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

Region II

101 Marietta Street N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-96-80 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Thursday,

September 26, 1996)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC STAFF FORMS AUGMENTED INSPECTION TEAM (AIT)

TO REVIEW OCONEE STEAM LINE RUPTURE EVENT

Preliminary Findings Will Be Discussed In Public Meeting

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has formed a special

Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to review circumstances associated

with the rupture of an 18-inch steam line at the Oconee nuclear

power plant near Seneca, South Carolina on September 24 which sent

seven workers to the hospital.

NRC officials said the AIT supersedes a team of inspectors

sent to the site immediately after the event and will be led by and

staffed by those same inspectors with the addition of specialists

from the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C.

On September 24, at 4:44 p.m., an 18-inch steam line ruptured

in the non-nuclear area of the plant where maintenance personnel

were working on valves in the basement of the Unit 2 turbine

building. Seven workers were injured and transported to hospitals

for treatment.

The injured workers had no radioactive contamination, and the

event posed no threat to plant workers not in the immediate area or

to residents near the site.

The team will hold an open exit meeting with company officials

upon completion of its inspection to discuss preliminary findings.

The team leader, Thomas A. Peebles, a Branch Chief in the NRC's

Division of Reactor Safety in Atlanta, will meet with interested

members of the public and news media representatives to answer

their questions at the conclusion of the exit meeting.

#
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. William J. Dougherty, Relator, v. Rhinelander Waldo, as Police Commissioner, etc., Respondent.

Writ dismissed and proceedings affirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 1.3 Regulatory policy. ( a ) It is the general policy of FEMA to provide for public participation in rulemaking regarding its programs and functions, including matters that relate to public property, loans, grants, or benefits, or contracts, even though these matters are not subject to a requirement for notice and public comment rulemaking by law.
( b ) It is the general policy of FEMA that its notices of proposed rulemaking are to afford the public at least 60 days for submission of comments unless the Administrator makes an exception and sets forth the reasons for the exception in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking.
( c ) The general policies contained in this section are not intended to and do not create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable against the United States or its agencies or officers. FEMA may depart from such policies in its absolute discretion, including for its annual grant programs and in other cases as circumstances warrant.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger A. DAMRON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6090.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 15, 2002.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Roger A. Damron, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Roger A. Damron seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Damron,*Nos. CR-97-16; CA-00-221 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 28, 2001). 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.*
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45806

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHARLES CECIL CARROLL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: October 11, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of one and one-half years, for lewd conduct with a child 

under sixteen, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Charles Cecil Carroll pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. Idaho Code 

§ 18-1508. The district court sentenced Carroll to a unified term of fifteen years with one and 

one-half years determinate. Carroll appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion 

by imposing an excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Carroll’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### § 312.1 Purpose and scope of the Regional Innovation Program.

The purpose of the Regional Innovation Program is to encourage and support the development of regional innovation strategies. The Regional Innovation Program includes two sub-programs. One is focused on the formation and development of regional innovation clusters and implemented through the Regional Innovation Strategies Program. 15 U.S.C. 3722(b). The second program is focused on best practices, metrics and the collection and dissemination of information related to regional innovation strategies, achieved through the Regional Innovation Research and Information Program. 15 U.S.C. 3722(c). The Secretary has delegated to the Economic Development Administration the authority to implement and administer the Regional Innovation Program.
#### Mike L. CHARLESTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCHUCK & SONS CONSTRUCTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16723.

D.C. No. CV-99-01104-PHX-JWS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*653Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER, 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 **

Mike L. Charleston appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his second motion to reconsider the district court’s summary judgment for Schuck & Sons Construction in his action alleging wrongful termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), *see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp.,*248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

Charleston contends that the judgment should be set aside due to extraordinary circumstances. This contention lacks merit because Charleston’s allegations do not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6). *See United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, Co.,*984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993).

We do not consider whether the actions of Charleston’s attorney constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) because Charleston expressly states he is not arguing excusable neglect.

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.
§ 127.300 How is a concern certified as an WOSB or EDWOSB? ( a ) *WOSB certification.* ( 1 ) A concern may apply to SBA for WOSB certification. There is no cost to apply to SBA for certification. SBA will consider the information provided by the concern in order to determine whether the concern qualifies. SBA, in its discretion, may rely solely upon the information submitted to establish eligibility, may request additional information, or may verify the information before making a determination. SBA may draw an adverse inference and deny the certification where the concern fails to cooperate with SBA or submit information requested by SBA.
( 2 ) A concern may submit evidence to SBA that it is a women-owned and controlled small business that is certified by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business or Veteran-Owned Business.
( 3 ) A concern may submit evidence that it has been certified as a WOSB by an approved Third-Party Certifier in accordance with this subpart.
( b ) *EDWOSB certification.* ( 1 ) A concern may apply to SBA for EDWOSB certification. There is no cost to apply to SBA for certification. SBA will consider the information provided by the concern in order to determine whether the concern qualifies. SBA, in its discretion, may rely solely upon the information submitted to establish eligibility, may request additional information, or may verify the information before making a determination. SBA may draw an adverse inference and deny the certification where the concern fails to cooperate with SBA or submit information requested by SBA.
( 2 ) A concern that is a certified participant in the 8(a) BD Program and owned and controlled by one or more women qualifies as an EDWOSB.
( 3 ) A concern may submit evidence to SBA that it is an economically disadvantaged women-owned and controlled small business that is certified by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business or Veteran-Owned Business.
( 4 ) A concern may submit evidence that it has been certified as an EDWOSB by a Third-Party Certifier under this subpart.
( c ) *SBA notification and designation.* If SBA determines that the concern is a qualified WOSB or EDWOSB, it will issue a letter of certification and designate the concern as a certified WOSB or EDWOSB on the Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) system, or successor system.
[85 FR 27660, May 11, 2020]
----

Call for proposals for indirect RTD actions under the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and Strengthening of the European Research Area’

(2005/C 322/12)

----

(1)OJ L 232, 29.8.2002, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 294, 29.10.2002, p. 1

(3)  Commission Decision C(2002)4789, as modified by C(2003)577, C(2003)955, C(2003)1952, C(2003)3543, C(2003)3555, C(2003)4609, C(2003)5183, C(2004)433, C(2004)2002, C(2004)2727, C(2004)3324, and C(2004)4178, all decisions unpublished.

(4)OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 23

(5)OJ L 248, of 16.9.2002, p. 1.

(6)OJ L 357, of 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(7)  C(2003)883 of 27.3.2003, as last modified by C(2004)3337 of 1.9.2004.

(8)  The EPSS is a tool to assist proposers to develop and submit their proposals electronically.

(9)  All proposals for indirect RTD actions must contain two parts: the forms (Part A) and the content (Part B).

(10)  Proposals for indirect RTD actions should be submitted in PDF (‘portable document format’, compatible with Adobe Version 3 or higher with embedded fonts). Compressed (‘zipped’) files will be excluded.

(11)  This does not include proposals for indirect RTD actions that have been submitted on-line.

----

ANNEX

1.   Specific programme: Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area

2.   Thematic priority/Domain: Specific measures in support of international cooperation — Western Balkan Countries (WBC)

3.   Call title: Specific Support Actions (SSA) for Western Balkan Countries

4.   Call identifier: FP6-2005-INCO-WBC/SSA-3

5.   Date of publication: 

6.   Closure date(s): 6 March 2006 at 17.00 (Brussels local time)

7.   Total indicative budget: EUR 4 million for 2006

8.   Area and instruments: 

9.   Minimum number of participants (2): 

10.   Restriction to participation: The coordinator should be a legal entity based in one of the WBC

11.   Consortium agreement: Participants in RTD actions resulting from this call are not required to conclude a consortium agreement

12.   Evaluation procedure: 

13.   Evaluation criteria: see Annex B of the work programme for the applicable criteria (including their individual weights and thresholds and the overall threshold) per instrument

14.   Indicative evaluation and selection delays: 

----

(1)  SSA = Specific support action

(2)  MS = Member States of the EU; AS (incl. ACC) = Associated States; ACC= Associated candidate countries. Western Balkan countries are defined in Annex C of the work programme.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
Swift Energy Operating Partners 1992-C, Ltd., was in the process of
liquidation as of March 31, 2000 and as such is governed by liquidation basi
accounting.  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Swift Energy Operating Partners 1992-C, Ltd's statement of net assets
in process of liquidation and statement of operations contained in its
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         440,872
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  382,869
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               848,136
<PP&E>                                         4,822,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,989,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          54,769
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        359,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               366,191
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  188,315<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,981,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,981,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,981,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsOptimization of Designs for Nanotube-based Scanning ProbesOptimization of designs for nanotube-based scanning probes, which may be used for high-resolution characterization of nanostructured materials, is examined. Continuum models to analyze the nanotube deformations are proposed to help guide selection of the optimum probe. The limitations on the use of these models that must be accounted for before applying to any design problem are presented. These limitations stem from the underlying assumptions and the expected range of nanotube loading, end conditions, and geometry. Once the limitations are accounted for, the key model parameters along with the appropriate classification of nanotube structures may serve as a basis for the design optimization of nanotube-based probe tips.Document ID20020078108Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHarik, V. M.*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA United States)*Gates, T. S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Bushnell, Dennis M.Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 2002Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And ThermodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:211756NASA/CR-2002-211756ICASE-IR-42Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-52-01CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-97046Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020078108.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
----

Notification according to Article 95(4) of the EC Treaty

Request for an authorisation to maintain national legislation derogating from the provisions of a Community Harmonisation Measure

(2006/C 29/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 304, 21.11.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Decree No 474/2000 setting down requirements for fertilisers.

(3)  ERM is a consultant which defined a methodology for cadmium risk assessments on behalf of the Commission.

----
### §1101. Congressional findings

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Senator John C. Stennis of the State of Mississippi has served his State and country with distinction for more than 60 years as a public servant, including service in the United States Senate for a period of 41 years.

(2) Senator Stennis has a distinguished record as a United States Senator, including service as the first Chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics, Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and President pro tempore of the Senate.

(3) Senator Stennis has long maintained a special interest in and devotion to the development of leadership and excellence in public service.

(4) There is a compelling need to encourage outstanding young people to pursue public service on a career basis and to provide public service leadership training opportunities for individuals serving in State and local governments and for individuals serving as employees of Members of Congress.

(5) It would be a fitting tribute to Senator Stennis and to his leadership, integrity, and years of devoted public service to establish in his name a center for the training and development of leadership and excellence in public service.

(Pub. L. 100–458, title I, §112, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2172.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 100–458, title I, §111, Oct. 1, 1988, 102 Stat. 2172, provided that: "This subtitle [subtitle B (§§111–121) of title I of Pub. L. 100–458, enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and Development Act'."
§ 333.20 General provisions. ( a ) EMPAS is designed to be largely self-executing. However, if production or delivery problems arise, a person should immediately contact FEMA (or the Delegate Agency, as appropriate) for special priorities assistance pursuant to §§ 333.20 through 333.24 and as directed by § 333.83. If FEMA (or the Delegate Agency, as appropriate) is unable to resolve the problem or to authorize the use of a priority rating and believes additional assistance is warranted, FEMA (or the Delegate Agency, as appropriate) may forward the request to another resource agency, as appropriate, for action. Special priorities assistance is a service provided to alleviate problems.
( b ) Special priorities assistance can be provided for any reason consistent with this part, such as assisting in obtaining timely deliveries of items needed to satisfy rated orders or authorizing the use of priority ratings on orders to obtain items not otherwise ratable under this part. Special priorities assistance may also be used to request rating authority for items that are not normally eligible for priority treatment.
( c ) A request for special priorities assistance or priority rating authority may be submitted on FEMA Form 009-0-142 (OMB control number 1660-0149) to FEMA. Form 009-0-142 may be obtained from the Delegate Agency or from FEMA.
[85 FR 28510, May 13, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 1292, Jan. 8, 2021]