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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61177-RAR

ISLANDE AUBOURG,

Plaintiff,

v.

HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, INC.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Mediation Report [ECF No. 16], filed 

on March 18, 2021, indicating that the parties have reached an agreement resolving this matter. 

The Court having carefully reviewed the file, and being otherwise advised, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The above-styled action is administratively CLOSED without prejudice to the 

parties to file a stipulation of dismissal within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 

2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only. 

3. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of March, 2021.

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-61177-RAR Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/19/2021 Page 1 of 1
#### Julia Newton, Respondent, v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company and Another, Appellants.

—Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide event, unless the plaintiff shall, within twenty days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $250 as *931of the date of the rendition thereof, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly, and as so modified is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concurred; Lambert, J., not sitting.
*

 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30687

Summary Calendar

 

JERRY EDWARDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-9-T

_____________________________________

August 4, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

JerryEdwards appealsfrom a judgment affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social

Security denying his claim for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner applied the proper

legalstandards in denying Edwards disability insurance benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1995);

Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 563 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). A review of the record reflects substantial

evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision. See Ripley v. Chater, 67 F.3d 552, 555 (5th Cir.
 

1995). Even assuming this court had jurisdiction to review Edwards’ arguments that the

Administrative Law Judge’s hypothetical to the vocational expert was flawed, the arguments lack

merit. See Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994); Bowling v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 431, 435-

36 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
No: IV-23-011 November 29, 2023 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128 

NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order to ProTechnics 

Division of Core Laboratories, documenting mutually agreed upon actions to address regulatory 

compliance issues identified during a routine inspection at the company’s headquarters in Houston, 

Texas. ProTechnics uses radioactive materials licensed by the NRC to perform diagnostic studies in 

oil, gas and geothermal wells. 

NRC inspectors cited six proposed violations involving the company’s failure to notify and 

seek NRC approval for the abandonment of a well logging source, to request an extension for a well 

logging source in temporary storage, to maintain records or calculations demonstrating compliance 

with federal limits on the disposal of radioisotope tracers in the Gulf of Mexico, and to monitor a 

group of exposed workers following the loss of their dosimeters, among other proposed violations. 

The proposed violations are described in detail in NRC’s July 7 inspection report. 

Before making a final enforcement decision, the NRC provided the company with an 

opportunity to request a predecisional enforcement conference or seek alternative dispute 

resolution. ProTechnics requested ADR mediation and met with NRC officials in October to discuss 

corrective actions. A preliminary settlement agreement was reached at the session, and the issues 

agreed upon were incorporated into the Confirmatory Order.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-97-19 FOR

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Monday,

March 3, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 FINE AGAINST FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AT CRYSTAL RIVER

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $50,000

civil penalty against Florida Power Corporation for alleged

violations of NRC security requirements at the Crystal River

nuclear power plant, located near Crystal River, Florida.

The violations involve multiple failures to implement

requirements of the plant's physical security plan, identified as

the result of an NRC inspection at the plant from December 2

through December 19 of last year. NRC officials said the

violations included failure to have adequate implementing

procedures for operation of a newly installed security computer in

two alarm stations or for taking compensatory measures for the

degradation of vital area doors; failure to properly respond to a

protected area alarm; failure to employ the capability to assess

more than one protected area alarm at a time; failure to maintain

a physical barrier in one protected area location for a period in

excess of 12 hours; failure to appropriately control and safeguard

weapons stored in the plant armory; and failure to submit physical

security plan changes to the NRC in a timely manner.

The administrator of the NRC's Region II office in Atlanta,

Luis A. Reyes, said in a letter to the company that, "although the

overall security program has been functioning adequately and the

working level performance of the security force has been generally

good...the violations are of significant regulatory concern because

they are indicative of a lack of management attention to the

program and a fundamental lack of understanding of regulatory

requirements related to the security program."

The company has 30 days to either pay the civil penalty or to

protest its imposition.

#
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                        Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors of
Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized Automobile Financing
Receivables that the Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. maintained effective
internal control over servicing of securitized automobile financing receivables
as of December 31, 2001, based upon the criteria for effective internal control
established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management is
responsible for maintaining effective internal control over such functions. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly,
included obtaining an understanding of internal control over servicing of the
securitized automobile financing receivables, testing and evaluating the design
and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over servicing of the securitized automobile
financing receivables to future periods are subject to the risk that internal
control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, the Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A.
maintained effective internal control over servicing of securitized automobile
financing receivables as of December 31, 2001, is fairly stated, in all material
respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal control established in
"Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 25, 2002
J.

J. Douglas J. criminal record that worked to his extreme detriment. See Edwards v. State, 112 Nev. 704, 708, 918 P.2d 321, 324 (1996). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Gibbons

cc: Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge Stephen D. Laxalt Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County Clerk

2 We rescind the order for a supplemental record on appeal as the record on appeal filed on May 8, 2013, contains the documents necessary for this court's review. We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Pacific Islands Area ... annualreport [electronic resource].**
 
2007 | 2008| 2009
2010 | 2011| 2012 | 2013 | 2014| 2015
 
SuDoc:A 57.81/11:
Item Number:0120-C-11 (online)
CGP systemNumber:
 
October 23, 2017
#### Henry W. Somers, Respondent, v. George D. Harris, Appellant.

Decision amended so as to read as follows: Judgment, in so far as appealed from, and order reversed on law and facts, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Opinion by Woodward, J.; Howard, J., concurred; Kellogg and Lyon, JJ., concurred in the second and third grounds; Smith,. P. J., concurred on ground last stated. (See 161 App. Div. 230.) The court disapproves of the findings of fact numbered 6, 6, 10, 14, 18,19, 30, 31, 33, 33.
November 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR             THE FEDERAL CO‐CHAIR

SUBJECT:                                   Semiannual Report to Congress

In accordance with the requirements of the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988, Public Law 100‐504,

the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008, Public Law 110‐409, and the Dodd‐Frank Wall Street Reform and

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111‐203. I am pleased to submit the Office of Inspector General’s

Semiannual Report to Congress.   

This Semiannual Report to Congress summarizes the activities of our office for the 6‐month period ending

September 30, 2011.  During this fiscal period, we issued six reports, followed‐up on open recommendations,

conducted a peer review of another Office of Inspector General, issued contacts for independent public

accountants’ audits of agency grants and addressed two hotline complaints.     

Also during this period, the Inspector General and staff continued to serve as representatives on the Council

of the Inspectors General on Integrity & Efficiency (CIGIE), the Federal Audit Executive Committee (FAEC), and

the various Intergovernmental Audit Forums covering our jurisdictional region.   The Inspector General

accepted responsibility to coordinate and chair a smaller OIG group in order to address issues directly

impacting these offices.

The current Inspector General (IG), who previously was the first IG at the Appalachian Regional Commission

(ARC) (1989‐2002), returned as Interim Inspector General in April 2011 pending a selection of a permanent IG

at ARC.

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended by the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988, provides

that this report be forward to appropriate Congressional committees within 30 days and that you provide

whatever additional comments you consider appropriate.

I appreciate the Commission’s cooperation with the Office of Inspector General in the conduct of our

operations.

Hubert Sparks

Inspector General

Enclosure






ARC ORGANIZATION CHART 

3 
4 












Cover photo courtesy of the U.S. National Park Service 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

 Office of Inspector General 

 1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

 Washington, DC 20009-1068
Re: Final Biological Assessment - Port Everglades Energy Center Greenhouse 

Gas Permit Application

Audra Livergood to: Andrew Parks 11/16/2012 12:08 PM

Cc: "Flajole, Andy", "Tammaro, Michael", "Foster, Stacy"

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Dear Andy and Andrew,

As agreed, with receipt of the final biological assessment, NMFS has deemed the ESA Section 7 

consultation package complete. As of today, we are initiating formal consultation with the EPA. 

NMFS and the EPA have 90 days for formal consultation and NMFS has an additional 45 days 

to prepare our biological opinion (for a total of 135 days).

NMFS anticipates that our biological opinion will be complete by March 31, 2013.

Sincerely,

Audra

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:01 AM, <Parks.Andrew@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:

Thanks Andy. We'll work with NMFS on this.

Andrew B. Parks, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IV

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122

Fax: 404-562-9019

"Flajole, Andy" ---11/16/2012 10:58:17 AM---Hi Andrew, Pursuant to our meeting 

last week please find attached the cover letter and final Biologi

From: "Flajole, Andy" <Andy.Flajole@fpl.com>

To: Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Audra Livergood <audra.livergood@noaa.gov>, "Foster, Stacy" <Stacy.Foster@fpl.com>, "Tammaro, Michael" <

Michael.Tammaro@fpl.com>

Date: 11/16/2012 10:58 AM

Subject: Final Biological Assessment- Port Everglades Energy Center Greenhouse Gas Permit Application

Hi Andrew,

Pursuant to our meeting last week please find attached the cover letter and final Biological
Assessment (BA) prepared in support of the Port Everglades Energy Center Greenhouse Gas

(GHG) permit application. As discussed, FPL anticipates that the revisions made are

satisfactory to both NMFS and EPA. FPL looks forward to receiving written confirmation that

NMFS has deemed the BA “complete”, and subsequently receiving EPA’s written

determination that the GHG permit application is also “complete”, at your earliest

convenience. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Thank You,

Andy Flajole

Environmental Services

(561) 691‐2766

[attachment "PEEC_Biological Assessment Cover Letter_Final_11‐16‐12.pdf" deleted by

Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US] [attachment "PEEC_Biological Assessment_Final_11‐16‐12.pdf"

deleted by Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US]

-- 

Audra Livergood

Marine Resource Manager

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

SERO Protected Resources Division

Fort Lauderdale Field Office

299 East Broward Blvd., Suite 328

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Office (954) 356-7100

Fax (954) 356-7108

For if one link in nature's chain might be lost, another might be lost, until the whole of things will 

vanish by piecemeal.    Thomas Jefferson
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration


## SEP 0 82014

Mr. David M. McDonald VP, General Counsel Aeronautical Engineers, Inc. 7765 Northwest 54111 Street Miami, Florida 33166
Dear Mr. McDonald: Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S.W. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter dated August 22, 2014, requesting exemption from §§ 25.7850), 25

.812(e), 25

.855(a), 25.857(e), 25.1447(c)(l), and 25.1449 ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, ifgranted, would allow the carriage ofup to tlu·ee non-crewmembers (commonly referred to as supernumeraries) in an area aft ofthe flight deck and forward ofthe 9G bulld1ead on Bombardier CRJ200 freighters to attend to special cargo. This request was submitted to the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at Regulations.gov) on August 25, 2014, and has been assigned DocketNo. FAA-2014-0636. We are in the process ofreviewing your request, and will contact you ifwe need additional infonnation. Ifyou have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Mr. Alan Sinclair at (425) 227-2195, or by e-mail at Alan.Sinclair@faa.gov. Sincerely,

Deana M. Stedman Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
§ 429.36 May I appeal the Commissioner's decision? ( a ) Yes, you may appeal the Commissioner's decision by writing to the Director, Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA), U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
( b ) For an appeal to be timely, OHA must receive your appeal within 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the Commissioner's decision. Rules that govern appeals to OHA are found at part 4, subparts B and G, of this title.
( c ) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 4.21(a) of this title, the Commissioner's decision will take effect upon issuance and remain in effect unless you specifically request a stay and a stay is granted under § 4.21(b) of this title.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11211 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RODGER LYNN EDGE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CR-194-R

- - - - - - - - - - June 27, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rodger Lynn Edge, #26523-080, seeks in forma pauperis (IFP) status to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Edge’s challenge to the restitution portion of his sentence is not within the scope of § 2255 because it raises a nonconstitutional issue that could have been raised on direct appeal. See United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir.No. 95-11211 - 2 - 1992); United States v. Capua , 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir. 1981). Having reviewed the record and the relevant law, we DENY the motion for IFP because this appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Edge that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Edge is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
§ 19.310 Recruitment. ( a ) *Nondiscriminatory recruitment.* A recipient to which §§ 19.300 through 19.310 apply shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and admission of students. A recipient may be required to undertake additional recruitment efforts for one sex as remedial action pursuant to § 19.110(a), and may choose to undertake such efforts as affirmative action pursuant to § 19.110(b).
( b ) *Recruitment at certain institutions.* A recipient to which §§ 19.300 through 19.310 apply shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at educational institutions, schools, or entities that admit as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 19.300 through 19.310.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23302]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than November 2, 2004.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Jay Bernstein, Bank 
Supervision Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. UFJ Bank Limited, Nagoya, Japan, and UFJ Holdings, Inc., Osaka, 
Japan; to retain shares of UFJ Central Leasing, Nagoya, Japan, and 
thereby engage through Central Leasing (U.S.A.), Inc., Florence, 
Kentucky, in the leasing of manufacturing equipment and computers as 
well as real estate leasing, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(3) of 
Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 13, 
2004.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc.04-23302 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S