alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1500. Pendency of claims in other courts

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 942; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §133(e)(1), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 40; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §260 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §154, 36 Stat. 1138).

Words "or in the Supreme Court on appeal therefrom" were omitted as unnecessary.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "United States Claims Court" for "Court of Claims".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
Exhibit 32.2

                  Certification of the Chief Accounting Officer
                       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 MedSolutions,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  year  ended  December  31,  2006,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  J. Steven
Evans, the Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,  hereby certifies,  pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                       /s/  J. STEVEN EVANS
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       J. Steven Evans
                                       Vice President/Finance and
                                       Chief Accounting Officer
                                       Date:  April 16, 2007
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. 97-023 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, February 11, 1997)

NRC REVISES REGULATIONS FOR SHIPMENTS

OF URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its

regulations regarding shipments of certain types of uranium and

plutonium.

The changes are necessary to correct a recently discovered

defect in the current regulations that, in special circumstances,

could permit a nuclear criticality, or chain reaction, to occur

in shipments of the materials that are allowed to take place

without specific NRC approval.

The amendments restrict the use of beryllium, graphite or

deuterium as moderating materials in the packaging of plutonium238, plutonium-239, plutonium-241, uranium-233, uranium-235 or

any combination of such fissile material.

In addition, limits are placed on the amount of fissile

material that can be shipped without specific NRC approval.

The recently discovered regulatory defect is not indicative

of unsafe fissile material shipments in the past. Rather, it was

identified by Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Company during their

preparation for shipment of an unprecedented type of fissile

material that could result in nuclear criticality under current

requirements. This unique material is produced as a waste

product from processing of strategic material resulting from

operations to commercially downblend weapons-usable fissile

material from the former Soviet Union.

This material, which has not previously been handled by NRC

licensees, contains beryllium, which acts as a "moderator" in the

presence of uranium and thus enhances its ability to achieve

criticality. NRC's current regulations assume that water is the

only moderator that might be present in fissile material

shipments made without specific NRC approval.
B&W's calculations showed that a shipment containing large

amounts of enriched uranium in the presence of beryllium had the

potential for starting a chain reaction. The company promptly

notified NRC and made a commitment not to make any such

shipments. The NRC staff determined that revisions to NRC

regulations were needed after verifying B&W's calculations.

In addition to amending its regulations, the NRC has

confirmed B&W's commitment not to make such shipments and has

sent a notice to all licensees that might ship similar material

in the future.

Because of the safety significance of this issue, the rule

change is effective immediately. However, interested persons may

submit comments by March 12 (30 days after publication of a

Federal Register on this subject on February 10), and the

Commission will revise the rule if necessary. Written comments

may be addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch. They also may be submitted electronically, as described

in the Federal Register notice.

###
#### Booker T. JAMES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry Dargan Mcmaster, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 05-6920.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 17, 2006.

Decided: Feb. 24, 2006.

*754Booker T. James, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Booker T. James seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that James has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
Case 1:20-cv-22323-JAL Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22323-JAL Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22323-JAL Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22323-JAL Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2020 Page 4 of 4
#### Gustav R. Mittelmark, Respondent, v. Nathan Mittelmark, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order entered December 19, 1947, as resettled by an order entered December 30, 1947, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Ho opinion. Order entered December 27, 1947, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent, provided that notice of the continued examination be given to the new parties. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Ho opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### Subtitle A—General Provisions
#### Jefferson County Fiscal Court et al. v. Trager.

Oct. 16, 1945.

Lawrence S. Grauman, County Attorney, for appellants.

J. Donald Dinning for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Yan Sant, Commissioner

Remanding cause.

*607The action was instituted under Sections 639a — 1 to 639a — 12, inclusive, of the Civil Code of Practice, wherein appellants and appellee seek a declaration of their respective rights under certain provisions of the Revised Statutes. Section 639a — 9, supra, provides that all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration shall be made parties when declaratory relief is sought; and the Attorney General of the State shall be served with a copy of. the pleadings in a proceeding which involves the validity of a Statute. Although the Commonwealth will be vitally affected by a decision of the questions presented, neither it nor any of its departments has been made a party to the suit; and, although the proceeding involves the validity of several Statutes, the Attorney General has not been served with a copy of the pleadings. For these reasons, the Chancellor should have refused to render a decision. Commonwealth ex rel. Meredith, Atty. Gen., v. Reeves, Commissioner of Revenue et al., 289 Ky. 73, 157 S. W. 2d 751.

The cause is remanded, with directions that the judgment be set aside but without prejudice to the right of the parties to amend and proceed in the manner above indicated.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-48 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 10, 1997

BRAD SMALLDRIDGE ASSIGNED AS NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has assigned Brad Smalldridge to the resident

inspector’s post at the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station near Burlington, Kansas. Mr.

Smalldridge will report for duty on September 15, joining senior resident inspector Fred

Ringwald.

This will be Mr. Smalldridge’s first assignment for the NRC. He left a position as head of

the Environmental Monitoring Branch of the Radiation Health Office at Puget Sound Naval

Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, to join the agency’s resident inspector development

program in March. He was a civilian employee with the Navy Department in his former job.

Mr. Smalldridge is a graduate of the University of Idaho, where he earned a degree in

Civil Engineering. He grew up in the small towns of Wenatchee, Washington, and Moscow,

Idaho. He will reside in the Burlington area with his wife Cayme and their two children, Jessica,

8, and Beecher, 6.

###
(October 21, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of Thomas A. Aurelio (Also Known as Thomas Anthony Aurelio), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

Martin, P. J.

The motion is granted to the following extent: Hon. Charles B. Sears, an Official Referee of the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, is appointed to take testimony with reference to the charges set forth in the petition of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in the above entitled matter and to report the same with his opinion to this court. The said reference shall be held at the Court House of the Supreme Court in the County of New York commencing on Monday, October "25, 1943, at 10:30 A. M. or at the convenience of the said referee.

Section 476 of the Judiciary Law provides, in part, that: “It shall be the duty of any district attorney within a department, when so designated by the presiding justice of the appellate division of the supreme court, to prosecute all proceedings for the removal or suspension of attorneys and counsellors at law * * *.”

The District Attorney of New York County has, for some time, been conducting an extensive investigation to ascertain facts in the Aurelio matter. As *959a result of such investigation the District Attorney of New York County should be more familiar with the entire matter than any other person or agency. His appointment, therefore, to prosecute these charges will be not only in the interest of justice, but will avoid delay and a duplication of work which would undoubtedly result if one not so familiar with the facts found it necessary to familiarize himself therewith, in order properly to present the evidence.

In accordance with the provisions of section 476 of the Judiciary Law, I, as Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, have duly designated Hon. Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney of New York County, to present the evidence relating to the charges in this proceeding before the said referee. An order to that effect will be entered forthwith.

Townley, Glennon and Dore, JJ., concur.

Motion granted to the following extent: Hon. Charles B. Sears, an Official Referee of the Court of Appeals of the State o’f New York, is appointed to take testimony with reference to the charges set forth in the petition of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in the above-entitled matter and to report the same with his opinion to this court. The said reference shall be held at the Court House of the Supreme Court in the County of New York commencing on Monday, October 25, 1943, at 10:30 *a.*m. or at the convenience of the said referee.
#### Paul Dahlman, Respondent, *v.*Globe Storage and Carpet Cleaning Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 10th day of September, 1913, upon a verdict, and also from an order entered on the 9th day of October, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

We think there is no evidence to justify a finding that the defendant was negligent or that the plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. The judgment and order appealed from are, therefore, reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Order to be settled on notice.
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-97-113 August 27, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan 

NRC, B&W TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT PENNSYLVANIA FACILITY

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and representatives of the Babcock & Wilcox

(B&W) Company will meet on Thursday, August 28, to discuss apparent violations of

agency requirements at the firmís facility in Parks Township, Pa. The apparent infractions

pertain to the facilityís radiation safety program and the control of work practices.

Scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. in the public meeting room

at the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa., the

predecisional enforcement conference will be open to the public

for observation.

B&W is working to remediate residual contamination at the

site. On June 26, remediation activities there resulted in three

workers suffering minor contamination.

During a follow-up inspection of this incident conducted

from July 9 through 11, NRC staff identified three apparent

violations. They include: an insufficient review of remediation

techniques at the facility from a radiation safety standpoint;

failure to use engineering controls to limit airborne

concentrations of radioactive material; and inadequate monitoring

of the concentration of airborne radioactivity in the vicinity of

workers.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that 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 the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this

conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.
2

 #
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

ff'.vou make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the total.~ update accordingly (l 

they do not, click (or Tah) into a11d then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Replacement or 41.0 :~"' q $15,478 I I• , 'l\ )I 1,28 1 Modificaiton ,; l)f 

Concurrent 

Installation or 60.0 

l»l I 

$18,089 ' ., j ':t t H) 214 t;~ i 

Modification 

\ 0 ()(1 ' n P•l ,I II) 

:- 0.00 \ n ntJ U ,Ill 

' 0 !10 " n 1ru ' ( 1 111) 

' (, '.10 ~I 01) n (HI 

\ 'l llj) ., li II/) ·, il 011 

o .no ' ,, p \II, (' "'I ... () ()f) ' {;,!Hl ., 0 IH! 

" ( 1.()(\ ) !! no ' > I J.llll 

ll,()p \ n 110 ., \) iri 

.. 0 ''" >J (HI u (Ill 

tl ( lp I) Ill) II {HI 

/)'H ,, iiO I I!• I 

' I I {I() '• {;ill I p,, 

() oo II fll> (1 {It 

'\ \). 0\! ' tl,! )" I' I' 

I (j(\ ' :) i' I 'I 

\ I 1)1 I I) Iii I I' {!I\ 

(),(II \{Ill ' i 1. d 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $29,254,049 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: ,., 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

\ t!.Oil ' \1 il(} 

' 0 ()() .... (1 lltl 

:-. t) I 1

l i <, IJ rHl 

" l' ' 'I Pol 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Same as existing 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory acti "?~· 

YES* D NO 1:8] 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? --

YES* D NO 1:8] 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. - 1 

YES 0 NO 1:8] 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO 1:8] 

*Explanation:
### **CHAPTER 9—PORTAL-TO-PORTAL PAY**

Sec.
251.
Congressional findings and declaration of policy.
252.
Relief from certain existing claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, the Walsh-Healey Act, and the Bacon-Davis Act.
253.
Compromise and waiver.
254.
Relief from liability and punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Walsh-Healey Act, and the Bacon-Davis Act for failure to pay minimum wage or overtime compensation.
255.
Statute of limitations.
256.
Determination of commencement of future actions.
257.
Pending collective and representative actions.
258.
Reliance on past administrative rulings, etc.
259.
Reliance in future on administrative rulings, etc.
260.
Liquidated damages.
261.
Applicability of "area of production" regulations.
262.
Definitions.
#### Orange T. Fanning and Thomas O’Donnell, Appellants, v. Belle Terre, Otherwise Known as Belle Terre Estates, Incorporated, etc., andOthers, Respondents, Impleaded with Charles A. Squires, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, etc., Appellant, and Others, Defendants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of *Fanning*v. *Belle Terre*(152 App. Div. 718). Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., not voting.
CERTIFICATION
      OF THE


PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Daniel
      L. Coury, Sr., the Acting Chief Executive Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-K/A
      for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of YP Corp.





Date:
                January 30, 2006*/s/*Daniel
                L. Coury, Sr.Daniel
                L. Coury, Sr.Acting
                Chief Executive Officer





I,
      W.
      Chris Broquist, the Chief Financial Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal
      year ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of YP
      Corp.





Date:
                January 30, 2006/s/
                W. Chris BroquistW.
                Chris BroquistChief
                Financial Officer
| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                |                                       |                                        |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                |                                       |
|                           |                                  |                                   |
| October                    19, 2006 | By:                              | /s/ *GEORGE                  S. YOUNG* |
|                                | George                    S. Young         |
|                                | Chief                    Executive Officer |

|   |   |
|--------|--------|