alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3/31/99
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001043102
<NAME> CHANCELLOR MEDIA CORPORATION OF LOS ANGELES
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,069
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,844
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,277
<PP&E>                                       1,505,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                 109,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,439,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,865
<BONDS>                                      4,378,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,439,864
<SALES>                                        350,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,265
<CGS>                                           43,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  390,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,392
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (120,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (26,967)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (93,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (93,969)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

12 April 2016

MEMO

SUBJECT: Response to Comments for Docket # EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0784

FROM: Ya-Ting Tsai, Environmental Engineer 

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Division, Permits Office

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the Santa Barbara SIP Submittal

EPA received the two attached comments for our proposed rulemaking entitled “Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; 

Permit Program,” published at 81 FR 6758 and 81 FR 6814 on February 9, 2016. 

The comments received are not relevant to the rulemaking and not adverse comments; therefore, 

EPA is not providing a response to the comments as part of this rulemaking.
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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended.  The grant applications and/or contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, RFA: CA05-002, 003, 006 & 007.                    

*Date:*                         November 16-17, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Review and Logistics Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8053, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1822.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 61401)    
Dated: October 6, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-23200  Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 13,186.

#### Barrios *v.*Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Company.

(17 P. [2d] 301)

Decided December 5, 1932.

*564Mr. Mortimer Stone, Mr. Alden T. Hill, Mr. Fred W. Stover, Mr. Herbert A. Alpert, for plaintiff; in error.

Mr. L. R. Tem:ple, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Burke,

delivered the opinion of the court.

These parties occupy the same relative position as in the trial court and we hereinafter designate them as plaintiff and defendant respectively.

Plaintiff, claiming ownership by purchase of certain irrigation water “appropriated through and decreed to defendant’s ditch,” and asserting possession and use thereof by him “for more than twenty years prior to the year 1928 openly, notoriously, continuously and adversely,” alleged that such use had been interfered with by defendant in 1928, and entirely prohibited in 1929, and demanded injunctive relief. Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint. The cause was tried to the court and defendant had judgment. To review that judgment plaintiff prosecutes this writ, asks that it be made a supersedeas, and requests that the cause be finally disposed of here on this application.

The record before us is so defective that were *565plaintiff otherwise entitled to the relief prayed for it would necessarily be denied. But, since we are of the opinion that, on the merits, plaintiff has not shown himself so entitled, since such defects are not raised by defendant,. and since we have made a careful examination of the entire transaction and can readily dispose of the case, we elect to proceed with it to final judgment.

Plaintiff’s evidence discloses no title, by purchase, to the water in question. At most it discloses his belief, over a period of years, that he had some rig’ht to it by virtue of a contract between strangers. No evidence of that contract was forthcoming, and we must assume that it never existed. There was evidence that plaintiff needed and long used the water. The most that can be said, however, on the question of notoriously adverse use for the required period is that the evidence is conflicting and unsatisfactory and, since the findings were general and all presumptions are in favor of the judgment, we must assume that question was resolved against plaintiff. With that conclusion we cannot interfere. Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest testified. The use claimed began with his predecessor, his father, and the most that can be spelled out of that testimony is a use by license. Plaintiff’s rights could be no greater. 2 C. J., p. 124, §210.

The purpose of this action is not to maintain a status quo while rights are litigated. Its sole purpose is to finally adjudicate an alleged right based upon a doubtful and disputed title. This is not the province of injunction. 32 C. J., p. 35, §15. In fact, its true purpose is to try title. Where such is the main object of a suit injunction is not the proper remedy. *Tomasini v. Taylor,*42 Ore. 576, 72 Pac. 324.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Hilliard concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 
**- 2227** 

PAUL A. MITCHELL ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; WAYNE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv
- 00584

- D )

Submitted : April 23, 2015 Decided: April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Paul A. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Johnston, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA; Joshua Mark Krasner, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Paul A. Mitchell appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Title VI and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , and denying his request for
a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. * Mitchell v. N.C. Div. of Emp’t Sec. , No. 5:14

- cv
- 00584

- D

(E.D.N. C. Nov. 4, 2014)

. We deny as moot Mitchell’s motion to
expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRM ED

* To the extent that Mitchell appeal s the denial of his request for a temporary restraining order, such denials are generally not appealable. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc. , 538 F.2d 1026, 1029

– 30 (4th Cir. 1976). We therefore dismiss the appeal insofar as he is appealing the denial of a temporary restraining order.
No: II-24-003 March 15, 2024 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Schedules Meetings to Discuss

2023 Performance of Three TVA Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold two public meetings this month to discuss 

the 2023 safety performance of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, and 

Watts Bar nuclear power plants. The NRC is holding one meeting in-person and another virtually to 

provide more opportunities for the public to attend. 

The first meeting is an “open house” on March 20 from 6:30-7:30 p.m. Eastern time at the 

Spring City Municipal Building, 369 Front St. in Spring City, Tennessee. This is an open forum 

where NRC resident inspectors and other staff will be available to discuss the plants’ safety 

performance and to answer questions from members of the public. 

The second meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams on March 27 from 

6:30-7:30 p.m. Eastern time. The telephone conference number for those without access to Teams is 

301-576-2978, passcode 621932287#. 

The three-unit Browns Ferry plant is in northern Alabama, and the Sequoyah and Watts Bar 

plants, both of which have two units, are in eastern Tennessee. 

The NRC determined that all three plants operated safely during 2023. However, several 

TVA reactors required additional NRC oversight due to findings of varying safety significance. 

Browns Ferry Unit 1 was in the second performance category, or the regulatory response column, 

for most of 2023 due to problems with the high-pressure core cooling system. The reactor returned

to a baseline level of NRC oversight in fourth-quarter 2023 following a thorough review of TVA’s 

corrective actions to address the root causes of the problems. Similarly, both Sequoyah units were 

under increased oversight for security-related issues identified in late 2022. After an NRC 

supplemental inspection, the units returned to a baseline level of oversight by the end of 2023. 

Watts Bar Units 1 and 2 are currently under increased NRC oversight (the second 

performance category) due to a security-related finding. Additional inspections are planned this year 

to ensure comprehensive corrective measures are implemented.

The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators 

to assess plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. These inputs determine which of 

five performance categories corresponds to each unit’s performance, with units in the first category 

receiving the least oversight and those in the fifth category required to shut down to address the 

safety issues. 
Page | 2

The annual assessment letters for the TVA plants, including the upcoming inspection plans,

are available on the NRC website.
### SUBCHAPTER I—VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, comprising this subchapter, was originally enacted by Pub. L. 93–112, title I, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 363, and amended by Pub. L. 93–516, Dec. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1617; Pub. L. 93–651, Nov. 21, 1974, 89 Stat. 2–3; Pub. L. 94–230, Mar. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 211; Pub. L. 95–602, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2955; Pub. L. 97–375, Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1819; Pub. L. 98–221, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 98–524, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2435; Pub. L. 99–506, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1807; Pub. L. 100–630, Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3289; Pub. L. 102–52, June 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 260; Pub. L. 102–54, June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 267; Pub. L. 102–119, Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 587; Pub. L. 102–569, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4344; Pub. L. 103–73, Aug. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 718; Pub. L. 104–66, Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 707; Pub. L. 104–106, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 186. Title I is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §404, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1116, without reference to those intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of title I by Pub. L. 105–220.
### PART I—DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF AND RECOGNITION OF GAIN OR LOSS

Sec.
1001.
Determination of amount of and recognition of gain or loss.
[1002.
Repealed.]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(b)(28)(B)(ii), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1799, struck out item 1002 "Recognition of gain or loss".
### §1842. Confirmation of registration

No person shall utilize the services of any farm labor contractor to supply any migrant or seasonal agricultural worker unless the person first takes reasonable steps to determine that the farm labor contractor possesses a certificate of registration which is valid and which authorizes the activity for which the contractor is utilized. In making that determination, the person may rely upon either possession of a certificate of registration, or confirmation of such registration by the Department of Labor. The Secretary shall maintain a central public registry of all persons issued a certificate of registration.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title IV, §402, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2595.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.
#### State of Nebraska, ex rel. First National Bank of O’Neill, v. Daniel J. Cronin, Treasurer of Holt County, Nebraska.

Filed November 16, 1904.

No. 13,665.

Mandamus. The opinion in *State, ■ ex rel. First National Bank of Atkinson, v. Gronin, ante,*p. 636, is approved and followed. Peremptory writ of mandamus allowed.

Original application for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to deposit in relator bank its pro rata share of the county funds.

*Writ allowed.*

*R. R. Dickson,*for relator.

*Arthur F. Mullen*and *M. F. Harrington, contra.*

Barnes, J.

The application herein for a peremptory writ of mandamus was filed in this court at the same time that *State, ex rel. First National Bank of Atkinson, v. Cronin, ante,*p. 636, was .commenced; and an alternative writ was issued, returnable May 3, 1904. The application was based on a like state of facts, and the return to the alternative writ was the same as in the case above mentioned. It appears that at the time the action was commenced the relator had on deposit only $12,031.82 of the county funds, Avhen its pro rata share of said funds was $17,595. Under the undisputed facts, and the rule announced in the opinion cited, the relator is entitled to the relief prayed for, and a peremptory writ of mandamus is therefore allowed.

Writ alloaved.
#### Emily S. Jackson, Appellant, v. Raleigh Associates, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 821.]
#### Peter S. Gettell, Respondent, v. Duncan A. Dobie, as Executor, etc., Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A1 01 5 . TI RAM D. LEW I S v . THE STATE.

Ti ram L ewi s p l ed gu i l t y t o at t em p t ed arm ed ro b bery

, an d t he t ri al co urt en t ered

h i s j u d gm en t o f co nv i ct i o n o n Feb ru ary 1 3, 20 1 5

. Lew i s f i l ed a p ro s e n o t i ce o f

ap p eal o n No v em

ber 2 8 , 2 01 7. W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

To b e t i m e l y, a n o t i ce o f ap p eal m u st b e fi l ed wi t h i n 30 day s o f en t ry o f t h e

o rd er s o u g h t t o be ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro p er an d t i m el y fi l i n g

o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal is an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer j u ri sd i ct i o n o n th i s Co u rt

.

See R o wl a n d v. S ta t e

, 2 6 4 Ga. 8 7 2

, 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 5 6) (1 9 9 5 ). Becau s e Lewi s

fi led h i s n o t i c e o f a p p eal m o re t h an t wo y ears aft er en t ry o f t h e o rd er h e s eek s to

ap p eal

, i t i s u n t i m el y

. A cco rd i n g l y

, t h is ap p eal i s h ereb y D I S M I S S ED fo r l ack o f

ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

W e n o t e, ho wev er, t h at Lewi s was rep res en t ed b y co u n s el b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt

an d m ay b e en t i t l ed t o p urs u e an o u t-o f-t i m e ap p eal

. H e th erefo re i s in fo rm ed o f t h e

fo l l o w i n g i n acco rd an ce wi t h Ro wl a nd

, 2 6 4 G a. at 8 7 5-8 7 6 (2 ): Th i s ap p eal h as b een

d i s m i s s ed b ecau s e y o u fai l ed to fi l e a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f ap p eal

. If y o u s t i ll wi s h to

ap p eal

, y o u m ay p et i ti o n t h e tri al co u rt fo r l eav e t o fi l e an o u t -o f-t im e ap p eal

. If t h e

t ri al co u rt g ran t s y o u r req u es t , y o u wi ll h av e 3 0 d ay s fro m t h e en try o f t h at o rd er to

fi le a n o t i c e o f ap p eal referen ci n g y o u r co n v i ct i o n

. If t h e t ri al co u rt d en i es y o u r

req u es t , y o u wi l l h av e 3 0 d ay s fro m t h e en try o f t h at o rd er t o fi le a n o t i ce o f ap p eal

referen ci n g t h e d en i al o f y o u r req u es t fo r an o u t -o f-t i m e ap p eal

. February 08, 2018Th e Cl erk o f Co u rt i s DIRECTED t o s en d a co p y o f t h i s o rd er t o Lewi s an d to

Lewi s ’ s at to rn ey , an d t h e l at t er al s o i s DIRECTED t o s en d a co p y t o Lewi s.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 02/08/2018
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-150 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, October 22, 1996)

NOTE TO EDITORS -- ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE MEDICAL USES OF

ISOTOPES TO MEET NOVEMBER 14-15

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a

meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes

(ACMUI) on November 14 and 15 in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss

security and control of byproduct materials in medical and

university settings and other issues.

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will begin

at 9 a.m. November 14 and 8:00 a.m. November 15, in Room T2B3, at

Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville.

Other aspects of the meeting, including the opportunity for

public comment, are described in a Notice of Meeting published in

the October 21 edition of the Federal Register.

#
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No. II-96-66 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Wednesday, July 31, 1996)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC SCHEDULES SPECIAL INSPECTION EXIT MEETING

AT CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public exit meeting atFlorida Power

Corporation’s Crystal River nuclear power plant to discuss theresults of an NRC Integrated

Performance Assessment Process (IPAP) inspection at the plant. That meeting will be Tuesday,

August 6, at 10:00 a.m.

The IPAP is a four-phase process for evaluating the safety performance of licensees that operate

nuclear power plants. The NRC developed the process over a two-year period between 1994 and

1995 and it was implemented in September 1995. It is conducted at each plant once every four

years by a teamof senior inspectors who are independent of the day-to-day oversight of the plant.

The four phases of the IPAP are: (1) an in-office review of documents relating to plant

performance over a two year period and a preliminary report issued tolicensee; (2) an onsite

inspection and validation of licensee performance; (3)completion of final analysis and

development of inspection recommendations,and issuance of a final report; and (4) an evaluation

of the effectiveness andimplementation of regulatory programs.

The IPAP allows the NRC to develop a perspective of licensee strengths and weaknesses, to

validate preliminary conclusions, to develop inspection recommendations, and to develop

feedback on NRC regulatory programs.

The August 6 exit meeting marks the end of the onsite phase of the Crystal River IPAP and will

be attended by NRC staff from the agency's headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, the Region II

office in Atlanta and the resident inspectors' office at the Crystal River plant.

####