alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 June 9, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-10567

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 02-00551-CR-ODE-1-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JESSIE LEE SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(June 9, 2005)

ON REMAND FROM THE 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the Court for consideration in light of United States v.
2

Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738, __ L. Ed. 2d __ (2005). We previously

affirmed Appellant’s conviction and 262-month sentence for possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). See

United States v. Smith, Case No. 04-10567 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2004)

(unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated our prior decision and remanded the

case to us for further consideration in light of Booker. 

In his initial brief, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to

support his conviction and argued that his armed-career-criminal sentence violated

the Ex Post Facto Clause and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Notably,

Appellant did not assert error based on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120

S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), or any other case extending or applying the

Apprendi principle. In United States v. Ardley, 242 F.3d 989 (11th Cir.),

cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 2621 (2001), after the Supreme Court’s remand with

instructions to reconsider our opinion in light of Apprendi, we observed the

following: 

Nothing in the Apprendi opinion requires or suggests that we are

obligated to consider an issue not raised in any of the briefs that

appellant has filed with us. Nor is there anything in the Supreme

Court’s remand order, which is cast in the usual language, requiring

that we treat the case as though the Apprendi issue had been timely

raised in this Court. In the absence of any requirement to the contrary

in either Apprendi or in the order remanding this case to us, we apply

our well-established rule that issues and contentions not timely raised
3

in the briefs are deemed abandoned.

Id. at 990 (citations omitted); see also United States v. Nealy, 232 F.3d 825, 830

(11th Cir. 2000) (“Defendant abandoned the [Apprendi] indictment issue by not

raising the issue in his initial brief.”). We recently extended the foregoing rule to

preclude untimely challenges based on Booker. See United States v. Dockery, 401

F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2005). In his initial brief in this case, Appellant asserted no

such Apprendi (or its progeny) challenge to his sentence. Accordingly, we

reinstate our previous opinion in this case and affirm, once again, Appellant’s

conviction and sentence after our reconsideration in light of Booker, pursuant to

the Supreme Court’s mandate. 

OPINION REINSTATED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 99.1: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
1350

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended November 30, 2002, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

            (1)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
                  November 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

            (2)   the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2002 fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of Magna-Lab, Inc.

      January 14, 2003                            /s/ John R. Geisel
                                                  ------------------
                                                  Name: John Geisel
                                                  Title: Chief Executive Officer
LENNAR PARTNERS

An LNR Company

 

 

March 1, 2002

 

LaSalle Bank, N.A. 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1625 Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Attention: Asset Backed Securities Trust Services Group

LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2001-C3

Re:	Annual Independent Public Accountant's Servicing Report

	LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust

	Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001-C3

To whom it may concern:

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, Lennar Partners, Inc. has complied in all material respects with the applicable minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers applicable to the commercial and multifamily mortgages for the special servicer as noted in the attachment to this assertion. As of and for this same period, Lennar Partners, Inc. had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $10,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $10,000,000.

Sincerely,

LENNAR PARTNERS, INC.

 

Susan K. Chapman

Susan K. Chapman

Vice President

 

cc:	First Union National Bank

	First Union Capital Markets

	NC 1075, 8739 Research Drive, URP-4

	Charlotte, North Carolina 28288-1075

	Attention: LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2001-C3

	Structured Asset Securities Corporation

	200 Vesey Street

	New York, New York 10285

	Attention: Sott Lechner - LB-UBS Commercial Mortgage Trust. Series 2001-C3

	Lehman Brothers. Inc

	Three World Financial Center

	New York, New York 10255
	Attention: Tricia Hall/ Commercial Mortgage Trading

760 Northwest 107th Avenue  Suite 400  Miami, Florida 33172

Telephone (305) 220-4300   Fax (305) 226-3428
No: I-23-004 May 11, 2023

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331

NRC Revokes License of West Virginia Company

The NRC has issued an order revoking the license of a Huntington, West Virginia, industrial 

radiography company based on its submittal of inaccurate information and lack of a qualified 

radiation safety officer.

The NRC’s Office of Investigations conducted an investigation involving APINDE Inc., 

which led to a determination that in the company’s initial application to the agency for a license to 

use nuclear materials, as well as in related correspondence, APINDE submitted an inaccurate 

training certificate and inaccurate information regarding the recent radiography experience for the 

individual proposed as the radiation safety officer. In addition, the company subsequently requested 

a new radiation safety officer be added to its license, but submitted an inaccurate training certificate 

for that individual.

Following the NRC’s initial identification of the issues, the agency issued an order on 

Aug. 22, 2019, suspending APINDE’s license. Although the company provided a response 

acknowledging the errors and stating it would take corrective actions, it failed to take steps to 

provide the agency with reasonable assurance that it had addressed the issues. 

Based on this lack of action, the NRC is revoking the company’s license. The revocation and 

termination of the license will take effect within 30 days unless the company can demonstrate good 

cause for that not to occur.

A copy of the revocation order will soon be made available in the NRC’s electronic 

documents system, ADAMS.

APINDE cannot conduct NRC-licensed activities unless it applies for and receives a new 

license.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                             BOSTON CHICKEN, INC.

                 AMENDMENT TO 1995 EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN


     1. The first sentence of Section 4 of the 1995 Employee Stock Option Plan 
(the "Plan") of Boston Chicken, Inc. (the "Company") is hereby amended and 
restated to read in its entirety as follows:

     "The Committee may grant options under which up to a total of 6,000,000 
     shares of the Common Stock may be purchased from the Company, subject to 
     adjustment as provided in Section 11."

     2. Except as provided in paragraph 1 above, the Plan shall remain unchanged
and in full force and effect.
----

|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, which this certification accompanies (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  May 7, 2010 | /s/ Christopher A. Marlett                             |
|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |       Christopher A. Marlett  |
|                          |       Chief Executive Officer |

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.210 What percentage of a loan may SBA guarantee?

SBA's guarantee percentage must not exceed the applicable percentage established in section 7(a) of the Act. The maximum allowable guarantee percentage on a loan will be determined by the loan amount. Loans of $150,000 or less may receive a maximum guaranty of 85 percent. Loans more than $150,000 may receive a maximum guaranty of 75 percent, except as otherwise authorized by law.

[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 51680, Aug. 28, 2003; 76 FR 63546, Oct. 12, 2011]
### §1396. Internal revenue taxes

Any civil action for the collection of internal revenue taxes may be brought in the district where the liability for such tax accrues, in the district of the taxpayer's residence, or in the district where the return was filed.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 936.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §105, and section 3744 of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Internal Revenue Code (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §44, 36 Stat. 1100; Feb. 10, 1939, ch. 2, §3744, 53 Stat. 460).

Section consolidates section 3744 of title 26, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Internal Revenue Code, with section 105 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

Words "or in the district where the return was filed" are new. This extension of venue will permit of an action in a district easily determinable for collection of revenue earned in several districts, or States, but the return for which is filed with one collector.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### Senate Revision Amendment

While section 3744 of Title 26, U.S.C., Internal Revenue Code [1939], is one of the sources of this section, it was eliminated from the schedule of repeals by Senate amendment. Therefore, it remains in Title 26 [I.R.C. 1939]. See 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 150

**Question 150:** 10 CFR 20.1003 defines tissue monitoring depths of 0.007, 0.3, and 1 cm for shallow, eye, and deep-dose, respectively;
> 
(a) Is it important to measure at (or extrapolate the measurements to) these exact depths?

(b) could the eye and deep-dose both be determined at 0.3 cm?

**Answer:** See the "general response" in the answer to Question 149.
> 
(a) As under the old Part 20, it is important to measure (or to extrapolate measurements to, or otherwise assess the dose equivalent) at a reasonable approximation of these depths.

(b) No. The deep-dose equivalent is, by definition, the dose equivalent at a depth of 1 cm, not 0.3 cm. However, the dose at 0.3 cm (eye dose) would usually be a conservative approximation (overestimate) of the dose at 1 cm deep-dose).

(References: 10 CFR 20.1003)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 07, 2017
# STATEOFLOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS
THEODORE J. PHILLIPS NO. 

### 2021 KW 1477

FEBRUARY 14, 2022

In Re: Theodore J. Phillips, applying for supervisory writs,



### 16th Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

### Mary, Nos. 

### 2003-162543, 2018-202970.

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ.



### WRIT DENIED ON THE SHOWING MADE. Relator failed to include 

### a copyofthe motion forappeal, 

## thecourt's rulinggrantingthe appeal, a copy of any motions filed 

### by relator 

### requesting documents, the court' s 

### ruling on the motions, and any other portions of the district court record that might support the claims raised in the writ application. Supplementation of this 

## writ application anal/oran application for rehearing will not be considered. See Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 18. 7 & 

### 4-9. In the event relator elects to file a new application with this court, 

### the application must be filed on or before April 11, 2022. 

### Any future 

## filing on this issue should 

### include the entire contents of this application, the missing 

### items noted above, 

### anda copyofthis ruling.

It is noted that as an indigent inmate, relator is entitled to receive certain court 

### documents, such as the 

### guilty plea transcript, the bill of 

### information or indictment, the commitment papers, the court minutes 

### for various portions of the trial, and the minutes of his sentencing, 

### free of charge without 

### the necessity of establishing a particularized need. See State
ex rel. Simmons v. State, 93-0275 ( La. 

### 12/16/94), 647 So.2d 1094, 

### 1095 (per curiam). As to all other documents, an 

### indigent 

### inmate has the constitutional right to free copies only in 

### instances in which he shows that denial of the request will 

### deprive him of an adequate 

### opportunity to present his claims 

## fairly. Meeting that constitutional threshold requires a showing of a particularized need. An 

### inmate therefore cannot mate a showing of particularized need absent a properly 

### filed application 

### for postconviction relief, which sets out specific claims of constitutional errors 

### requiring the requested 

### documentation for support. See State ex rel. Bernard v. 

### Criminal District Court Section " J", 94-2247 ( La. 4/28/95), 653 

### So.2d 1174, 1175 (per curiam). See also State ex rel. McKnight
v. State, 

### 98-2258 ( La. 

### App. lst Cir. 12/3/98), 742 

### So.2d 894, 

### 895 (per curiam) . PMC JEW MRT ZQURT O PEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### D PU Y CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### § 9239.0-8 Measure of damage.

The rule of damages to be applied in cases of timber or other vegetative resources, coal, oil, and other trespass in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Mason et al. v. United States (260 U.S. 545, 67 L. ed. 396), will be the measure of damages prescribed by the laws of the State in which the trespass is committed, unless by Federal law a different rule is prescribed or authorized.

[35 FR 9800, June 13, 1970, as amended at 56 FR 10176, Mar. 11, 1991]
HomeAbout NRCFire ProtectionRelated Information

# Fire Protection NUREG Publications Prepared by NRC Contractors

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provides guidance to licensees and applicants by issuing NUREG-series publications regarding regulatory decisions, research results, results of incident investigations, and other technical and administrative information. NUREG-series publications disseminate scientific, technical, and administrative information dealing with licensing and regulation of civilian nuclear facilities and materials. Publications in the NUREG series may neither state nor imply any regulatory requirements, since such requirements are stated only in laws, regulations, licenses (including technical specifications), or orders. In other words, the NRC staff may suggest a course of action in a NUREG-series publication, but the regulated community may use other approaches to satisfy the agency's regulatory requirements.

The following table lists the contractor-prepared NUREG-series publications that the NRC has issued regarding topics related to fire protection for licensed facilities and materials. Related pages provide access to staff-prepared NUREG-series publications, as well as NUREG-series conference proceedings and brochures. The complete collection of NUREG-series publications  is available through the NRC Library or the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 10 CFR Part 50
          - Guidelines for FP in NPPs
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Procedures
          - Administrative Letters
          - Bulletins
          - Circulars
          - Generic Letters
          - Information Notices
          - Regulatory Issue Summaries
          - Regulatory Guides
          - Commission (SECY) Papers
          - Generic Issues
          - Staff-Prepared NUREGs
          - Contractor-Prepared NUREGs
          - Conference Proceedings
          - Brochures
          - FAQs About Fire Protection

#### 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, June 8, 2020
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.472 Higher individual minimum capital requirement. The Associate Administrator for Capital Access (AA/CA) may require, under § 120.473(d), an SBLC to maintain a higher level of capital, if the AA/CA determines, in his/her discretion, that the SBLC's level of capital is potentially inadequate to protect the SBA from loss due to the financial failure of the SBLC. The factors to be considered in the determination will vary in each case and may include, for example: ( a ) Specific conditions or circumstances pertaining to the SBLC;
( b ) Exigency of those circumstances or potential problems;
( c ) Overall condition, management strength, and future prospects of the SBLC and, if applicable, its parent or affiliates;
( d ) The SBLC's liquidity and existing capital level, and the performance of its SBA loan portfolio;
( e ) The management views of the SBLC's directors and senior management; and
( f ) Other risk-related factors, as determined by SBA.
[73 FR 75516, Dec. 11, 2008]
HomeAbout NRCEmergency Preparedness & ResponseAbout Emergency  Preparedness

# Emergency Action Level Development

Each operating nuclear power plant must include a standard emergency classification and Emergency Action Level (EAL) scheme in its emergency plans. EALs are pre-determined, site-specific, observable triggers for placing the plant in a classification such as an Unusual Event, Alert, Site-Area Emergency, or General Emergency. Plants may use NRC’s regulatory guidance as they develop their EAL scheme.

## Regulatory Guidance

The NRC has developed and/or endorsed numerous guidance documents to help licensees develop a site-specific emergency action level scheme. The NRC encourages licensees, or future license applicants, to use the most recent applicable guidance. This includes using the latest revision from the following documents:
        - NEI 99-01, Rev. 4 ,  Rev. 5 , &  Rev. 6 , "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels, Nuclear Energy Institute document
        - NEI 07-01 , "Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels, Advanced Passive Light Water Reactors", Nuclear Energy Institute document.
        - NUMARC/NESP-007 , Rev. 2, “Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels"

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 10, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Emergency Classification
          - Emergency Action Level Development
          - Emergency Planning Zones
          - Protective Action Recommendations
          - Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Responsibilities
          - Emergency Exercise Schedule
          - Response to Terrorism
          - Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness
          - Use of Potassium Iodide

#### 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 Thursday, February 10, 2022
#### § 113.120 Transfers of property.

If a recipient sells or otherwise transfers property financed in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance to a transferee that operates any education program or activity, and the Federal share of the fair market value of the property is not upon such sale or transfer properly accounted for to the Federal Government, both the transferor and the transferee shall be deemed to be recipients, subject to the provisions of §§ 113.205 through 113.235(a).