alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2508. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) The term "community-based organization" means a community-based organization as defined in section 4(5) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501(5)),1 that has demonstrated experience administering programs that train women for apprenticeable occupations or other nontraditional occupations.

(2) The term "nontraditional occupation" means jobs in which women make up 25 percent or less of the total number of workers in that occupation.

(3) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Labor.

(Pub. L. 102–530, §9, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3468.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 4(5) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501(5)), referred to in par. (1), was classified to section 1503(5) of this title and was repealed by Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), (c)(2)(B), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059, effective July 1, 2000. Pursuant to former section 2940(b) of this title, references to a provision of the Job Training Partnership Act, effective Aug. 7, 1998, were deemed to refer to that provision or the corresponding provision of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–220, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 936, and, effective July 1, 2000, were deemed to refer to the corresponding provision of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was repealed by Pub. L. 113–128, title V, §§506, 511(a), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1703, 1705, effective July 1, 2015. Pursuant to section 3361(a) of this title, references to a provision of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 are deemed to refer to the corresponding provision of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Pub. L. 113–128, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1425, effective July 1, 2015. For complete classification of the Job Training Partnership Act and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to the Code, see Tables. For complete classification of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 3101 of this title and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee, Respondent. Kenneth J. Mullane, as Special Guardian and Attorney for Infants and Others, Appearing Specially, Appellant; James N. Vaughan, as Special Guardian and Attorney for Infants and Others, Respondents.

Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 772.]
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Trust Certificates
(TRUCs), Series 2001-2 Trust;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports; and

4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor
and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the
trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank
Trust National Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.




                                  By:  /s/ Tmothy Kelley Millet
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                  Name:    Timothy Kelley Millet
                                  Title:   Chief Executive Officer/President,
                                           Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                                  Date:    March 26, 2004








                                      6
§ 312.5 Personnel. FEMA contributes to the development and support of emergency management organizations in the States and their political subdivisions, and to the development, operation, and maintenance of specific programs, through payment of salaries and benefits of State and local civil defense staff, and the payment of administrative expenses and travel, not to exceed 50 percent. FEMA also provides contributions for training and education expenses. The following use of such personnel for natural disaster purposes is allowable provided that such usage is consistent with, contributes to, and does not detract from attack-related civil defense preparedness: ( a ) In developing, maintaining, testing and exercising plans, systems, and procedures for the protection of people and property from the effects of attack-related disasters, States and their political subdivisions may include and provide for natural disasters.
( b ) Personnel supported in part through contributions under the Act may be assigned responsibilities for preparation for and response to natural disasters in any specific emergency occurring in a State or its political subdivisions as determined by the responsible State or local officials, respectively.
( c ) Personnel supported in whole under the Act, may be assigned to emergency response operations for 15 days at the discretion of State officials; approval of the FEMA Regional Administrator is required for the use of these personnel in excess of 15 days. An assignment to emergency response operations does not preclude the accomplishment of program work and objectives. Failure to accomplish such work may subject the State to the withholding of funds contributed under the Act, or to collection of funds already obligated, not to exceed the estimated cost of the work not performed, as determined by the Regional Administrator.
( d ) In the event of an emergency or major disaster declared under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, as amended, personnel will not be provided overtime compensation and expenses under the Act.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-59 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson October 1, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC, OPPD TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT FORT CALHOUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional enforcement

conference Tuesday, October 7, with officials of Omaha Public Power District, the

operator of Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant, near Fort Calhoun, Nebraska, to discuss

four apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The conference will begin at 9 a.m. at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas.

The meeting will be open to public observation; NRC officials will be available afterward

for questions.

All four apparent violations arose from an incident in which a plant operator

mistakenly set the control switches for two valves in such a way that it rendered

inoperable the containment spray system. Containment spray is provided to reduce

temperature and pressure inside the reactor containment structure during certain

accident conditions. The error was made during a maintenance test procedure.

The apparent violations being discussed are: failure to follow plant procedures;

failure to shut down the plant as required when containment spray is inoperable; failure

to log the actions taken; and failure to conduct a proper shift turnover that allowed the

problem to go undetected.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean

that NRC has made a final determination that violations did occur or that enforcement

action, such as a monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss

the apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, and to provide OPPD

officials with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the

NRC inspection report and present corrective actions that have been taken.
No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action

will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later time.

###
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22964-CIV-WILLIAMS

DIANELIN M. VERGARA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report 

and Recommendation (“the Report”) (DE 27) that the Court deny Plaintiff Dianelin M. Vergara’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (DE 22) and grant Defendant 

Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s 

Motion”). (DE 25.) Plaintiff objected to the Report. (DE 29.) Upon an independent review of the 

Report, Plaintiff’s objections, and the full record in this case, the Court agrees with the Report.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 27) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion (DE 22) is DENIED. 

3. Defendant’s Motion (DE 25) is GRANTED. 

4. The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is AFFIRMED. 

5. This action is DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

6. Any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and any forthcoming, deadlines, hearings, 

or trial settings are CANCELED. 

7. An order of final judgment will follow separately.

Case 1:20-cv-22964-KMW Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on this 14th day of March, 2022.

 

Case 1:20-cv-22964-KMW Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Edward J. Fitzgerald, Deceased. Arthur Bruan, as Executor and Trustee Named in the Will of Edward J. Fitzgerald, Deceased, et al., Appellants; Mary E. Fitzgerald, Respondent.

Appeal by proponent of the will of Edward J. Fitzgerald, deceased, from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Queens County, denying probate and making an allowance to the special guardian, and by the special guardian from so much of the decree as denies probate to the propounded script. Decree modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the provisions with respect of the jury’s verdict, the dismissal of the petition, and denial of probate to the propounded script, and by inserting in place thereof a provision admitting the will to probate. As thus modified, the decree is unanimously affirmed, with costs, payable out of the estate, to all parties filing briefs, and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for the entry of a decree accordingly. No evidence of undue influence was adduced that warranted a submission to the 3ury on that issue. The interest of the draftsman of the script was contingent and too remote to present a jury question under the proof herein. *(Matter of Smith,*95 N. Y. 516, 523; *Matter of Connor,*230 App. Div. 163; *Eaughian*V. *Contan,*86 App. Div. 290; *Matter of Wharton,*270 App. Div. 670.) Present — Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. J
### Part B—Compensation and Other Personnel Matters
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-09 January 29, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT RATED "GOOD" IN ALL FOUR AREAS

IN NRC PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The Palisades Nuclear Power Plant, operated by Consumers

Power Co., has received performance ratings of "good" in

operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support, the four

areas of review in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's

latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)

report for the facility. The plant is located near Covert,

Michigan.

The assessment covers the period from May 28, 1995, through

November 23 of last year.

The NRC staff and Consumers Power officials will discuss the

evaluation during a meeting set for 10 a.m. EST on February 7 at

Lake Michigan College, Upton 101-102, Benton Harbor, Michigan..

The meeting will be open to public observation. NRC officials

will be available afterwards to speak with reporters, state and

local officials, and members of the public.

NRC SALP reports rate utilities in four functional areas --

plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support --

and assign ratings of Category 1, 2, or 3 depending on whether

their performance in those areas is superior, good or acceptable.

The report on Palisades gives the plant a "Category 2" rating --

indicating good performance -- in operations, maintenance,

engineering, and plant support.

NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach, in a letter to the

utility, said that the utility's performance at Palisades was

good during the assessment period with no change in the ratings

from the previous assessment period.

"Initiatives to further improve performance in all areas

were evident in this period," he said. "However, the rate of

performance improvement lessened considerably [from the previous

period], particularly in the area of plant operations."

He concluded, "In summary, while Palisades' overall

performance was good in all functional areas, persistent

personnel errors and lack of aggressive and effective corrective
action continued to occur. These weaknesses continue to inhibit

further improvements at Palisades and require your continued

attention."

The ratings for each functional area of this report and the

previous report were:

Functional Area Current Period Previous Period

Operations 2 2

Maintenance 2 2

Engineering 2 2

Plant Support 2 2

####

The full SALP report is available on the NRC's internet web site

at: <http://www.nrc.gov/OPA>. SALP reports for all nuclear

plants are also available as they are issued through an

electronic mailing list. To receive these reports send an e-mail

message to listproc@nrc.gov with no subject and with the

following message: subscribe salp yourfirstname yourlastname.
# sz de maximis, inc .. September 24, 1999 1125 S. Cedar Crest Blvd. Suite 202 Allentown, PA 18103 (610) 435-1151 FAX (610) 435"8459 

# FllE COP)'

Via Overnight Courier
Mr. Christos Tsiamis (FED-XMPR) New Yark/Caribbean Remedial Action Branch U.S. EPA, Region II 20 1h Floor, 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007 RED
.

RE: Fulton Terminals Superfund Site

- Remedial Action Report for Groundwater Dear Mr. Tsiamis: On behalfofthe Fulton Terminals Site Remedial Action Trust, attached please find two (2) copies of the Remedial ActionRepmidetailingthe implementationof the groundwaterremedy atthe Fulton Terminals Superfund Site located in Fulton, New York. As discussed, RauxAssociateswill alsoprepare aProject CloseoutReport detailingthe construction and monitoring activities associated with performance ofthe groundwater remedy. The Project Closeout Repmi will be certified by a qualified professional engineer, licensed by the State of New York in accordance with Section VI. J.2.d ofthe Consent Decree. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal, please contact me at (61 0) 435-1151. Very truly yours, 

### de maximis, inc.

# CQ~·**~** Chr.is R oung ProJect Attachment CC: David Crosby, NYSDEC Fulton Terminals Technical and Management Committees FILE: 3024/fultcoverfinal

Allentown, PA • Clinton, NJ • Danville, IN • KnoXVille, TN • Livonia, MI • Palo Alto, CA Riverside, CA • St. Charles, IL • Sarasota, FL • Seattle, WA • Simsbury, CT • Waltham, MA
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                         ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

                            NEWCOURT FINANCIAL USA INC.

                      NEWCOURT RECEIVABLES ASSET TRUST 1998-1

     The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Newcourt Financial USA
Inc. ("Newcourt"), as Servicer pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of October 15, 1998 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among
Newcourt Receivables Corporation II, as Trust Depositor, Newcourt, as Servicer,
Harris Trust and Savings Bank, as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.        Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective
          meanings set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

2.        Newcourt is as of the date hereof the Servicer under the Pooling and
          Servicing Agreement.

3.        The undersigned is duly authorized pursuant to the Pooling and
          Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.

4.        This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 9.05 of the Pooling
          and Servicing Agreement.

5.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended
          December 31, 1998 and of its performance under the Pooling and
          Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.

6.        Based on such review, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, the
          Servicer has performed or caused to be performed in all material
          respects all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing
          Agreement throughout such year and no Servicer Default has occurred or
          is continuing except as set forth in paragraph 7 below.

7.        The following is a description of each Servicer Default under the
          provisions of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement known to me to have
          occurred during the year ended December 31, 1998, which sets forth in
          detail the (i) nature of each such Servicer Default, (ii) the action
          taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such Servicer Default
          and (iii) the current status of each such Servicer Default:

                                        NONE

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the
Servicer, has duly executed this Certificate this 31st day of March, 1999.

                                   By: /s/ Brian McLean
                                             Vice President, Securitization



                                         -9-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 99-32 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson September 7, 1999

OFFICE: 817-860-8128

PAGER: 888-876-2331

E-Mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC COMMISSIONER NILS DIAZ CANCELS VISIT TO TEXAS

Dr. Nils Diaz, Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has canceled

his trip to Texas which included a visit to the South Texas Project, a nuclear power plant near

Bay City, Texas, on Wednesday, September 8 (with a press availability at 2:30 p.m. at the

plant), and a visit to the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis at the Southwest

Research Institute in San Antonio on September 9. The planned visits were announced in a

news release issued Friday, September 3.

###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco FERNANDEZ-ELIZALDE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10267.

D.C. No. CR-00-01371-JMR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*627Submitted May 13, 2001 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Fernandez-Elizalde appeals the 37-month sentence imposed after his guilty-plea conviction to illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and affirm.

Fernandez-Elizalde contends the district court erred by improperly calculating his criminal history score. We review de novo the district court’s determination that a prior conviction may be used in calculating the criminal history score, *see United States v. Allen,*153 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.1998), and find no error.

Fernandez-Elizalde argues the district court’s use of his 1995 misdemeanor conviction violated *United States v. Akins,*276 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir.2002), which held a defendant must be advised of the dangers of self-representation before the waiver of the right of counsel can be deemed knowing and intelligent.

Fernandez-Elizalde’s reliance on *Akins*is misplaced, however, because the record in *Akins*did not contain a colloquy regarding Akins’ Sixth Amendment rights. *Id.*at 1145 *&*n. 1. In contrast, the record here demonstrates Fernandez-Elizalde was orally informed of his right to counsel, and the trial court found he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. *Cf id.*at 1147. Moreover, FernandezElizalde has failed to present any evidence that the waiver was invalid. *See Allen,*153 F.3d at 1041.

As such, the district court did not err by including the 1995 conviction when it computed Fernandez-Elizalde’s criminal history score.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 208.4 Purpose for System.

It is DHS policy to develop and provide a national system of standardized US&R resources to respond to Emergencies and Major Disasters that are beyond the capabilities of affected State and Local Governments.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HOMER RICHARDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-62-A, CA-97-634-AM)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Homer Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Alan Scheele, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Richards, Nos. CR-93-62-A, CA-97-634-AM

(E.D. Va. Sept. 30, 1997). We deny the request for stay and 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