alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-50 May 9, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC, LOWER BUCKS HOSPITAL TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Lower Bucks

Hospital on Tuesday, May 13, to discuss apparent violations of agency requirements at

the Bristol, Pa., facility. The predecisional enforcement conference will begin at 10 a.m.

in the public meeting room of NRC Region 1 offices in King of Prussia, Pa.

The meeting will be open to the public for observation only.

Principal areas of concern to be discussed include: the improper disposal of a

nuclear pacemaker; the lack of control of licensed material after removal from a patient;

and the lack of management attention to nuclear pacemaker program implementation.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean the

NRC has determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.

Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in NRC inspection reports; and to allow the licensee to outline any

proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at the conference. Those

decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

#
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Sunburst Acquisitions III, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending August 30, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Jay Lutsky, Principal Executive Officer and Director of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
> Act of 1934; and
> 
> 
> 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Jay Lutsky



 Jay Lutsky,

 Principal Executive Officer and Director

May 25, 2004
#### Harold M. Phelps, Appellant, v. Herbert F. Turner et al., Respondents.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
#### William O’Keefe, Respondent, v. Adrian Bos, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Miami Division 

Case Number: 20-22732-CIV-MORENO 

BETTINA BAEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MSC CRUISES, S.A., 

Defendant. 

I -----------------

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon MOTION TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF 

LIMIATIONS DEADLINE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TOLL THE ST A TUTE 

OF LIMITATIONS DEADLINE (D.E. 5), filed on August 24, 2020. 

THE COURT has considered the motion, the response in opposition, the reply, pertinent 

portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is aware it has 

the authority to equitably toll the limitations period if Plaintiff meets her requisite burden. See 

Booth v. Carnival Corp., 522 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2008); Justice v. U.S., 6 FJd 1474, 1479 (11th 

Cir. 1993). Nonetheless, it finds that such a ruling is premature in the instant case. Plaintiff asks 

the Court to toll the limitations period in the hypothetical scenario that Plaintiff finds it necessary 

to amend her complaint based on something in the Defendant's answer or response. Indeed, 

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was filed a full week after the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Extend. 

Case 1:20-cv-22732-FAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 1 of 2
Consequently, it is 

ADJUDGED that the motion is DENIED 

//!!i 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ../L-- of September 2020. 

FEDERI . MORENO 

UNI D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies furnished to: 

Counsel of Record 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-22732-FAM Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/11/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### § 207.3 Applicability and eligibility.

Only PA and HMGP grantees with PA and HMGP grants awarded pursuant to major disasters and emergencies declared by the President on or after November 13, 2007 are eligible to apply to FEMA for management cost funding under this part.
[No. 6863.

Decided January 8, 1908.]

#### Nellie Blangy, *Respondent,*v. Clara E. Sylvester, *Appellant,*Robert J. McChesney, *Intervener,*and Charles E. Marvin & Sons Company, *Respondents.**1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Albertson, J., entered April 1, 1907.

Appeal dismissed.

*George Marvin Savage*and *May Sylvester,*for appellant.

*Shepard*& *Flett,*for respondents Blangy and Marvin *&*Sons Company.

1

Reported in 93 Pac. 210.

Per Curiam.

The record in this case shows a settlement and complete satisfaction of the whole controversy. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.
### §188. Repealed. Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, §4(3), 69 Stat. 625

Section, act June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title III, §305, 61 Stat. 160, forbade striking by Government employees, required discharge of striking employee and forfeiture of his civil-service status, and made him ineligible for employment for three years. See sections 3333 and 7311 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and section 1918 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6683

TRACY GLENN JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-588-5-BR) Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 2, 1998 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tracy Glenn Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tracy Glenn Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. North Carolina , No. CA-97-588-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4953 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4953

 To repeal prescription drug price control provisions of the Inflation 
                             Reduction Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2022

    Mr. Lee (for himself, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Rubio) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal prescription drug price control provisions of the Inflation 
                             Reduction Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Drug Innovation Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE CONTROL PROVISIONS.

    Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act, the provisions 
of parts 1, 2, and 3 of subtitle B of title I of Public Law 117-169 are 
repealed and the provisions of law amended by such parts are restored 
as if such parts had never been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court **of Appeals** 
**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 30024

**In the Matter of: Sharon Sylvester,**

Debtor **,**
**Sharon Sylvester,**

Appellant **,**

versus

**Barbara Rivera**

**- Fulton,** 

Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:20

- CV

- 1083

Before **Southwick, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Sharon Sylvester went bankrupt. At the end of her Chapter 7 proceeding, the bankruptcy court ordered her to pay certain fees to the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under th e limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 30, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-30024 Document: 00516377878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2022No. 22

- 30024

2 trustee and a law firm that assisted the trustee. The present appeal involves the bankruptcy court’s award of fees to the tr ustee.

In affirming the award of fees to the trustee , the district court principally relied on its prior opinion awarding fees to the law firm. In re Sylvester , No. 20

- CV

- 2469, 2021 WL 807248 (E.D. La. Mar. 2, 2021). The next month, however, we vacated an d remanded the award of attorney’s fees, concluding that the bankruptcy court applied the wrong legal standard

. See Matter of Sylvester , 23 F.4th 543 (5th Cir. 2022) . Because the questions regarding fees in both matters are intertwined , we **VACATE** and

**REMAND** for further proceedings consistent our recent decision. Case: 22-30024 Document: 00516377878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2022
#### The State of Missouri, Respondent, *v.*John C. Wallace, Appellant.

April 13, 1885.

Criminal Law — Arraignment. —If the record fails to show that defendant was arraigned, or fails to'show that any plea whatever was entered to the indictment, the error is fatal to any judgment rendered on the indictment; and, even if the defendant participates in the trial and consents to the empanelling of a jury to try the case, it isno waiver. “In all cases where a trial is required, and there is no confession of the allegations of the indictment, the *331court must enter a plea of not guilty.” This is indispensable to make up the issue upon which the defendant is tried. *State*v. Andrews, 29 Mo. 267; *State*v. *Billings,*72 Mo. 662. While section 1845, Revised Statutes. Mo. 1879, was designed'to do away with unnecessary form, it does not do away with the issue to be' raised by an arraignment.

Appeal from Maries Circuit Court, Hon. A. J. Seat, Judge.

*Reversed and remanded.*

W. S. Pope and Bennett & Farrar, for the appellant:

Cited Bevised Statutes, 1879, sect. 1845.

B. G. Boone, Attorney General for the respondent.

Opinion by

Philips, P. J.

The defendant was indicted in the Maries circuit court for obstructing a public highway. On trial before a jury he was found guilty and adjudged to pay a fine of twenty dollars. From this judgment, after ineffectual motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, he duly prosecuted his appeal to this court. The record fails to show that the defendant was ever arraigned under the indictment, or that any plea whatever was entered thereto by him on the order of the court. On the contrary it is clear that this matter was entirely overlooked by the court, or was not deemed by it to be necessary; for the attention of the court was directly called to this omission in the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.

This error is fatal to this judgment. It is insisted by the state that inasmuch as the record shows that the defendant participated in the trial, and consented to the jury empanelled to try the case, this amounted to a waiver of the formal arraignment. It is true that mere formal arraignments are no longer required in our practice, “but in all cases where a trial.is required, and there is no confession of the allegations of the indictment, the court must enter a plea of not guilty. This is indispensable to make up the issue upon which the defendant is *tried.”*— State v. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234; *Meader*v. *State,*11 Mo. 363; *State*v. *Andrews,*27 Mo. 367; *State*v. *Bil*
      *332lings, 72 Mo. 662. While section. 1845, Revised Statutes, was designed to do away with unnecessary form, yet it is quite manifest that so'far from doing away with the issue to be raised by an arraignment, it makes it the duty of the court, where the prisoner stands mute, to protect Mm by entering the plea of not guilty.

The record in this case shows that none of these safeguards were recognized at the trial.

The judgment of the circuit court is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.
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


Tumacácori
National Historical Park
Arizona


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


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


Contact Us
  San José de Ímuris
 historic photo of people sitting on low adobe wall ruins"Kino visited Ímuris as early as March 1 687, but it was the 1690’s before some kind of chapel was built here. Throughout virtually all of its life as a mission, Ímuris was a visita of San Ignacio, and only rarely did it have a resident priest. It is unclear how many chapels may have been built at Ímuris in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." (*Pimería Alta*, The Southwestern Mission Research Society)
Father Antonio de los Reyes on 6 July 1772 submitted a report on the condition of the missions in the Upper and Lower Pimería Alta. This was his report on San José de Ímuris as translated by Father Kieran McCarty. Note the spelling he uses for Ímuris.*"The village of San José at Himuri is three leagues to the east of San Ignacio. It is bordered on the east and on the north by the mountains. It is blessed with good lands but the Indians work very little or not at all at farming them. The church and house of the Missionary are nearly in ruins. The ornaments for the altar and divine services have dwindled to one chalice, three chasubles, two albs, three amices, and other adornments, all very old and almost unserviceable. According to the Census Book, which I have here before me, there are seven married couples, six widowers, nine orphans, the number of souls in all thirty-nine."*
When the village was visited by United States Boundary Commissioner J.R. Bartlett in 1851, he said the church appeared quite new, no doubt a post-Franciscan construction. Today's church at Ímuris is a twentieth-century building from foundation to ceiling." (*Pimería Alta*, SMRC)
 Last updated: May 14, 2020
 Park footer Contact Info Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8067
Tumacacori,
AZ
85640
 Phone: 520 377-5060 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
> Case1:12- cv-0O743-RCL Document68 Filed08/26/15 Page 1Of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

DISTRICT OF CO LUM BIA

FILED BY D.C.

JdL 08 2222

AL-NCELAJ.sja!E iloEIR. oK:pflyjj. i--kjnjgèz. COM M ISSION S IM PORT EXPORT o. kul , S.A., )

)

Plaintf )

)

)

)

THEREPUBLICOFTHECONGO AND )

CAISSECONGOLAISED'AMORTISSEMENT, )

)

Defendants. )

)

O RDER GRANTING M OTION TO A LTER OR AM END JUD GM ENT

CivilActionNo.

1:12-CV -000743-RCL

In consideration ofPlaintiff'sM otionto AlterorAm end theOrderand Judgm entissued

/ .P

inthiscaseon July 31,2015,and > opposltion thereto,itishereby

ORDERED thatPlaintiff's M otion to AlterorAmend the Orderand Judgment is

granted;

ORDERED thattheCourt'sOrderandJudgment(Dkt.No.65)bealteredoramendedas

follows,in orderto retlectthe am ountsawarded forPlaintiffand againstDefendants in U.S.

Dollarsasofthedateofjudgment:

Cayegptyof AmpuntAWàrded Exçhaqge .Amokàj#inU.S.

M oneta Award R#è:'. . Dèllàrs

Princial 62,855,071 $1.09743 $3,133,240.57

Princial fl8,903,708 $1.56049 $29,499,047.30

Princial $31,184,837 $1.00 $31,184,837

Princial CFA 1,731,267,415 $0.00167 $2,891,216.58

Penalt interest 67,163,027 $l.09743 $7,860,920.72

Penalt interest f34,3l2,232 $1.56049 $53,543,894.91

Penalt interest $56,402,208 $1.00 $56,408,208

Penalt interest CFA 2,899,457,582 $0.00167 $4,842,094.16

Arbitrationcosts $393,333 $l.00 $393,333

Arbitrationcosts 622,867 $1.09743 $25,094.93

Total $189,781,887.17

Case 1:20-cv-22802 Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:12-cv-00743-RCL Document68 Filed08/26/15 Page 2Of3

ORDERED thatPlaintiffisentitled to U.S.$189,781,887.17asofJuly31,2015,plus

taxablecostsarisingoutoftheseproceedingspursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.54(d)(1);and itis

further

ORDERED thatpost-judgmentinterestshallbeassessedinaccordancewith28U.S.C.

j196l.

FG

Enteredthis x- dayof w çf- ,2015.

C.

U.S.D.J.

ECF

DOC UM ENT

lherebyattest:ndcertifythatthlsIsaprintedcopyofa

daellm*qtwbl& waseleçtronlc4lYfiledwiththeUnited

SIt.KDldrld andBankruptryCourtsfortheDistrttof

Columbia. w

DateFjed: # 2d'2& 2

ANGE D. AESAR,CLERK

By: w .

Case 1:20-cv-22802 Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:12-cv-00743-RCL Docum ent68 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3Of3

ATTORNEYSTO BE N OTICED :

FrancisA.Vasquez,Jr.

(D.C.BarNo.442161)

NicolleKownacki

(D.C.BarNo.1005627)

AttorneysforPlaintiff

701Thirteenth Street,N .W .

W ashington,D .C.20005

Phone:(202)626-3600

Facsimile:(202)639-9355

fvasquez@whitecase.com

nkownacki@whitecase.com

RobertA .Schw inger

(D.C.BarID #NY0092)

Attorney forDefendants

1301AvenueoftheAmericas

New York,NY 10019

(212)408-5100

rschwinger@chadbourne.com

Case 1:20-cv-22802 Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 3 of 3
May 2, 2008 

Mr. James Goldstene 

Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

1001 "I" Street 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Dear Mr. James Goldstene: 

Enclosed is the State Implementation Plan (SIP) Package for the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District (District) 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The District Governing 

Board adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at a public hearing held on April 30, 2008. We 

request that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) transmit this plan and the 

appropriate documentation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

as a SIP revision. 

Included in this SIP Package are the following attachments:

1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 

2. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan

3. Evidence of Public Hearing 

4. Governing Board Resolution Adopting the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

5. Public Comments 

6. Additional Materials (Governing Board Report, Initial Study for CEQA) 

If you have any questions regarding this plan, please contact Donald Hunsaker by email at Donald.Hunsaker@valleyair.org or at (559) 230-5800. The District thanks you 

and your staff for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Nester 

Director of Planning 

Attachments 

cc: S. Zulawnick
### [§363. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(a)(49), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1773]

Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 119, related to cross reference for rules relating to effect on earnings and profits of transactions to which this part applies.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date of 1976 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.
----

----

| Entity                                                   | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation |
|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                                     |                               |
| Appleton      Papers Inc.                                | Delaware                           |
| Appleton      Papers Canada Ltd.                         | Canada                             |
| Appleton      Papers de Mexico SA de CV                  | Mexico                             |
| C&H      Packaging Company, Inc.                     | Wisconsin                          |
| American      Plastics Company, Inc.                     | Wisconsin                          |
| Rose      Holdings Limited                               | United      Kingdom                |
| Bemrose      Group Limited                               | United      Kingdom                |
| The      Henry Booth Group Limited                       | United      Kingdom                |
| BemroseBooth      Limited                                | United      Kingdom                |
| Bemrose      Security & Promotional Printing Limited | United      Kingdom                |
| HBGI      Holdings Limited                               | United      Kingdom                |
| Arjo      Wiggins Appleton (Bermuda) Limited             | Bermuda                            |
| PDC      Capital Corporation                             | Wisconsin                          |
| New      England Extrusion Inc.                          | Wisconsin                          |