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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-22721-CIV-MORENO

MARIO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLOTTE BURROW

CHAIR OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Defendant.

________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, MARIO HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) notifies this Honorable Court that the 

Parties, Plaintiff and Defendant CHARLOTTE BURROW, CHAIR OF THE EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), 

have reached a resolution in this case. The Parties are in the process of finalizing the Stipulation 

for Compromise Settlement and Release and all related settlement documents, which they 

reasonably expect to do no later than twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Notice. Upon 

completion of same, Plaintiff has agreed to file a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice of the 

above matter as to all claims against Defendant. Meanwhile, the Parties respectfully request that 

pending the finalization of the settlement documents, the Court retain jurisdiction over this matter 

and stay or set aside all currently set deadlines.

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been electronically 

filed using the online CM/ECF Filing on this 19th day of May 2022, and sent to Defense counsel 

John Leinicke, ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, 99 N.E. 4th Street, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 

33132, JLeinicke@usa.doj.gov

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ __David M. Fraguio________

JOSÉ A. SOCORRO, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 011675 

DAVID M. FRAGUIO, ESQ. 

Florida Bar No.: 1016475 

AZOY SOCORRO, LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

2020 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1008 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Tel: (305) 340-7542 

Fax: (305) 418-7438 

Email: jose@azoysocorro.com; 

 david@azoysocorro.com

Case 1:20-cv-22721-FAM Document 129 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022 Page 2 of 2
HomeAbout NRCCareer OpportunitiesWorking at NRCNRC EthicsSummaries of Major Ethics Rules

# Financial Disclosure (5 CFR Part 2634)

## A. Public Report (Standard Form 278)

Employees who are in the Senior Executive Service, Senior Level, or above must file a public financial disclosure report within 30 days after beginning service, by May 15 of each year thereafter, and within 30 days after termination of service.

## B. Confidential Report (OGE Form 450)

Employees at GG-15 or below whose positions appear on the list NRC Positions That Meet the Filing Criteria for Filing Public or Confidential Disclosure Reports must file a confidential financial disclosure report within 30 days after beginning service and by February 15 of each year thereafter.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 8, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Financial Interests
          - Impartiality
          - Security Ownership Restrictions
          - Gifts
          - Bribery
          - NRC Time and Property
          - NRC Title or Position
          - Nonpublic Information
          - Outside Employment
          - Supplementing Federal Salary
          - Teaching, Speaking, or Writing
          - Fundraising
          - Representations to the Government
          - Job Seeking
          - Post-Employment Restrictions
          - Expert Witness
          - Political Restrictions
          - Procurement Restrictions
          - Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
          - Foreign Governments
          - Financial Disclosure (5 CFR Part 2634)

#### 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 Monday, January 8, 2024
### §2045. Investment of court registry funds

(a) The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, or the Director's designee under subsection (b), may request the Secretary of the Treasury to invest funds received under section 2041 in public debt securities with maturities suitable to the needs of the funds, as determined by the Director or the Director's designee, and bearing interest at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturity.

(b) The Director may designate the clerk of a court described in section 610 to exercise the authority conferred by subsection (a).

(Added Pub. L. 110–406, §8(a), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4293.)
#### Anna Muro et al., Respondents, v. Packard Motor Car Company of New York, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. ¡Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rene GUTIERREZ-SALAZAR, also known as Oscar Gutierrez, also known as Oscar R. Gutierrez, also known as Oscar Rene Gutierrez, also known as Oscar Rene Salazar, also known as Oscar Gutierrez Salazar, also known as Oscarrene Salazargutierr, also known as Oscar Renee Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51092.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Rene Gutierrez-Salazar raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3963 — Philips/Lumileds)

(2005/C 321/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 November 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                          396,478
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   797,659
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     387,919
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,247,547
<PP&E>                          13,090,808
<DEPRECIATION>                  4,798,945
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  11,477,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,331,703
<BONDS>                         2,770,376
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     2
<COMMON>                        160
<OTHER-SE>                      4,129,009
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    11,477,378
<SALES>                         10,163,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                10,288,042
<CGS>                           2,815,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   2,815,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                7,094,374 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              95,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 282,430
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             262,258
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    249,758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .02
        


</TABLE>
Custom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 -2474 UNITED STA

TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029 November 17, 2009 Mr. David K. Paylor, Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 1105 Ri chmond, Virginia 23218 Dear Mr. Paylor : On October 1 5 , 2009, U.S. E nvironmental P rotection A gency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SI P) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality pertaining to the revised d efinition of “Volatile o rganic c ompound ,” as well as administrative changes to 21 other definitions listed in Section 5
- 10
- 20 of 9VAC5, Chapter 10
. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to p repare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice ( D FRN) action. If members of your staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Harold A. Frankford , Im mediate Office of the Air Protection Division , at (215) 814
- 2108
. He is the principal contact for this rul emaking. Sincerely , Marcia L. Spink, for Judith M. Katz, Director A ir Protection DivisionCustom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 -2474
§ 150.7 Selection process. ( a ) *President's Award.* Nominations for the President's Award shall be reviewed, and winners selected by the President (or his designee) in accordance with the requirements of § 150.3, the criteria in § 150.4(a)(1), and the procedures of § 150.5.
( b ) *Distinguished Public Safety Service Award.* Upon receipt of nominations for this Award, the Administrator of FEMA or the Attorney General shall cause an evaluation and selection of the nominees to be made in accordance with the requirements of § 150.3 and the criteria prescribed in § 150.4(a)(2). In reviewing nominations, the Attorney General or the Administrator of FEMA may request that persons representing the relevant segment of the national public safety community comment upon the nomination and accompanying documentation. Both the request for comments and the comments themselves shall be made in writing.
( c ) Individuals nominated for the President's Award who are considered not to meet the criteria for the Award by the Joint Board or who are not recommended to or selected by the President shall be automatically considered by the appropriate authority for nomination for the Distinguished Public Safety Service Award.
( d ) Individuals nominated for the Distinguished Public Safety Service Award may be considered by the Joint Board for the President's Award if the Administratorof FEMA or the Attorney General determines that consideration for the President's Award is merited.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Health Resources and Services Administration

                    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces the appointment of members to the HRSA Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), which requires notice of the appointment of members of performance review boards to be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The function of the PRB is to ensure consistency, stability and objectivity in SES performance appraisals, and to make recommendations to the Administrator, HRSA, relating to the performance of senior executives in the Agency.

The following persons will serve on the HRSA SES Performance Review Board: Dennis P. Williams, Catherine A. Flickinger, Denise H. Geolot, Neil Sampson, Merle G. McPherson, Samuel Shekar, Stephen R. Smith, Marcia K. Brand, Kerry Nesseler, Katherine M. Marconi, Peter C. van Dyck, Deborah Parham, Mary J. Horner, J. Henry Montes, Steven A. Pelovitz, Douglas Morgan, James Macrae, A. Michelle Snyder, Patricia L. Mackey, Jon L. Nelson, and Kay Templeton Garvey.

For further information about the HRSA Performance Review Board, contact Ms. Wendy Ponton, HRSA Office of Administration and Financial Management, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14A20, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

      ( print page 61259)    
Dated: October 8, 2004.

Elizabeth M. Duke,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04-23185 Filed 10-14-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
#### Shirley Zimmerman, Respondent, v. Lester Zimmerman, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 423.21 Responsibilities. ( a ) You are responsible for finding, being aware of, and obeying all applicable laws and regulations, as well as notices and postings of closed and special use areas established by an authorized official under subpart B and subpart E of this part 423.
( b ) You are responsible for the use of any device, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft you own, lease, or operate on Reclamation facilities, lands, or waterbodies. You may be issued a citation for a violation of regulations, including non-compliance with limitations, restrictions, closures, or special use areas applicable to the use of any device, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as provided in this part as the owner, lessee, or operator.
( c ) You are responsible for the use and treatment of Reclamation facilities, lands, and waterbodies, and the cultural resources, wildlife, and other natural resources located thereon, by you and those for whom you are legally responsible. This presumption is sufficient to issue a citation to you for violation of provisions of these regulations by you or by those for whom you are legally responsible.
( d ) The regulations governing permits, other use authorizations, and fees on Reclamation lands that are found in subpart D of this part 423 apply to your use of Reclamation facilities, lands, and waterbodies.
( e ) You must furnish identification information upon request by a law enforcement officer.
( f ) You must pay applicable fees established by Federal, State, or local government recreation management entities, or contracted vendors for activities on Reclamation facilities, lands, and waterbodies such as, but not limited to, camping, boating, parking, day-use, or visitor tours.
[73 FR 75349, Dec. 11, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 80991, Nov. 21, 2023]
(No. 827

Claimant awarded $119.70 with interest.)

#### Carlotta S. Signor and R. Lemuel Blount, Trustee, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent

*Opinion filed September 16, 1925.*

Inheritance *tax*— when *claimant entitled to refund. Seo. 25.*Where a tax has been assessed against a succession, and paid, and afterwards upon proper proceedings in the county court, it appears that certain contingencies upon which the original assessment of the tax was made, had not occurred, and the estate was reassessed and the tax fixed upon the re-assessment; *Held.*Claimant entitled to a refund of the difference between the amount of the tax paid under the .original order of the court and the amount found due upon the re-assessment-of the tax.

Downer McCord, for claimant.

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

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

R. Lemuel Blount, trustee of the estate of I^ate Ward Bensley, deceased on the 26th day of July, 1916, paid to the *208treasurer of Cook county, the sum of $217.90 in full of inheritance taxes levied and assessed against the succession occuring by virtue of the death of Kate Ward Bensley, deceased.

On the 23d day of June, 1923, in the County Court of Cook county, Illinois, in the matter of inheritance tax appraisement in said estate of Kate Ward Bensley, deceased, it was ordered adjudged and decreed that inasmuch as certain contingencies upon which the original inheritance taxes were levied and assessed, not having occurred, the said estate was entitled to re-assessment of said inheritance taxes under Sec. 25, Chapter 120, in the Revenue act of the State of Illinois, and it was therefore ordered that said taxes be re-assessed in accordance with a certain schedule set out in the order, a copy of which is presented" in evidence, making the total amount of the assessment $79.40.

On January 17, 1917, the said R. Lemuel Blount was duly appointed trustee of said estate and duly qualified, in the case of *Blount executor*v. *Christianson et al.*Carlotta S. Signor was a niece of the said decedent, Kate Ward Bensley, and a legatee under her will and the entire original assessment of inheritance tax was assessed against her legacy, which assessment was paid by the executor and trustee, ancf under- the re-assessment of the inheritance tax, as ordered by the County Cqurt there is a refund due to the said Carlotta S. Signor amounting to $119.70 with interest thereon at the rate of 3% per annum from the 26th day of July, 1916.

The Attorney General consents in writing to an award as claimed. . The evidence sustains the claim, and the court accordingly awards said Carlotta S. .Signor and R. Lemuel Blount, trustee, the sum of $119.70 together with interest thereon from the 26th day of July, 1916, at the rate of *3%*per annum until paid.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 57

**Question 57:** The definition of a very high radiation area (10 CFR 20.1003) and the requirement for control of access to very high radiation areas specify an absorbed dose of 500 rads in an hour. Is this a deep dose, a shallow dose, or an eye dose?

**Answer:** The 500-rad dose is intended to be a deep dose, evaluated at a tissue depth of 1 cm (1000 mg/square cm).

(References: 10 CFR 20.1003, 10 CFR 20.1602)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
No: II-24-001 January 17, 2024 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Catawba Nuclear Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Anny Wang as the 

new resident inspector at the Catawba nuclear power plant. The plant, 

operated by Duke Energy, is in York, South Carolina 

Wang joined the NRC in 2022 as a project engineer through the 

Resident Inspector Development Program in the NRC Region II Office in 

Atlanta. Before joining the NRC, she worked as a shift test engineer at the 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia. Wang earned a bachelor's 

degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Virginia. 

“Anny brings to Catawba a solid engineering foundation and a deep understanding of the 

safety protocols central to our work at the NRC,” said NRC Region II Administrator Laura Dudes. 

“With her experience at the naval shipyard and the hands-on training she received during inspector 

qualifications, I am confident she will help ensure the plant continues to meet the agency’s rigorous 

standards.” 

Wang joins Senior Resident Inspector David Rivard at Catawba. Each U.S. commercial 

nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors who monitor day-to-day operations at 

the plant. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, 

monitoring significant projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0975 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-082-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### § 102.30 Preservation of records.

Each office will preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized by title 44 of the United States Code or the National Archives and Records Administration's General Records Schedule 14. Records will not be disposed of while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the Privacy Act.