alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 12,940.

#### North Denver Municipal Irrigation District et al. *v.*Heath.

(13 P. [2d] 1116)

Decided June 20, 1932.

Rehearing denied September 12, 1932.

Messrs. Smith, Brock, Akolt & Campbell, Mr. Harry Behm, for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Edwin H. Park (deceased), Mr. Frank A. Wachob, Mr. Carle Whitehead, Mr. Albert L. Vogl, for defendant in err'or.

*In Department.*

*211Mr. Justice Campbell

delivered the opinion of the court.

As the controlling and decisive question is the same in both, this case and case No. 12,839, entitled: In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Green City Irrigation District, Clint O. Heath, Claimant, Plaintiff in Error v. The Green City Irrigation District, Defendant in Error, were submitted for decision at the same time at the conclusion of the or'al arguments by the respective counsel. In our opinion handed down this day in the Green City case, and to which reference is here made, we decided that a purchaser and holder of bonds, under the provisions of our special statute, was entitled to recover upon maturity only the principal of the bonds and the interest thereon up to the time of their’ respective maturities, and was not entitled to recover interest either upon the principal of the bond or the attached interest coupons after their respective due dates.

In the case now under consideration the trial court held that the bondholder was entitled to recover' interest on the coupons after maturity, and that was the only issue decided in the North Denver case. This decision is contrary to our decision in the Green City case. Indeed, the Green City case holds that neither interest on the principal nor interest on the attached coupons bear interest after their respective maturities. "While other questions are discussed in this case now ripe for decision, our holding in the Green City case, if adhered to, as it is, requires a reversal in this cause. Other questions argued in this case, therefore, will not be considered or determined since whatever their resolution might be the Green City decision prevents any recovery by plaintiff in this case upon the cause of action set out in his complaint. While this is an action in mandamus under the Code to compel the board of commissioner’s of Adams county to make the required levy of assessments sufficient to pay bonds owned by the plaintiff Heath, and *212the object in the Green City case is the dissolution of an irrigation district, the controlling and decisive question in each case is as to the right of a bondholder to interest on bonds of an irrigation district and interest on the attached coupons after' maturity. It therefore appears that the law of the case is the same in both proceedings.

The judgment of the trial court in this case is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the district court with instructions to set it aside and in lieu thereof to enter a judgment dismissing the action and to tax the costs, both below and on this review, to the plaintiff.

Mr. Chief Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Alter concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
         FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 INCLUDED IN
         THE  QUARTERLY   REPORT  10QSB.   AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY
         BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         17,562
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  365,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                   35,631
<INVENTORY>                                    17,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               399,740
<PP&E>                                         49,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 567,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          823,685
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,082
<OTHER-SE>                                     (257,899)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   567,868
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               524,216
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  153,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               593,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,432
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            228,432
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   228,432
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)
        


</TABLE>
#### § 113.600 Notice of covered programs.

Within 60 days of September 29, 2000, each Federal agency that awards Federal financial assistance shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the programs covered by these Title IX regulations. Each such Federal agency shall periodically republish the notice of covered programs to reflect changes in covered programs. Copies of this notice also shall be made available upon request to the Federal agency's office that enforces Title IX.
Draft IGCC MACT floor spreadsheet 

 Bill Maxwell 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 03/04/2011 03:41 PM 

 Cc: RobertJ Wayland 

Floor analysis_IGCC_030411.xlsx 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-27 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson April 10, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

STOLEN RADIOGRAPHIC CAMERA IS RECOVERED

The radiographic camera stolen from Mattingly Testing Services last week has been

recovered. Acting on an anonymous telephone tip, company officials found the device, with its

radioactive source locked inside, in a ditch about one block from Mattingly's office along the North

Frontage Road to Interstate 90 in Lockwood, Montana.

The tip came just before 9 a.m. on Thursday to Mattingly's office in Great Falls. Brian

Buckley, at the Lockwood office, was alerted and found the camera after a short search using a

radiation survey meter. Buckley and an NRC on-site inspector verified that it was the one stolen

by checking the serial number. There was no damage to the outer casing and the source was still

locked inside. The Yellowstone County Sheriff's office said extensive press coverage of the theft

and subsequent search may have caused the tipster to make his call. The caller did not attempt

to claim the reward that had been offered.

The Department of Energy's Aerial Monitoring System, a specially equipped twin engine

Cessna Citation, which flew into Billings on Tuesday to search for the camera from the air, will

return to its base in Las Vegas later today. The aircraft was unable to conduct a search because

of weather, but detailed plans were made to search likely areas in and around Billings.

"The state of Montana and Yellowstone County Sheriff's deputies provided invaluable

assistance at every step," said Ross Scarano, who directed search efforts for the NRC. "We're

very happy that the camera has been found and that no one was harmed during this incident,"

Scarano said. "The NRC is grateful for the very professional assistance and cooperation from the

State of Montana's Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Energy and the

Sheriff."

#
Order entered April 3, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00064-CV

JAY COOPER, Appellant

V.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS 

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, ET AL., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 006-02636-2018

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s “Emergency Opposed Plea in Abatement” and 

appellant’s “Emergency Opposed Motion for Temporary Stay.” We DENY the motions. This 

Court’s January 24, 2019 stay order, however, remains in effect. 

Also before the Court is the April 1, 2019 order from the Honorable Corinne A. Mason 

denying appellant permission to file a notice of appeal. As noted by appellant in his emergency 

filing, section 11.102(f) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that appellant 

may seek mandamus relief from the April 1, 2019 order by filing a petition for writ of mandamus 

with this Court “not later than the 30th day after the date of the decision” denying permission to 

file a notice of appeal. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 11.102(f). We caution appellant that the 
Court will dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction if appellant fails to file a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this Court pursuant to section 11.102(f) by May 1, 2019. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0622

_________________

IN THE MATTER OF:

S.M.,

 A Youth in Need of Care.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Robert J. Whelan, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 27 2022

07/27/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0622
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) v. ) Crim. No. 18-cr-219 (ESH) ) AUSTIN PIERRE BOYKINS, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Defendant Austin Pierre Boykins was convicted of one count of u sing, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a dr ug trafficking offense in viola tion of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). ( See Judgment, ECF No. 37.) He was sen tenced to a 60-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a 60-month term of supervised release. ( Id .) Proceeding pro se , defendant has filed a moti on pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his senten ce in light of the Supreme Court ’s recent decision in United States

v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). ( See Def.’s 2255 Mot., Nov. 5, 2019, ECF No. 39.) The government opposes defendant’s motion on the ground that Davis does not apply to defendant’s conviction. (Gov’t Opp., ECF No. 41.) The government is corre ct, so defendant’s motion will be denied. Section 924(c)(1) makes it a crim e to use, carry, or possess a firearm in connection with either a “drug trafficking crim e” or a “crime of violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Section 924(c)(2) defines what constitutes a “drug trafficking crime,” while 924(c)(3) defines what constitutes a “crime of violence.” In Davis , the Supreme Court held that the “residual clause” in2 the definition of a “crime of vi olence” was void for vagueness. 139 S. Ct. at 2325-27. 1 But here defendant was convicted of usi ng, carrying, or possessing a fir earm during a drug trafficking offense , not during a crime of violence . ( See Judgment at 1.) Thus, Davis has no effect on the validity of his conviction. As Davis does not affect the validity o f defendant’s § 924(c) convictio n, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s § 2255 motion, ECF No. 39, is DENIED ; it is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not be issued; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall close t he corresponding Civil Action, 19- cv-3469.

_______________________ ELLEN S. HUVELLE United States District Judge DATE: January 8, 2020

1 In § 924(c), a “crime of violence” is defined as “an offense t hat is a felony” and (A) has as an element the use, a ttempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical forc e against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense

. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) (emphasis ad ded to “residual clause”).
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-29 April 12, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC ISSUES LATEST PERFORMANCE REVIEW

OF BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains

acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the Beaver Valley Power Station in

Shippingport, Pennsylvania. The two unit site is operated by Duquesne Light Company.

In a letter to the Company, NRC Region I official Richard Crlenjak said that during a

review period from April 1998 through January 1999, “Overall, Duquesne Light Company

performance was acceptable at Beaver Valley; shutdown and operating activities were

conducted safely at both units.”

Mr. Crlenjak noted improvements in the areas of operations and engineering. And, he

recognized that station personnel used the condition report program to identify problems,

pursue resolution and that overall investigation quality improved. However, he noted that the

corrective action backlog remained a challenge.

In addition to the normal inspection program in the areas of operations, maintenance,

engineering and plant support, the NRC will perform three additional inspections at the initiative

of the Region I office. One of the inspections is in the area of on-line maintenance activity

planning and implementation. Another will review the resolution of longstanding system design

and performance problems. Finally, an inspection is planned to look at the area of work control

and outage preparation.

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region I Office

of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews, called plant performance reviews (PPR), give the agency staff an

integrated assessment of plant performance and provide a basis for planning inspection

activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is utilizing to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new oversight and

assessment program is developed. Previously, SALP reports had been issued every 12 to 24

months.
The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at eight sites beginning in June and will be extended to all

plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

#
Exhibit
32.2
 
 Ener1,
Inc.
 1540
Broadway, Suite 25C
 New York,
New York 10036
 
 January
19, 2010
 
 Securities
and Exchange Commission
 100 F
Street, NE
 Washington,
DC 20549
 
 Re:
Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350
 
 Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No.
1 of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Gerard A. Herlihy, Chief Financial
Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
 
 1)
              such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the
      quarter ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 2)
              the
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment
      No. 1 of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Ener1, Inc.
  /s/
      Gerard A. HerlihyGerard
      A. Herlihy
                      Chief
      Financial Officer
                      (Duly
      Authorized Principal Financial and Principal
                      Accounting
      Officer and Duly Authorized
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 Ener1, Inc. and will be
retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
 
 This
certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Ener1, Inc.’s
quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
filing.
#### RITTS *v.*HUMBOLDT CO.

No. 2730

May 4, 1927.

255 P. 1076.

Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court, Humboldt County; *L. O. Hato kins,*Judge.

*Campbell & Robins*and *J. T. Dunn,*for Appellant.

*L. G. Wilson, Merwyn H. Brown*and *Thos. A. Brandon,*for Respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

The facts of this case are substantially the same as in the case of Cawley v. Pershing County, No. 2746 [supra], this day decided. Upon the authority of that case it is ordered that the judgment in favor of the defendant county be affirmed, and that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Ritts, be reversed.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-60870 Summary Calendar

JIAN FEI YE,
Petitioner

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A094 938 703
Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jian Fei Ye, a native and citizen of China, petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal

of th e I m mi gr atio n Ju dge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Conv e n tion Against Torture (CAT). Ye argues that the adve r se credibility finding regarding past persecution did not preclude the IJ and the BIA from finding that he established a well founded fear of future persecution or that it was likely that he would be tortured if returned U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 10 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60870 Document: 00512015244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2012No. 11-60870

to China. This is the sole issue for appeal, as Ye does not challenge the adverse credibility finding made by the IJ and affirmed by the BIA. By failing to argue the adverse-credibility-finding issue, Ye has abandoned any claims o f error he might have raised regarding the adverse- c r e d ib i lity-finding. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir. 200 4). With respect to Ye’s argument related to future persecution and torture, the BIA was not afforded an opportunity to address the issue because Ye did not include any reference t o i t in his brief submitted to the BIA. See Claudio v. Holder , 601 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Ye failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to this issue, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it in the instant petition. See Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 321 (5th Cir. 2009). Ye’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

2 Case: 11-60870 Document: 00512015244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2012
§ 60.11 Purpose of this subpart. ( a ) A State is considered a “community” pursuant to § 59.1 of this subchapter; and, accordingly, the Act provides that flood insurance shall not be sold or renewed under the Program unless a community has adopted adequate flood plain management regulations consistent with criteria established by the Federal Insurance Administrator.
( b ) This subpart sets forth the flood plain management criteria required for State-owned properties located within special hazard areas identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator. A State shall satisfy such criteria as a condition to the purchase of a Standard Flood Insurance Policy for a State-owned structure or its contents, or as a condition to the approval by the Federal Insurance Administrator, pursuant to part 75 of this subchapter, of its plan of self-insurance.
[41 FR 46975, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44552, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23429]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting of the ACRS 
Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Regulatory Policies and Practices will 
hold a meeting on October 28 and 29, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

Thursday, October 28, 2004--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business
Friday, October 29, 2004--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business
    The purpose of this meeting is to review the proposed rule package 
for risk-informing 50.46. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by 
and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and other 
interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed 
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full 
Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Michael R. Snodderly (Telephone: 301-415-6927) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted during the meeting.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Officials between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: October 14, 2004.
John H. Flack,
Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-23429 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P