alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTACHEMENT FOUR: PMN Substance Two CONFIDENTIAL
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.911 Response to the Size Standard Petition.

Although not required, any intervener may file and serve a response supporting or opposing the Size Standard Petition at any time prior to the close of record. SBA may intervene as of right at any time in any case until 15 days after the close of record, or the issuance of a decision, whichever comes first. The response must present argument.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsRotorcraft application of advanced computational aerodynamicsThe objective was to develop the capability to compute the unsteady viscous flow around rotor-body combinations. In the interest of tractability, the problem was divided into subprograms for: (1) computing the flow around a rotor blade in isolation; (2) computing the flow around a fuselage in isolation, and (3) integrating the pieces. Considerable progress has already been made by others toward computing the rotor in isolation (Srinivasen) and this work focused on the remaining tasks. These tasks required formulating a multi-block strategy for combining rotating blades and nonrotating components (i.e., a fuselage). Then an appropriate configuration was chosen for which suitable rotor body interference test data exists. Next, surface and volume grids were generated and state-of-the-art CFD codes were modified and applied to the problem.Document ID19910006674Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsStanaway, Sharon*(MCAT Inst. San Jose, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberMCAT-91-001NAS 1.26:187767NASA-CR-187767Accession Number91N15987Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC2-579Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910006674.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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DALE ANTHONY BENNETT, AKA Dale 

Anthony Stephens, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71346 

Agency No. A208-837-037 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Dale Anthony Bennett, a native and citizen of Belize, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for 

review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 5 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-71346 

We lack jurisdiction to consider whether Bennett’s waiver of the right to 

appeal was considered and intelligent where he failed to raise the issue before the 

BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally 

requiring exhaustion of claims before the BIA); cf. Biwot v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 

1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (where a waiver of appeal was not considered and 

intelligent, the waiver does not strip the court of jurisdiction). 

To the extent Bennett challenges the BIA’s May 16, 2018, order dismissing 

his appeal from the IJ’s order denying his motion to reopen, that challenge is not 

properly before us. See Dela Cruz v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 946, 948 (9th Cir. 2008)

(“Congress envisioned two separate petitions filed to review two separate final 

orders.” (internal quotation marks, emphasis, and citation omitted)); Lin v. 

Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979, 981 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that denials of subsequent 

motions to reopen require separate petitions for review).

The Clerk will mail an additional copy of this memorandum disposition to 

Bennett at:

17 Nurse Seay Street

Belize City

Belize, C.A.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region II

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

Number: II-96-68 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, August

16, 1996)

Telephone: (404) 331-5503/7878

NRC DISPATCHES SPECIAL INSPECTION TEAM TO ST. LUCIE

TO REVIEW CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH TAMPERING EVENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has dispatched a

special inspection team to the St. Lucie nuclear power plant,

operated by Florida Power & Light Company near Ft. Pierce, Florida,

to review circumstances associated with an event the company

identified and reported on August 14 involving injection of a gluelike substance into the locks of three key-operated switches

located in a restricted area of the plant.

NRC officials said the company took immediate steps to

secure the plant and prevent similar acts. The company also

replaced the locks, located on a device called a remote shutdown

panel, the same day.

The NRC inspectors are scheduled to arrive at St. Lucie on

Monday, August 19 to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the

company's response to the event.

The team will be made up of NRC managers and inspectors from

the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. and its Region II

office in Atlanta. The team leader is Kenneth P. Barr, a branch

chief in the Atlanta office's Division of Reactor Safety.

A final, unclassified report on the team's findings is

scheduled to be completed by before the end of September.

#
### §5352. Taxpaid wine bottling house

Any person bottling, packaging, or repackaging taxpaid wines shall, before commencing such operations, make application to the Secretary and receive permission to operate. Such premises shall be known as "tax-paid wine bottling houses."

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1378; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834; Pub. L. 96–39, title VIII, §807(a)(42), July 26, 1979, 93 Stat. 287.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5352, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 663, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.

#### Amendments

1979—Pub. L. 96–39 struck out "at premises other than the bottling premises of a distilled spirits plant" after "taxpaid wines".

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–39 effective Jan. 1, 1980, see section 810 of Pub. L. 96–39, set out as a note under section 5001 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of advisory committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Global Positioning System will meet in closed session on October 25, 2004, and November 22, 2004, at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. The Task Force will review a range of issues dealing with Galileo (or some other future radio navigation satellite system) and provide recommendations to address these issues.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will address: Provision of capabilities and services within GPS to ensure its viability in commercial markets; the impact on frequency spectrum use, signal waveforms and power management; access and denial issues throughout the spectrum of conflict; possible alternatives to a global radio navigation system including the development of small compact timing devices and/or navigation units; and vulnerabilities and upgrade strategies for all global radio navigation satellite systems (GRNSS). In addition, the Task Force will assess areas in which DoD should seek strong partnership relationships outside DoD, both within government and industry. It will recommend research and development areas that are uniquely in DoD interest and might not be accomplished by the private sector.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: October 4, 2004.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-22686 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No. II-96-59 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 July 10, 1996

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $500,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIES

AGAINST CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a total of $500,000 in civil penalties

against Florida Power Corporation for alleged violations of NRC requirements at the Crystal River

nuclear power plant near Crystal River, Florida.

Although the violations did not result in any actual impact on public health and safety, they

did raise significant regulatory concerns related to ineffective management oversight and followup

of operator concerns and operational activities. The NRC said the company failed to ensure that the

engineering department promptly and accurately addressed operator concerns, and that the company

demonstrated inadequate corrective action.

The NRC also said company managers appeared insensitive to safety concerns and did not

aggressively pursue them; that engineers overlooked basic scientific principles and produced

inaccurate analyses; and investigations failed to identify important case facts and underlying root

causes. The violations were found during inspections and investigations stemming from events in

September 1994.

NRC officials said on two occasions in September 1994, a crew of licensed operators at the

Crystal River plant adjusted make-up tank pressure and level to collect technical information to

determine whether an operating procedure relating to that tank was accurate. That make-up tank

contains water that is pumped directly into the reactor coolant system.

The actions taken by the operators were not required by plant conditions and the operators

asserted that the motivation for the unauthorized tests was to resolve a safety concern they had been

pursuing for several months with plant operations management, engineering and the NRC. However,

the tests were not described in the plant's Safety Analysis Report, and there was no written safety

evaluation to demonstrate that the tests did not involve an unreviewed safety question. In addition,

as a result of the tests, the licensee determined the facility had been operated outside its design limits.

The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the fine or to

protest its imposition.
####
§ 9.10 How does the Secretary make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental concerns? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to the Department through its single point of contact, the Secretary either: ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact with such written explanation of the decision, as the Secretary in his or her discretion deems appropriate. The Secretary may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunication, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of the section, the Secretary informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) The Department will not implement its decision for at least ten days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) The Secretary has reviewed the decision and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least ten days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a single point of contact is presumed to have received written notification 5 days after the date of mailing of such notification.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION 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 Kaiser Ventures LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), we, Richard E. Stoddard, Chief Executive Officer and James F. Verhey, Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC
(the Company), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 26, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard E. Stoddard                 
|                     |  |  |  | Richard E. Stoddard                     
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, President & CEO  
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ James F. Verhey                     
|                     |  |  |  | James F. Verhey                         
|                     |  |  |  | Executive Vice President  CFO          
|                     |  |  |  | Principal Financial & Accounting Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic, version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by such Act, the deemed filed by the Company for purposed of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporated it by reference.
### **CHAPTER 165—UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROCEDURE**

Sec.
2501.
Time for filing suit.
2502.
Aliens' privilege to sue.
2503.
Proceedings generally.
2504.
Plaintiff's testimony.
2505.
Trial before judges.
2506.
Interest of witness.
2507.
Calls and discovery.
2508.
Counterclaim or set-off. 1

2509.
Congressional reference cases.
2510.
Referral of cases by Comptroller General.
2511.
Accounts of officers, agents or contractors.
2512.
Disbursing officers; relief.
2513.
Unjust conviction and imprisonment.
2514.
Forfeiture of fraudulent claims.
2515.
New trial, stay of judgment. 1
2516.
Interest on claims and judgments.
2517.
Payment of judgments.
[2518.
Repealed.]
2519.
Conclusiveness of judgment.
[2520.
Repealed.]
2521.
Subpoenas and incidental powers.
2522.
Notice of appeal.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2000**—Pub. L. 106–518, title II, §207, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2414, struck out item 2520 "Fees".

**1992**—Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §§902(a)(1), 910(b), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516, 4520, substituted "UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS" for "UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT" in chapter heading and inserted "and incidental powers" in item 2521.

**1982**—Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §139(b)(2), (i)(2), (l), (n)(4), (o)(2), (q)(2), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 42–44, substituted "UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT" for "COURT OF CLAIMS" in chapter heading, substituted "Proceedings generally" for "Proceedings before commissioners generally" in item 2503, substituted "Referral of cases by Comptroller General" for "Referral of cases by the Comptroller General or the head of an executive department or agency" in item 2510, struck out item 2518 "Certification of judgments for appropriation", substituted "Fees" for "Fees; cost of printing record" in item 2520, and added item 2522.

**1978**—Pub. L. 95–563, §14(h)(2)(B), Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2390, inserted "or the head of an executive department or agency" after "Comptroller General" in item 2510.

**1954**—Act Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §§46, 54(c), 55(d), 59(b), 68 Stat. 1243, 1247, 1248, substituted "Trial before judges" for "Place of taking evidence" in item 2505, and "Calls and discovery," for "Calls on departments for information" in item 2507, rephrased item 2510, and added item 2521.

1  So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
Filed 3/27/15 P. v. Caballero CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR



### THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRANDON A L BERTO CABALLERO

,

Defendant and Appellant. B 257544

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. YA090136 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County,

Thomas R. Sokolov , Judge. Affirm ed

.

Christine C. Shaver , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________2

Defendant Brandon A lberto Caballero appeals from the judgment entered after his

no contest plea to grand theft under Penal Code section 4 8 7 , subdivision (c)

. 1 H is

appointed counsel filed a Wende brief. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) On

October 29, 2014

, we directed appointed counsel to send the record and a copy of

counsel’s brief to defendant and noti fied defendant of his right to respond within 30 days.

We received no response.

Defendant’s notice of appeal states that the appeal is based upon the sentence or

other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect its validity. (Cal. Rules of Cou rt,

rule 8.304(b)(4).) 2 We have reviewed the entire record under People v. Kelly (2006)

40 Cal.4th 106, focusing upon the sentence as that is the only matter that occurred after

entry of the plea. We note there is no abstract of judgment in the clerk’s t ranscript.

D efendant originally was charged with three counts: 1) second degree rob b ery

( § 211 )

, 2) assault with a deadly weapon ( § 245, subd. (a)(1)) , and (3) petty theft ( § 484,

subd. (a))

. T he complaint eventually was amended to add one count of gra nd theft

(§ 487, subd. (c) , count 4 ) . Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to

count 4 , and the remaining charges were dismissed. The trial court suspended imposition

of sentence and placed defendant on three years’ formal probation. H e was ordered to

serve 180 days in county jail, with 34 days of custody credit (17 days of actual credit and

17 days of conduct credit) . The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4,

subd. (b)), a $300 s uspended parole revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations

assessment fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 cri minal conviction asse ssment fee (Gov.

Code, § 70373) , and a $10 crime prevention fine (§ 1202.5).

Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that no arguable issues for appeal

exi st.

1 All subsequent references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 Defendant reques ted a certificate of probable cause, which was denied by the trial

court.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

EPSTEIN, P. J.

We concur:

MANELLA, J.

COLLINS, J.