alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region II

61 Forsyth Street, S. W.

Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-43 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Monday, June 9,

1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC OFFICIALS TO MEET WITH FP&L MANAGERS IN ATLANTA ON JUNE 17

TO DISCUSS ST. LUCIE PLANT PERFORMANCE AND STEAM GENERATOR

REPLACEMENT

Officials from the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

Florida Power & Light Company are scheduled to meet at the NRC

office in Atlanta at 10:00 a.m. (edt) on Tuesday, June 17, to

discuss the status of company efforts to improve performance at the

St. Lucie nuclear power plant and the schedule for replacement of

the plant's Unit 1 steam generators.

The meeting will be held in room 24T25 in the NRC offices at

the Atlanta Federal Center, located at 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. and

is open to observation by interested members of the public. NRC

officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions

from interested observers.

The meeting is part of a series of bi-monthly meetings between

the NRC and FP&L to discuss the status of plant performance

improvement initiatives and other issues of current interest at St.

Lucie.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

 Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On August 9, 2004 and September 7, 2004, the National Science Foundation published notices in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received, and a permit modification request. The permit and modification were issued on October 4, 2004 and October 14, 2004 respectively to:                

Yu-Ping Chin, Permit No. 2005-012

Wayne Z. Trivelpiece, Permit No. 2001-011 Mod 2

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-23464  Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-1-M
MARY ANN GRIFFIN

,

Appellant,

v.

GLENN R. GRIFFIN, JR.

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 5875

___ __________________________/

Opinion filed September 11, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. John L. Miller , Judge.

Mary Ann Griffin , pro se, Appellant.

Timothy J. Nusser of Timothy J. Nusse r , P.A., Pensacola

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, THOMAS, and CLARK, JJ., CONCUR.
GEORGE LYONS,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL D. CREWS, 

SECRETARY, FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-0382

Opinion filed October 6, 2014.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

George Lyons, pro se, Petitioner.

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, 

Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—BUDGET AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-22197-CIV-KING/REID

NIKO THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the September 18, 2020 Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (DE 4) of Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid. Plaintiff’s objections 

were due by October 2, 2020; none were filed. 

The R&R recommends dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction since Plaintiff’s 

motion to vacate, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is an unauthorized successive motion to vacate. 

(See generally R&R). Upon consideration of the record and the R&R, the Court finds that 

Magistrate Judge Reid’s well-reasoned R&R accurately states the law of the case. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

1. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report and Recommendation (DE 4) be, and the 

same hereby is, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (DE 1) is hereby DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction;

3. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue; and

Case 1:20-cv-22197-JLK Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

4. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice 

Building and United States Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 27th day of October, 2020.

______________________________

JAMES LAWRENCE KING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc:

All counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22197-JLK Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/27/2020 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-81155-CIV-ALTMAN 

HOWARD COHAN, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LINTON FOODS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the parties’ Notice of Settlement [ECF No. 

16]. The Court hereby ORDERS AND ADJUDGES as follows: 

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

to file a stipulation of dismissal on or before November 1, 2020. 

2. If the parties fail to complete the expected settlement, any party may ask the Court to 

reopen the case. 

3. All pending deadlines and hearings are TERMINATED, and any pending motions are 

DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 1st day of October 2020. 

_________________________________ 

ROY K. ALTMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

cc: counsel of record 

Case 9:20-cv-81155-RKA Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 63.5 Coverage for contents removal.

Whenever a structure is subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels and otherwise meets the requirements of section 1306(c) of the Act so that benefits are payable under those provisions, the coverage in the definition of “Direct Physical Loss by or from Flood” in the SFIP for the expense of removing contents, up to the minimum deductible of $500.00, to protect and preserve them from flood or from the imminent danger of flood, applies if contents coverage is in effect.
### §2009. Effect on other law and agreements

Except as provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 2006 of this title, this chapter shall not preempt any provision of any State or local law or of any negotiated collective bargaining agreement that prohibits lie detector tests or is more restrictive with respect to lie detector tests than any provision of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 100–347, §10, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 653.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 6 months after June 27, 1988, except that rules and regulations shall be issued not later than 90 days after June 27, 1988, see section 11 of Pub. L. 100–347, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.
### [§§1541 to 1546. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §134, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 41]

Section 1541, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 942; June 2, 1970, Pub. L. 91–271, title I, §102, 84 Stat. 274; July 26, 1979, Pub. L. 96–39, title X, §1001(b)(4)(A), 93 Stat. 305; Oct. 10, 1980, Pub. L. 96–417, title IV, §401(a), title V, §501(23), (24), 94 Stat. 1740, 1742, gave the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the Court of International Trade and from interlocutory orders of the Court of International Trade granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, and with discretion to entertain appeals from certain orders of the Court of International Trade. See section 1295(a)(5) of this title.

Section 1542, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 942; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §89(b), 63 Stat. 102, gave the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals jurisdiction of appeals from decisions of the Board of Appeals and the Board of Interference Examiners of the Patent Office as to patent applications and interferences, at the instance of an applicant for a patent or any party to a patent interference, with such appeal by an applicant to waive his right to proceed under section 63 of Title 35, and the Commissioner of Patents as to trademark applications and proceedings as provided in section 1071 of Title 15. See section 1295(a)(4) of this title.

Section 1543, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 943; Oct. 10, 1980, Pub. L. 96–417, title IV, §401(b)(1), 94 Stat. 1740, gave the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals jurisdiction to review final determinations of the United States International Trade Commission made under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 relating to unfair trade practices in import trade. See section 1295(a)(6) of this title.

Section 1544, added Pub. L. 89–651, §8(c)(1), Oct. 14, 1966, 80 Stat. 901, gave the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals jurisdiction to review, by appeal on questions of law only, findings of the Secretary of Commerce under headnote 6 to schedule 8, part 4, of the Tariff Schedules of the United States (relating to importation of instruments or apparatus). See section 1295(a)(7) of this title.

Section 1545, added Pub. L. 91–577, title III, §143(a), Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1558, gave the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals nonexclusive jurisdiction of appeals under section 71 of the Plant Variety Protection Act, classified to section 2461 of Title 7, Agriculture. See section 1295(a)(8) of this title.

Section 1546, added Pub. L. 96–417, title IV, §402(a), Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1740, gave the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals all of the powers in law and in equity of, or conferred by statute upon, a court of appeals of the United States.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as an Effective Date of 1982 Amendment note under section 171 of this title.
### §3305. When transfer is made or obligation is incurred

For the purposes of this subchapter:

(1) A transfer is made—

(A) with respect to an asset that is real property (other than a fixture, but including the interest of a seller or purchaser under a contract for the sale of the asset), when the transfer is so far perfected that a good-faith purchaser of the asset from the debtor against whom applicable law permits the transfer to be perfected cannot acquire an interest in the asset that is superior to the interest of the transferee; and

(B) with respect to an asset that is not real property or that is a fixture, when the transfer is so far perfected that a creditor on a simple contract cannot acquire, otherwise than under this subchapter, a judicial lien that is superior to the interest of the transferee.

(2) If applicable law permits the transfer to be perfected as approved in paragraph (1) and the transfer is not so perfected before the commencement of an action or proceeding for relief under this subchapter, the transfer is deemed made immediately before the commencement of the action or proceeding.

(3) If applicable law does not permit the transfer to be perfected as provided in paragraph (1), the transfer is made when it becomes effective between the debtor and the transferee.

(4) A transfer is not made until the debtor has acquired rights in the asset transferred.

(5) An obligation is incurred—

(A) if oral, when it becomes effective between the parties; or

(B) if evidenced by a writing executed by the obligor, when such writing is delivered to or for the benefit of the obligee.

(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, §3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4962.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
§ 333.81 Records and reports. ( a ) Persons are required to make and preserve for at least three years, accurate and complete records of any transaction covered by this part or an official action.
( b ) Records must be maintained in sufficient detail to permit the determination, upon examination, of whether each transaction complies with the provisions of this part or any official action. However, this part does not specify any particular method or system to be used.
( c ) Records required to be maintained by this part must be made available for examination on demand by duly authorized representatives of FEMA as provided in § 333.61.
( d ) In addition, persons must develop, maintain, and submit any other records and reports to FEMA that may be required for the administration of the Defense Production Act and other applicable statutes, and this part.
( e ) Under section 705(d) of the Act and the ultimate delegation of that authority to the FEMA Administrator, information obtained under section 705 of the Act which the Administrator deems confidential, or with reference to which a request for confidential treatment is made by the person furnishing such information, shall not be published or disclosed unless the Administrator determines that the withholding of this information is contrary to the interest of the national defense. Information required to be submitted to FEMA in connection with the enforcement or administration of the Act, this part, or an official action, is deemed to be confidential under section 705(d) of the Act and shall not be published or disclosed except as required by applicable Federal law.
### §510. Delegation of authority

The Attorney General may from time to time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the Attorney General.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 612.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | [Uncodified]. | 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §2, eff. May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 1261. |

Statutes at Large

The words "including any function transferred to the Attorney General by the provisions of this reorganization plan" are omitted as executed and unnecessary as the words "any function of the Attorney General" include the functions transferred to the Attorney General by 1950 Reorg. Plan. No. 2.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 510, act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 910, related to clerical assistants and messengers for United States attorneys, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), and reenactment in section 550 of this title by section 4(c) of Pub. L. 89–554.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Dr. Adya S.
Tripathi, Chief Executive Officer of Tripath Technology Inc. (the Company),
and David P. Eichler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certify that, to the best of his knowledge: 1.
  The Companys annual
  report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, to which
  this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report) fully
  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and2.
  The information contained
  in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
  financial condition of the Company at the end of the periods covered by the
  Periodic Report and the results of operations of the Company for the periods
  covered by the Periodic Report. In Witness
Whereof, the undersigned have set
their hands hereto as of the 9th day of March 2004. /s/
  ADYA S. TRIPATHI
  
  /s/
  DAVID P. EICHLERAdya
  S. Tripathi, Ph. D.
  
  David
  P. EichlerPresident
  and Chief Executive Officer
  
  Vice
  President Finance and Chief Financial Officer This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of Tripath Technology Inc. under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Charles F. Bishop, Respondent, v. William B. Lewis, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott and Dowling, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Application of The City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., to the Lands, etc., Required for the Opening and Extending of Glebe Avenue, from Westchester Avenue to Overing Avenue; Lyon Avenue, from Zerega Avenue to Castle Hill Ave*948nue; Frisby Avenue, from Zerega Avenue to West Farms Road, and Tratman Avenue, from Zerega Avenue to Benson Avenue, All of Which Are in the Twenty-fourth Ward, Borough of The Bronx, City of New York. The Bronx Gas and Electric Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Explore Sub-Alpine Landscapes at Mineral King

Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks
PUBLIC LAW 110–218—MAY 7, 2008 122 STAT. 731 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4203: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Feb. 12, considered and passed House. 

Apr. 22, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–218 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3035 Stone 

Mountain Street in Lithonia, Georgia, as the ‘‘Specialist Jamaal RaShard Addison 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JAMAAL RASHARD ADDISON POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3035 Stone Mountain Street in Lithonia, Georgia, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Jamaal RaShard 

Addison Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Jamaal RaShard Addison Post Office Building’’. 

Approved May 7, 2008. 

May 7, 2008 

[H.R. 4203] 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
466 P.2d 889

#### Pauline TATE, Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellee.

No. 393.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

March 6, 1970.

Michael F. McCormick, Carlsbad, for appellant.

E. P. Ripley, Santa Fe, Jerome D. Mat-kins, Carlsbad, for appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal by a certified school instructor, with tenure rights, from a decision of the New Mexico State Board of Education which affirmed the decision of the Carlsbad Municipal School District No. C refusing to re-employ Pauline Tate for the school year 1969-70. The material findings of fact and conclusions of law, both by the Local Board and the State Board, are in most instances identical with those in' Brininstool v. New Mexico State *324Board of Education (Ct.App.) 81 N.M. 319, 466 P.2d 885, decided March 6, 1970.

We reverse.

Here, the Local Board failed to comply with Rule No. 2-A (Tenure) of the State Board requiring notice that the teacher would not be re-employed. The issue is controlled by *Brininstool.*It states: “ * * the conduct of the Local Board in failing to follow the regulation amounted to unfairness. * * * ”

The State Board claims that Miss Tate was not prejudiced by lack of time to prepare because when asked whether or not she was “ * * * caught short of time in any manner in getting ready for this hearing, * * * ? ” she stated “No, not exactly. I — I went to Mr. McCormick and discussed the matter with him sometime — well, I believe it was after I received this evaluation. * * * *”*The answer related to a time prior to the giving of notice. Miss Tate had no obligation to prepare a defense at that time. As stated in Brininstool v. New Mexico State Board of Education, supra:

> “Although appellant may have known her Principal was going to recommend to the Local Board that she not be re-employed, this placed no burden upon her to employ an attorney, or to otherwise begin the preparation of her defense, in anticipation of the ruling of the Local Board. * * **»*

The Local Board’s failure to give timely notice constituted a substantial departure from the procedures and regulations prescribed by the State Board. We cannot say the State Board’s finding, that Miss Tate was not prejudiced by this departure, is supported by the record.

The order of the State Board affirming the decision of the Local Board should be reversed with directions to reverse the decision of the Local Board.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur.