alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Notification by the Slovak Republic concerning visa reciprocity (1)

(2005/C 327/01)

The Permanent Representation of the Slovak Republic to the European Union presents its compliments to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission and has the honour of notifying that, pursuant to Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005, the Panamian Republic, by a note of 22 August 2005, has given notification of the abolition of visa requirements for nationals of the Slovak Republic in respect of all types of passport.

The Permanent Representation of the Slovak Republic to the European Union avails itself of this opportunity to assure the Council of the European Union and the European Commission of its highest consideration and friendship.

----

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 1(4)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

----
### §564. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–245, div. B, title I, §117(b)(1), Sept. 28, 2018, 132 Stat. 3067

Section, Pub. L. 91–204, title I, §100, Mar. 5, 1970, 84 Stat. 26, made the Working Capital Fund available for expenses necessary for personnel functions in regional administrative offices.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-81175-CIV-SINGHAL

STEVEN UNGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAJORCA AT VIA VERDE HOMEOWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER TO REOPEN

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Mandate from the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (DE [34]), reversing this Court’s Order (DE [17]) 

dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE [1]) without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN this 

case. Defendant’s answer is due by November 18, 2022. Furthermore, the parties shall 

file an amended Joint Scheduling Report by November 18, 2022.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of

October 2022.

Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 9:20-cv-81175-AHS Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/31/2022 Page 1 of 1
No: 24-021 March 21, 2024 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Announces Opportunity to Request a Hearing 

for the Browns Ferry Subsequent License Renewal Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced an opportunity for the public to request 

a hearing on an application proposing an additional 20 years of operation for the three Browns 

Ferry reactors in Athens, Alabama. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority filed the application Jan. 19 seeking a second, or 

subsequent, renewal of the reactors’ licenses from 60 to 80 years. The NRC approved the first 

renewal, from 40 to 60 years, in May 2006. The Browns Ferry reactor licenses currently expire 

in December 2033 for Unit 1, June 2034 for Unit 2, and July 2036 for Unit 3. 

The NRC staff has determined the application contains sufficient information for the 

agency to formally docket the application and begin its safety and environmental reviews. 

Docketing the application is not an indication of whether the NRC will renew the licenses. 

The notice in today’s Federal Register includes instructions for filing hearing requests. 

The filing deadline is May 20. 

A copy of the Browns Ferry subsequent license renewal application is available at the 

Athens-Limestone County Public Library, 603 S. Jefferson St. in Athens. More information 

about subsequent license renewal is available on the NRC website.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.203 The appeal petition. ( a ) A petition must contain the following: ( 1 ) The basis of OHA's jurisdiction (see § 134.102);
( 2 ) A copy of the SBA determination being appealed, if applicable, and the date the determination was received by the petitioner;
( 3 ) A clear and concise statement of the factual basis of the case and applicable legal arguments;
( 4 ) The relief being sought;
( 5 ) The name, address, telephone number, facsimile number, e-mail address, and signature of the petitioner or its attorney; and
( 6 ) A certificate of service (see § 134.204(d)).
( b ) If the applicable subpart of this part 134 (or the program regulations) requires other documents or information with the appeal petition, these must also be included.
( c ) A petition which does not contain all of the information required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be dismissed, with or without prejudice, at the Judge's own initiative, or upon motion of the respondent.
( d ) *Format.* ( 1 ) An appeal petition should be on 8.5′′ × 11′′ paper with a clear type at least 12 point in size. Preferably, double-space the main text and use 1′′ margins all around. Number each page. A separate cover letter is not needed. A table of contents is optional. Hard copies of documents sent by facsimile or electronic mail are not needed unless specifically requested.
( 2 ) The maximum length of an appeal petition (not including attachments) is 20 pages, unless prior leave is sought by the petitioner and granted by the Judge. A table of authorities is required only for petitions citing more than twenty cases, regulations, or statutes.
( 3 ) Clearly label any exhibits and attachments. Do not include documents already submitted to SBA in connection with the matter being appealed. SBA will submit these directly to OHA.
( e ) *Motion for a more definite appeal petition.* A respondent, SBA, or a contracting officer (for NAICS appeals) may, not later than five days after receiving a petition, move for an order to the petitioner to provide a more definite appeal petition or otherwise comply with this section. A Judge may order a more definite appeal petition on his or her own initiative. ( 1 ) A motion for a more definite appeal petition stays the respondent's time for filing an answer or response. The Judge will establish the time for filing and serving an answer or response.
( 2 ) If the petitioner does not comply with the Judge's order to provide a more definite appeal petition or otherwise fails to comply with applicable regulations, the Judge may dismiss the petition with prejudice.
( f ) *Notice and Order.* After an appeal petition is filed, OHA will issue a Notice and Order and serve it upon all known parties (or their attorneys). If a party does not receive a Notice and Order, it should contact OHA.
[67 FR 47247, July 18, 2002, as amended at 75 FR 47439, Aug. 6, 2010]
#### § 123.509 What can't you use Military Reservist EIDL funds for?

Your small business can not use Military Reservist EIDL funds for purposes described in § 123.303(b) (See § 123.303, “ How can my business spend my economic injury disaster loan?”).
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.408 Summary decision. ( a ) *Generally.* In any appeal under this subpart D, either party may move or cross-move for summary decision, as provided in § 134.212.
( b ) *Summary decision based on fewer than all grounds.* If SBA has provided multiple grounds for the 8(a) determination being appealed, SBA may move for summary decision on one or more grounds. ( 1 ) *Non-suspension cases.* Except in suspension appeals, if the Judge finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether SBA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law as to any such ground or grounds, and that the SBA is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law, the Judge will grant the motion for summary decision and dismiss the appeal.
( 2 ) *Suspension cases.* In suspension appeals, if the Judge finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether adequate evidence exists that protection of the Federal Government's interest requires suspension, as to any such ground or grounds for the proposed suspension, the SBA is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law, and the Judge will grant the motion for summary decision and dismiss the appeal.
[67 FR 47251, July 18, 2002]
Exhibit 2

(Total Compensation and Expenses Requested)

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1567-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2023 Page 1 of 2
Professional Firm Category Hours Fees Expenses Total Billed

Stumphauzer Kolaya Nadler & Sloman, 

PLLC Attorneys 367.2 $131,326.00 $4,017.15 $135,343.15

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & 

Raspanti, LLP Attorneys 1,375.0 $454,774.50 $142,261.94 $597,036.44

Development Specialists, Inc. Operations Consultant 345.9 $154,726.03 $1,626.33 $156,352.36

Lawgical Insight, LLC eDiscovery Specialist 11.25 $3,656.25 $180.15 $3,836.40

HD Investigative Group, LLC Investigations Firm 24.0 $5,400.00 $0.00 $5,400.00

2,123.4 $749,882.78 $148,085.57 $897,968.35

Total Compensation and Expenses Requested

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1567-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 302.2 Procedures in disaster areas.

When non-statutory EDA administrative or procedural conditions for Investment Assistance awards under PWEDA cannot be met by an Eligible Applicant as the result of a disaster, EDA may waive such conditions.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

EDWARD A. BEHL, SR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-2123

May 8, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Chris Helinger, Judge.

Edward A. Behl, Sr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and LaROSE and SMITH, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.701 What is the scope of the rules in this subpart G? ( a ) The rules of practice in this subpart G apply to all appeals to OHA from formal protest determinations made by the Director for Government Contracting (D/GC) in connection with a Women-Owned Small Business Concern (WOSB) or Economically Disadvantaged WOSB Concern (EDWOSB) protest. Appeals under this subpart include issues related to whether the concern is owned and controlled by one or more women who are United States citizens and, if the appeal is in connection with an EDWOSB contract, that the concern is at least 51 percent owned and controlled by one or more women who are economically disadvantaged. This includes appeals from determinations by the D/GC that the protest was premature, untimely, nonspecific, or not based upon protestable allegations.
( b ) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to appeals listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Appeals relating to formal size determinations and NAICS Code designations are governed by subpart C of this part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,514,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,335,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,265,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,593,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,921,000
<PP&E>                                      16,973,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,200,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              55,080,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       28,181,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,812,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                55,080,000
<SALES>                                     13,210,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,210,000
<CGS>                                       16,239,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,239,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,391,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                80,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,252,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,252,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,252,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.17)
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER II—SENATE
e Memorandum 

ULS. Department of 

IVansportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Subject: Notice of Co ication in Docket: 

1 

Date: 

IIAR S2f)« 

ion for Waiver of the Terms of the Order 

Scheduled Operations at LaGuardia Airport 

Reply to 

Attn, of: 

In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the following 

communication. 

On February 24, 2010, during a phone conversation with Representative 

Joseph Crowley of New York, the Congressman expressed his support for 

the joint request submitted by Delta Air lines and US Airways for a waiver 

from the prohibition on purchasing operating authorizations at LaGuardia 

Airport. The Congressman cited the potential impact that the transaction 

might have on preserving jobs. I responded that, while I appreciated his 

interest in this proceeding, I could not comment on its merits because the 

matter was under active consideration. 

Please place this memorandum in the appropriate file and in the Docket.
### §302. Regulations

The committee is authorized to prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 88–652, §13, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1084.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 88–652, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1079, known as the House Employees Position Classification Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 291 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1965, see section 17 of Pub. L. 88–652, set out as a note under section 291 of this title.
2003 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-16-2003

Garay-Mendoza v. Atty Gen USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 02-2840

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Garay-Mendoza v. Atty Gen USA" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 364.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/364
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________________

Nos. 02-2840 & 03-1347

_____________________

ORLANDO GARAY-MENDOZA,

 Petitioner

 v.

JOHN ASHCROFT,

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 Respondent

_______________________________________

On Petition for Review of Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(Agency No. A 42 287 750)

_________________________________________

Argued: May 20, 2003

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, NYGAARD and BECKER,

Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed July 11, 2003)

___________________________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

___________________________

The opinion filed July 11, 2003 in the above case is hereby amended as follows:

1. On page 4, line 8, remove “App. At 38.”.
2. On page 4, the last line of text, “8 USC” should read “8 U.S.C.”.

3. On page 5, line after “status” add “and make Garay deportable”.

4. On page 5, linen 4 and line 8, “8 USC” should read “8 U.S.C.”.

5. On page 5, footnote 4, in the quoted section following (B), the “t” in “the” should

be lower case.

6. On page 6, line 8, the “(A)” should be deleted from the cite. 

7. On page 6, line 11, add a comma after “residence”.

8. On line 6, line 19, the “(A)” should be deleted from the cite.

9. On page 7, line 9, “8 USC” should read “8 U.S.C.”.

10. On page 7, line 14, add a colon after “where”.

11. On page 8, line 2, add a comma after “residence”.

12. On page 8, line 9, “8 USC” should read “8 U.S.C.” and the “(A)” should be

removed from the cite.

13. On page 8, line 10, “8 USC” should read 8 U.S.C.”.

14. On page 8, line 14, add a “.” to the ellipses.

15. On page 8, three lines from the bottom, “USC” should read “U.S.C.”

16. On page 9, line 13, the cite should read “1186a©)(4).”.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward R. Becker___

Circuit Judge

DATED: July 15, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61036]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23092]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Amendment to Tribal-State Compact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice publishes an approved Amendment to the Class III 
Tribal-State Gaming Compact between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and 
the State of Washington. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988, the Secretary of the Interior is required to publish notice in 
the Federal Register approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of 
engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming Management, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--
Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands.
    The Memorandum of Incorporation of Most Favored Nation Amendments 
to the Tribal-State Compact between the Puyallup Tribe of Indians and 
the State of Washington will permit the Tribe to increase the number of 
Class III gaming machines it operates in one of its gaming facilities 
from 1,500 to 2,000. Through delegated authority, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Indian Affairs (Management) is publishing notice that the 
Memorandum of Incorporation of Most Favored Nation Amendments is now in 
effect.

    Dated: August 20, 2004.
Woodrow W. Hopper,
Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (Management).
[FR Doc. 04-23092 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
#### In the Matter of Mollie Werbel, Respondent, against Hyman Gernstein et al., Appellants. Julius Cohen et al., Respondents.

On argument, order affirmed, without costs. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals is hereby granted. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [191 Mise. 275.]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-062 April 7, 2000

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

SCHEDULES MEETING FOR APRIL 27 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has

scheduled a joint meeting of its subcommittees on materials and metallurgy and on reliability and

probabilistic risk assessment on April 27 in Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittees will review a draft Commission paper on options for possible revisions to

the pressurized thermal shock rule acceptance criterion.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, starting at 1 p.m.

Those who seek additional information or schedule updates about the meeting should contact

Noel Dudley, at 301-415-6888.

Other aspects of the meeting are described in the April 5 edition of the Federal Register. ACRS

meeting notices, transcripts and letter reports are available on the internet, at

http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.

###
Devany. Dennis (OST) 

From: ronaldpatric@charter.net 


Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 10:03 AM 


To: :' Devany, Dennis (OST) 


Cc: Swanson, Brian (OST) 


. Subje.t;t: Clinton Co. Airport 

Localleigslators have put forth a recommendation to replace Cape Air with Colgan Air as the EAS carrier at Clinton 


County Airport. Please consider NOT approving this recommendation based on the following criteria: 


1) Cape Air has and will provide more flights than Colgan Air will provide. 


2) Cape Air has lower fares than those proposed by Colgan Air. . 


3) COlgan Air is requesting a U.S. taxpayer subsidy that is 59% greater than Cape Air for reduced service. 


4) Cape Air has a proven reliable record of providing EAS at Clinton County Airport. 


I am not affiliated with Cape Air nor employed or otherwise associated with anything related to air service at Clinton 


County Airport or elsewhere. 


Thank you for your conSideration, 


Ron Patrie 


1
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Leon Fletcher

, * From the 259 th District Court

of Jones County,

Trial Court No. 011444

.

Vs

. No. 11

- 2 4

- 00 004

- CR * February 1 , 20 2 4

The State of Texas, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J., and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this

court’s o pinion, the appeal is dismissed.