50038, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 115.62 Prohibition on participation in Prior Approval program.

A PSB Surety is not eligible to submit applications under subpart B of this part. This prohibition does not extend to an Affiliate, as defined in 13 CFR § 121.103, of a PSB Surety that is not itself a PSB Surety provided that the relationship between the PSB Surety and the Affiliate has been fully disclosed to SBA and that such Affiliate has been approved by SBA to participate as a Prior Approval Surety pursuant to § 115.11.

[72 FR 34600, June 25, 2007]
Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 1 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 2 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 3 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 4 of 5

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 5 of 5
Open File Report 99-40

The exact equivalent of the U.S.G.S. Open-File Report for this quadrangle can be viewed and printed 

clicking on the following highlighted text:

Afognak pdf file (106 k)

(Note that the ARDF is in Adobe Acrobat format; if your computer does not hav

this software, it can be installed with the Acrobat icon at the bottom of this page

Digital Versions of the Data

The data was originally compiled with FileMaker Pro software; if you have Version 7.0 or later of FileM

your computer, the data can be searched and manipulated through your browser by clicking on 

Afognak FileMaker Pro (.fp7) file (220 k)

(If you are going to use this file repeatedly, it may be more convenient to downlo

it permanently to your computer rather than wait for it to download through yo

browser every time you wish to use it.)

ARDF - Afognak http1 of 2 
The data can also be downloaded in a "csv" format that can be used with a variety of data base and sprea

have the appropriate software that can work with csv files installed on your computer, the data can be m

directly through your browser. (However, see the comment in italics above for the advantages of down

your computer if it is to be used repeatedly).

Afognak comma-separated-value (.csv) file (13 k)

ARDF Home | Quad Map | Quad Table | 

<URL:http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/quads/html/Afognak.html >

Page maintainer: ARDF@usgs.gov

ARDF - Afognak http2 of 2
(No. 37120.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*Ronald Partelow, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed February 1, 1963.*

*607Ronald Partelow, *pro se.*

William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Robert J. Waaler, State’s Attorney, of Urbana, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice Klingbiel

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant pleaded guilty in the circuit court of Champaign County to a charge of larceny of a motor vehicle, and was granted probation for a term of 3 years. About a year and a half later his probation was revoked for failure to report to the probation officer and also because of his conviction of a criminal offense in the State of Massachusetts, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 1 nor more than 10 years. A writ of ■ ¿rror has been issued.

The defendant first contends ‘that he was not properly admonished by the court before he entered his plea of guilty. This contention is completely refuted by the record which shows a sufficient admonishment. He also contends that he never received a copy of the indictment. This statement is likewise in direct opposition to the record which ■shows that the defendant received a copy of the indictment.

.The defendant also argues that he was not properly represented by his appointed counsel. There is nothing in the record before us to substantiate this contention.

Finally, the defendant contends that the court lacked jurisdiction over him when his probation was revoked. This argument is based'upon the contention that he was not properly extradited from Massachusetts. We have held that alleged irregularities in the manner in which a defendant is returned to this State on extradition for trial on a criminal *608charge will not be inquired into, since these matters affect neither the guilt nor innocence of the accused nor the jurisdiction of the court to try him. *People*v. *Klinger,*319 Ill. 275.

We find no error in the record and the judgment of the circuit court of Champaign County is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 54 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2002 Page 1 of 1
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateAdjudications (Hearings)10 CFR Part 2: Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders

# Final Rule Adding New Subparts C, N, and O (1/14/2004)

        - Overview
        - Applicability
        - Final Rule
        - Supporting Documents

## Overview

In January 2004, the NRC amended its regulations concerning its rules of practice in 10 CFR Part 2 to fashion hearing procedures that are tailored to the differing types of regulatory activities the NRC conducts. These revisions will make NRC's hearing process more effective and efficient and will better focus the limited resources of involved parties and the NRC. The final rule was published in the *Federal Register* on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2182) and became effective on February 13, 2004.

## Applicability

The final 10 CFR Part 2 rules of practice apply to proceedings noticed on or after the effective date, February 13, 2004, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. In practice, this means that proceedings already noticed in the *Federal Register* or already in progress would use the old (superseded) 10 CFR Part 2. By contrast, proceedings that are noticed on or after February 13, 2004, will use the new Part 2. Examples of various notice and docketing scenarios are provided below:
        - New Part 2 Rules of Practice for proceedings noticed on or after February 13, 2004
        - Corrective Part 2 rules for proceedings
        - Old (superseded) Part 2 Rules of Practice for proceedings noticed before February 13, 2004
        - Applicability of Old and New Part 2 to NRC Proceedings

## Final Rule

*Federal Register* Notice - Final Rule(1/14/04)

## Supporting Documents

**Final Rule**

Comments Not Addressed in the Statement of Considerations for Changes to the Adjudicatory Process: Final Rule (12/17/2003)Staff Requirements Memorandum Directing Issuance of Final Rule (11/13/2003)

**Proposed Rule**

Comment Period Extended (66 FR 27045) (5/16/2001)Proposed Rule Published (66 FR 19610) (4/16/2001)Staff Requirements Memorandum Approving Publication with 32 Changes (2/16/2001)Proposed rule (SECY-00-0017) (01/21/2000)Public Meeting Regarding NRC Hearing Process (Transcript) (10/27/1999)Public Meeting Regarding NRC Hearing Process (Transcript) (10/26/1999)

**Press Releases**

NRC Announces Availability of Two New Web Sites on Conduct of Hearings and Pending Applications (1/14/2004)NRC Revises Rules Governing Conduct of Hearings (11/14/2003)NRC Proposes Revising Rules Governing Conduct of Hearings (4/6/2001)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 09, 2021
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 55

**Question 55:** 10 CFR 20.2104 (e) (1) prorates the 5-rem annual limit on the total effective dose equivalent at a rate of 1.25 rems per quarter for each quarter for which records were unavailable but includes no similar provisions for the other annual limits (individual organs, eye, skin, extremities). Is similar proration required for doses covered by the other limits?

**Answer:** Yes. As indicated in the statement of considerations (56 FR 23383, first column), the values for the other limits should be reduced by one quarter for each unreported quarter.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1201 (f), 10 CFR 20.2104 (e) (1))

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
### Subtitle B—Regulatory Provisions
No: I-23-001 March 1, 2023 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, 

Pennsylvania, have selected Erin Brady as the resident inspector at the 

Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Salem Township (Luzerne County), 

Pennsylvania. She joins Senior Resident Inspector Chris Highley at the twounit site, which is operated by Talen Energy. 

“Erin’s experience in private industry, with the Navy and during her 

time training and in the field as an NRC inspector will serve the agency well 

as she begins this new role,” said NRC Region I Administrator Ray Lorson. 

“She stands ready to put what she has learned to use as part of our front-line 

inspection team.” 

Brady joined the NRC in 2021 after working as a quality control and maintenance technician 

in private industry. Prior to that, she served for eight years as an enlisted nuclear electrician aboard 

Navy aircraft carriers. Since joining the NRC, she has served as acting resident inspector at the 

Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania and completed NRC training qualifications. 

She holds bachelor’s degrees in nuclear and electrical engineering from Thomas Edison 

State University in New Jersey.

Each operating U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident 

inspectors. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, 

monitoring safety-significant work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. 

Resident inspectors can serve at a reactor site for up to seven years.