alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-11211

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RODGER LYNN EDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-194-R

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodger Lynn Edge, #26523-080, seeks in forma pauperis (IFP)

status to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. Edge’s challenge to the restitution portion of

his sentence is not within the scope of § 2255 because it raises

a nonconstitutional issue that could have been raised on direct

appeal. See United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir.
No. 95-11211

- 2 -

1992); United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5th Cir.

1981). 

Having reviewed the record and the relevant law, we DENY the

motion for IFP because this appeal does not involve legal points

arguable on their merits. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811

F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). Thus, the appeal is frivolous and

is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Edge that any additional

frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Edge is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED. 

SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
§ 113.110 Remedial and affirmative action and self-evaluation. ( a ) *Remedial action.* If the designated agency official finds that a recipient has discriminated against persons on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, such recipient shall take such remedial action as the designated agency official deems necessary to overcome the effects of such discrimination.
( b ) *Affirmative action.* In the absence of a finding of discrimination on the basis of sex in an education program or activity, a recipient may take affirmative action consistent with law to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex. Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be interpreted to alter any affirmative action obligations that a recipient may have under Executive Order 11246, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 339; as amended by Executive Order 11375, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 684; as amended by Executive Order 11478, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 803; as amended by Executive Order 12086, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 230; as amended by Executive Order 12107, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264.
( c ) *Self-evaluation.* Each recipient education institution shall, within one year of September 29, 2000: ( 1 ) Evaluate, in terms of the requirements of these Title IX regulations, its current policies and practices and the effects thereof concerning admission of students, treatment of students, and employment of both academic and non-academic personnel working in connection with the recipient's education program or activity;
( 2 ) Modify any of these policies and practices that do not or may not meet the requirements of these Title IX regulations; and
( 3 ) Take appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that resulted or may have resulted from adherence to these policies and practices.
( d ) *Availability of self-evaluation and related materials.* Recipients shall maintain on file for at least three years following completion of the evaluation required under paragraph (c) of this section, and shall provide to the designated agency official upon request, a description of any modifications made pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section and of any remedial steps taken pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
### §657. Arbitration award and judgment

(a) Filing and Effect of Arbitration Award.—An arbitration award made by an arbitrator under this chapter, along with proof of service of such award on the other party by the prevailing party or by the plaintiff, shall be filed promptly after the arbitration hearing is concluded with the clerk of the district court that referred the case to arbitration. Such award shall be entered as the judgment of the court after the time has expired for requesting a trial de novo. The judgment so entered shall be subject to the same provisions of law and shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the court in a civil action, except that the judgment shall not be subject to review in any other court by appeal or otherwise.

(b) Sealing of Arbitration Award.—The district court shall provide, by local rule adopted under section 2071(a), that the contents of any arbitration award made under this chapter shall not be made known to any judge who might be assigned to the case until the district court has entered final judgment in the action or the action has otherwise terminated.

(c) Trial de Novo of Arbitration Awards.—

(1) Time for filing demand.—Within 30 days after the filing of an arbitration award with a district court under subsection (a), any party may file a written demand for a trial de novo in the district court.

(2) Action restored to court docket.—Upon a demand for a trial de novo, the action shall be restored to the docket of the court and treated for all purposes as if it had not been referred to arbitration.

(3) Exclusion of evidence of arbitration.—The court shall not admit at the trial de novo any evidence that there has been an arbitration proceeding, the nature or amount of any award, or any other matter concerning the conduct of the arbitration proceeding, unless—

(A) the evidence would otherwise be admissible in the court under the Federal Rules of Evidence; or

(B) the parties have otherwise stipulated.

(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4662; amended Pub. L. 105–315, §9, Oct. 30, 1998, 112 Stat. 2997.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Evidence, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(A), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–315 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to arbitration award and judgment for provisions relating to compensation of arbitrators.
### §2509. Technical assistance program authorization

There is authorized to be appropriated $1,000,000 to carry out section 2503 of this title.

(Pub. L. 102–530, §10, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3468.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          51,683
<SECURITIES>                                    21,712
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,486
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,934
<PP&E>                                          67,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 305,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,413
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           566
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   305,102
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               279,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  238,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,016)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   559
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,731
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,639
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,639
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
        

</TABLE>
§ 123.18 Can I request an increase in the amount of a physical disaster loan? ( a ) Generally, SBA will consider your request for an increase in your loan if you can show that the eligible cost of repair or replacement of damages increased because of events occurring after the loan approval that were beyond your control. An eligible cost is one which is related to the disaster for which SBA issued the original loan. For example, if you discover hidden damage within a reasonable time after SBA approved your original disaster loan and before repair, renovation, or reconstruction is complete, you may request an increase. Or, if applicable building code requirements were changed since SBA approved your original loan, you may request an increase in your loan amount.
( b ) For all disasters occurring on or after November 25, 2015, you may also request an increase in your loan if you suffered substantial economic damage or substantial risks to health or safety as a result of malfeasance in connection with the repair or replacement of real property or business machinery and equipment for which SBA made a disaster loan. See § 123.105 for limits on home loan amounts and § 123.202 for limits on business loan amounts. Malfeasance may include, but is not limited to, nonperformance of all or any portion of the work for which a contractor was paid, work that does not meet acceptable standards, or use of substandard materials.
[63 FR 15072, Mar. 30, 1998, as amended at 81 FR 67903, Oct. 3, 2016]
From: Robert Berman [mailto:bermaneconomics@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:40 PM
To: Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com
Cc: Richard Parker; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; ArtRosenfeld; Bob Saint; BobSmith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carl os Gaytan; Caskey, John; CharlieDrexler; Charlie Stevens; ChrisBolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Cr eevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch,Bruce R; James Lass; Jenn ifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; JerrySchoen; Jim Raba; JoannaMauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; KenWinder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; MegWaltner; Meyers, Aaro n; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; PhilHarter; Phil Hopkinson; Polin ski,Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson;
Zhimei Luo Subject: Re: NES savings in NIA: "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard"



### I believe that is an editing error that I questioned last winter. I wa s told it was text from 2007 that
was not revised. It should read "current standard."

Regards,

Robert A. Berman, Principal
Berman Economics
1915 Grand Court Vienna, VA 22182
703.281.0490 703.655.8398 (cell) Berman.Economics@gmail.com
www.BermanEconomics.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 12, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com wrote:

Mr Parker,

Please find attached a page from Chapter 10, Na tional Impact Analysis from the September 2011 analysis that states that the NES are "relative to a base-case scenario of no standard." I'm interpreting this as meaning that the savings calculated are agains t the "affected stock", or the transformers that are currently in the field rather than the savings that are already to be gained as a result of the 2007 ruling, or EL0.

If my interpretation of this is correct, the current NES analysis is "double counting" the energy savings which have already been implemented by the 2007 ru le. Since we are comparing LCC and Payback against EL0, shouldn't the NES analysis be relative to the current EL0 standard rather than using ascenario of "no standard"?

Regards,

Eric Petersen Director Customer Technical Services and Research AK Steel Corporation

Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message. 

### <S45C-211120912440.pdf>
#### § 2.2 OMB control numbers assigned to information collections.

| 44 CFR part or section where identified or described | Current OMB Control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 59 | 1660-0023 |
| 59.22 | 1660-0003, 1660-0004 |
| 59 subpart C | 1660-0045 |
| 60.6, 60.3 | 1660-0033 |
| 61.13 | 1660-0006 |
| 62 subpart B | 1660-0005,1660-0095 |
| 62.23(l) | 1660-0086 |
| 62.24 | 1660-0020, 1660-0038 |
| 65, 70 generally | 1660-0037 |
| 71.4 | 1660-0010 |
| 72 | 1660-0015, 1660-0016 |
| 75.11 | 1660-0013 |
| 78 | 1660-0062, 1660-0072,1660-0075 |
| 79.7(d) | 1660-0104 |
| 80 | 1660-0103 |
| 151.11 | 1660-0014 |
| 152.4, 152.7 | 1660-0069 |
| 201 | 1660-0062, 1660-0072, 1660-0103 |
| 204 | 1660-0058 |
| 206 subpart B: 206.34, 206.35, 206.36, 206.46, 206.47 | 1660-0009 |
| 206 subpart D: 206.101(e), 202.110, 206.117, 206.119 | 1660-0002 |
| 206.112, 206.114, 206.115 | 1660-0061 |
| 206.171 | 1660-0085 |
| 206.202(f)(2), 206.203(c), 206.203(d)(i), 206.204(f) | 1660-0017 |
| 206 subpart K | 1660-0082, 1660-0083 |
| 206 subpart N | 1660-0076 |
| 206.437 | 1660-0026 |
| 206.440 | 1660-0076 |
| 208 | 1660-0073 |
| 352 | 1660-0024 |
' i '\i \l\''-^ , t



# ® Departmen t o f Energ y W«»h+rtgTOn , D C 2058 6 Augus-t5>201 0 Joh n M . Alle n Director , Fligh s Standard s Servic e Federal Avdado n AjdcaJiiistration 80 0 Inikpcixlenc e Avemie , S , W . Wtwhingtoni,DC2(J59 l l>ea r ^ff . Allen : Piea-i e exten dExemptio u No . 8775A . rcfcrcnc * Rjegulalor y Oocket Mo-FAA-3006-25092 , tlirougti i Augus t 31,2012 . Th e Basa s fo r

Uu r Meques f Thi s exemptio n co M CF K Par t 91.209 , Us e o f

Positui aLights , par^aph s (a ) (1 ) an d(b) , permit s th e Depaniment

o f Energ y (DOE ) coiiiiacTor , Wackeahu t Servic^es IncorporBte d(WSi), , t o opertite hv o DO>;-own<;i ! DK-11 7 Mictipleni , at night , withou t

exterio r aircral l lighting . O n thes e publio-airciaf

l mission.'; , WS I crew s us e Nigh t Visio n Gogg!es . (NVG ) at altitude abetwee n | 30 0 fee t an d50 0 feet

abov e groun dleve l (AQL ) o n exercise s an dactua l security lespcnis e f mission s t o protec t

th e critical natji.ana. 1 securit y oaset3 at tb e DO E Savamiai

h Rive r Sit e (SRS) . I Th e SR S i s locate d1 2 mile s south o f Aiken, , Sout

h Carolin aalon g th e Ssvaima . River . 'Hi e i airspac e abov e SR S i s no t resiricied , bu t

i s dqpicte do n th e Atlant aSectional with aNoiic e to j Ainne n wit

h caunion s fo r

transitin g th e are a(se e brwiosiirc) . 1 i Th e reasons , condition s an dlimitation s tha t wer e th e basi s for

grantin g th e cmgii'ia

l exemptiof

i hav e no t chaagcd . Thi s petitio n remain s justifie drdari'.' « t o publi c interest , safet y and ' naliona l security coreiidcTatiiins . \ i Ou r Koques t \ f leas e gran t

thi s petitio n an dexten dExemptio n No . 8775 A throug h Augus t 31,201 2 an dreissue \ t o DOE . Pleas e coatac t

m c at 202-586-5532 , o r

Dav e Lope z a

t 202-586-6177, , o r

b y emai ) at D_avidLopezi!tflJki.doe.KOVj , fo r fiinher intbrmation . i Sincerely , GlenF . Wattma

n ! DJ,rector, Offic e o f

Aviatio n Managemen t

j U . S . Depart

men t o f Energ y I ICO O Indepenflcnc c Ave . S.W . 1 Washington . D C 205S 5 i ? I PlinlEilwldinyinlKsiitcyrkdpui n £/ L d LS2Z£6^720

2 « S2ZSZ92Z0 Z 20=6 0 0L-90-0L0 2EnclosuflTe s Cc : romm y .Tobnso

n IraCoward



### i n dLSZ2£6i720

2 « SZ2SZ9220

Z 20:6 0 Ot-SO-Old z
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

^QOll-E-161 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:10 AM Sheet 201 of 264 
P.2 

Sep-04-9 8 01:45 P _ 

i w w *\* A »* V 

P.O l 

IflOOi 

CONTACT REPORT FORM 

PES PROJECT NO. 

FROM: 

DATE: 

CONTACT: 

COMPANY/AGENCY 

£&tV? Charles Hester 

Steve Kavanaugh' 

Bowie Manufacturing, Inc. 

(Address/Telephone No.:) (712)464-3191 

(Pax) (712) 464-8601 

fWac t Summary 

Mr. Kavanaugh was contacted to obtain infonnation about costs incurred by Bowie 

manufacturing as a result of their changing to a lower styrene (35%) resin for their manufacturing 

process. Bowie produces fiberglass units for mounting on the back of pickup trucks. These units 

are designed primarily for use by veterinarians for mobile storage of equipment and medicines. 

Mr. Kavanaugh explained that Bowie is a fairly small shop that uses about 50-75 gai 

(1 to P/j drums) of resin per day. Their resin manufacturer is based in California and suggested 

that Bowie try a new low styrene resin that had been delivered to meet California's polyester 

resin rules. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that the changeover to the new Tesin was accomplished widi 

no increase in the cost of tiieir process. They have experienced no problems in their 

manufacturing process or their product quality and appearance. Mr. Kavanaugh stated that their 

operators spent a little time adjusting the pressure and spray patterns on the applicators but that 

the changeover was considered to he quick and easy. He also stated that the new resin causes 

less eye irritation and less odor problems than their previous resin. The price of the low styrene 

resin is the same as their previous resin and Mr. Kavanaugh is very pleased with the results of the 

changeover. 

Ce*f*<*$A <W xvu. ^o .***£ <x.^cW *Xp*~*~ ^-A^ V ^~ t ^A^-V**"^
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateEnforcement

# Issued Significant Enforcement Actions

These actions, referred to as "escalated," include Notices of Violation for Severity Level I, II, or III violations; Notices of Violation associated with inspection findings that the Significance Determination Process categorizes as White, Yellow, or Red; civil penalties; NOVs to Individuals; Orders to modify, suspend, or revoke NRC licensees or the authority to engage in NRC-licensed activities; and Orders issued to impose civil penalties.

For definitions of the various Severity Levels, see Section 2.2.2, "Traditional Enforcement," of the Enforcement Policy. For definitions of the Significance Determination Process categories, see Section 0609-04 (04.02), "Definitions," of the NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0609.

Escalated enforcement actions issued to:

**Note**: Reactor Facilities, in a Decommissioning status, are listed under Materials Licensees.

Significant enforcement actions, listed alphabetically and dating back to as early as 1994, can be found in the Enforcement Document Collection.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, April 8, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Issued Significant Enforcement Actions
          - Authority and Regulations
          - Enforcement Policy
          - Enforcement Program Overview
          - Enforcement Process Diagram
          - Upcoming Conferences
          - Guidance
          - Sanctions for Discrimination Against Employees Who Raise Safety Concerns
          - Alternative Dispute Resolution
          - Public Involvement
          - Contact Us

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, April 8, 2024
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-83024 andNo. 333-115771) and Form S-8 (No. 333-53552, No. 333-108178 and No. 333-118010) of Tripath Technology Inc. of our report dated November 23, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and our report datedNovember 23, 2005, relating to internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    STONEFIELD JOSEPHSON INC. 

 

San Francisco, CA 

December 7, 2005
1 The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1452

___________ John Stanley Newberry, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Kenneth McKee, Sheriff, Washington * Western District of Arkansas. County, Arkansas; Jim Renfrow, Sgt.; * Randall Denzer, Lt.; Bruce Center, * [UNPUBLISHED] Deputy; Rick Holly, Deputy; Ridenour, * Deputy, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 3, 2001 Filed: August 8, 2001

___________ Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate John Newberry appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment for defendants following a bench trial on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force claim.-2-

After careful consideration of the arguments in Newberry’s brief, we conclude that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. Newberry fails to direct us to anything in the record which would show that the district court erred in entering judgment against him after crediting defendants’ testimony regarding their conduct, see United Stat es v. Wicker , 80 F.3d 263, 268 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court’s findings as to credibility of witnesses are virtually unreviewable on appeal), or that it abused its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel, see Stevens v. Redwing , 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8thCir. 1998) (standard of review; pro se litigant has no statutory or constitutional right to have counsel appointed in civil case).
Accor dingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B., and deny all of Newberry’s pending motions. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.