alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20293

DESTEC ENERGY, INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,

versus

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants,

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-1639)

February 5, 1999

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, POLITZ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Southern California Gas Company appeals an adverse summary judgment.

Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of

the record, and on the basis of the facts as detailed, authorities cited and analysis

made by the district court in its scholarly and tho rough opinion, the judgment

appealed is AFFIRMED.2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,793
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                       331
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          67,493
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              550
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,147
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,535
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    93
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,426)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,426)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### §117e. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117e was editorially reclassified as section 5540 of this title.
#### Hillis O. FOLKINS et al., Appellants, v. Robert C. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.

No. 12564.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 17, 1955.

Decided May 26, 1955.

*348Mr. Edward H. Lang, Chicago, 111., with whom Mr. Bernard F. Garvey, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Attorney, United States Patent Office, with whom Mr. E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.

Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiffs sought the issuance of a patent. The District Court, after trial, rendered a memorandum opinion,1 made findings of fact and conclusions of law, and dismissed the complaint.

A patent had been issued to one Thacker, covering the manufacture of carbon disulfide from hydrocarbons, particularly specifying methane as the preferred starting material. The plaintiffs in the present action endeavored to produce a process for the manufacture of carbon disulfide from natural gas, following the Thacker process. Thejr discovered that, when they attempted to use natural gas containing large amounts of high molecular weight hydrocarbons, the apparatus used in the process clogged with tars and other similar material. They reduced the amounts of these hydrocarbons in the natural gas and found that the difficulty disappeared. The District Court found this discovery not to be invention, and we agree with that finding.

Affirmed.

1

. Folkins v. Watson, 1954, 129 F.Supp. 362.
### Part C—Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
### §49j. Notice of strikes and lockouts to applicants

In carrying out the provisions of this chapter the Secretary is authorized and directed to provide for the giving of notice of strikes or lockouts to applicants before they are referred to employment.

(June 6, 1933, ch. 49, § 11, 48 Stat. 116; Pub. L. 97–300, title VI, §601(g), formerly title V, §501(g), Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1397; renumbered title VI, §601(g), Pub. L. 100–628, title VII, §712(a)(1), (2), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3248; Pub. L. 105–220, title III, §307, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1082.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–220, §307(2), which directed the substitution of "Secretary" for "Director", was executed by making the substitution for "director" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Pub. L. 105–220, §307(1), redesignated subsec. (b) as entire section and struck out subsec. (a) which provided for establishment and composition of a Federal Advisory Council, and similar State advisory councils, to work on problems relating to employment.

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–300 inserted provision that nothing in this section should be construed to prohibit the Governor from carrying out functions of the State advisory council through the State job training coordinating council in accordance with section 1532(c) of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–220 effective July 1, 1999, see section 311 of Pub. L. 105–220, formerly set out as a note under section 49a of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–300 effective Oct. 1, 1983, but with Secretary authorized to use funds appropriated for fiscal 1983 to plan for orderly implementation of amendment, see section 181(i) of Pub. L. 97–300, which was formerly classified to section 1591(i) of this title.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-14 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Thursday, April 1, 1999)

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT ST. LUCIE IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance

remains acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the St. Lucie

nuclear power plant, operated by Florida Power & Light Company near Jensen Beach,

Florida.

In a letter to FPL, NRC official Leonard Wert said overall performance was

acceptable and “plant staff continued to make progress in enhancing overall station

performance.” However, Wert noted that “implementation of corrective actions for

identified problems was not always complete.”

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

II 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 give the agency staff an integrated assessment of

plant performance and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are being used as an interim measure 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 assessment program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were 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.

#
#### Leon Levy v. Marie M. Wolfe and Others.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129992 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129992 

 COA: 265307 

Genesee CC: 04-013722-FH 

JUAN JOSEPH MIRELES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 18, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0322 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 29, 2006 

Clerk
### §49k. Rules and regulations

The Secretary is authorized to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(June 6, 1933, ch. 49, §12, 48 Stat. 117; Pub. L. 105–220, title III, §308, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1082.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1998—Pub. L. 105–220, which directed the substitution of "The Secretary" for "The Director, with the approval of the Secretary of Labor,", was executed by making the substitution for text which read in part "director" rather than "Director", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–220 effective July 1, 1999, see section 311 of Pub. L. 105–220, formerly set out as a note under section 49a of this title.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 56

**Question 56:** Would areas periodically patrolled, but not constantly manned, be considered to fall within the exception in 10 CFR 20.2202 (a) (2) and 20.2202 (b) (2) for "locations where personnel are not normally stationed during routine operations, such as hot-cells or process enclosures?" For example, would these exceptions apply "if a hallway or cubicle in the reactor auxiliary becomes an airborne radioactivity area and auxiliary equipment operators make their rounds periodically during their shift?"

**Answer:** No, the exception would not apply to these areas 

that are "periodically patrolled" or otherwise normally accessible to personnel. However, for nuclear power plants at power, primary containments are examples of "locations where personnel are not normally stationed."

(References: 10 CFR 20.2202 (a) (2), 10 CFR 20.2202 (b) (2))

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
§ 307.16 Risk Analysis System. ( a ) EDA shall evaluate and manage RLF recipients using a Risk Analysis System that will focus on such risk factors as: capital, assets, management, earnings, liquidity, strategic results, and financial controls. Risk analysis ratings of each RLF Recipient's RLF program shall be conducted at least annually and will be based on the most recently submitted Form ED-209 RLF report.
( b ) An RLF Recipient generally will be allowed a reasonable period of time to achieve compliance with risk factors as defined by EDA. However, persistent noncompliance with these factors and their limits as identified through EDA's Risk Analysis System over multiple Reporting Periods may result in EDA taking appropriate remedies for noncompliance as detailed in § 307.21.
[82 FR 57057, Dec. 1, 2017]
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4950 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

4110 Bluebonnet Drive in Stafford, Texas, as the ‘‘Leonard Scarcella 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2022 

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4110 Bluebonnet Drive in Stafford, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Leonard Scarcella Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LEONARD SCARCELLA POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 4110 Bluebonnet Drive in Staf6 ford, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Leon7 ard Scarcella Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4950 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Leonard Scarcella 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.520 Filing of claim for tariff preference level.

A cotton or man-made fiber apparel good described in § 10.521 of this subpart that does not qualify as an originating good under § 10.531 of this subpart may nevertheless be entitled to preferential tariff treatment under the SFTA under an applicable tariff preference level (TPL). To make a TPL claim, the importer must include on the entry summary, or equivalent documentation, the applicable tariff item in Chapter 99 of the HTSUS (9910.61.01 through 9910.61.89) and the applicable subheading in Chapter 61 or 62 of the HTSUS under which each non-originating cotton or man-made fiber apparel good is classified. For TPL goods, the letters “SG” must be inserted as a prefix to the applicable HTSUS 9910 tariff item when the entry is filed. The importer must also submit a certificate of eligibility as set forth in § 10.522 of this subpart.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6271

TEVARIS CRAWFORD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. MACK BAILEY, Warden of Lunenburg Correctional Center for the Virginia Department of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Virginia , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00527

- CMH

- IDD )

Submitted : October 18, 2022 Decided: October 21, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Tevaris Crawford , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6271 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Tevaris Crawford seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this stand ard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S

. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
pr isoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 47 3, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crawford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6271 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/21/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.420 Filing of claim for tariff preference level.

A cotton or man-made fiber fabric or apparel good described in § 10.421 of this subpart that does not qualify as an originating good under § 10.451 of this subpart may nevertheless be entitled to preferential tariff treatment under the US-CFTA under an applicable tariff preference level (TPL). To make a TPL claim, the importer must include on the entry summary, or equivalent documentation, the applicable subheading in Chapter 99 of the HTSUS (9911.99.20 for a good described in § 10.421(a) or (b) of this subpart or 9911.99.40 for a good described in § 10.421(c) of this subpart) immediately above the applicable subheading in Chapter 52 through 62 of the HTSUS under which each non-originating cotton or man-made fiber fabric or apparel good is classified.

[CBP Dec. 05-07, 70 FR 10873, Mar. 7, 2005, as amended by CBP Dec. 06-39, 71 FR 76133, Dec. 20, 2006]
#### § 296.36 Access to records.

For purpose of audit and investigation, a claimant will grant the DHS Office of the Inspector General and the Comptroller General of the United States access to any property that is the subject of a claim and to any and all books, documents, papers, and records (including any relevant tax records) maintained by a claimant or under the claimant's control pertaining or relevant to the claim.
Exhibit 13.1



TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, Morris Chang, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (the Company), hereby certifies, to
his knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  April 2, 2013



By:

/s/ Morris ChangName:

Morris ChangTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EPA Hearing. Chicago. May24, 2010 John Bodine Comments on Carbon Pollution Standards My name is John Bodine. I'm a resident of Naperville, Illinois and I'm hereto support EPA regulations for carbon emissions. I have a background in nuclear engineeringfrom the US Navy, a PhD in Geophysics, and worked with Amoco Corporation for eighteen years as an oil and gas explorationist. I then made a career shifttojoin a Chicago area manufacturing company managing business systems as Chief Information Officer. This blend of engineering, science, and business experience has provided a strong basis for understandingthetrade-offs and challenges we face with environmental issues today. When I retired from myCIO position in 2008, Icommitted to educating myselfon the facts concerning climate change so I could be a resource in my community on the issues. I'm motivated by wantingto ensure that ourworld is a decent place to live for our grandchildren and future generations. We wantto prosper

... in a healthyworld. Climate and weather are complex processes, difficultto perceive and understand on global scales, but I've come to understand thatthe strong impact of human activities on climate has been clearfor at leasttwentyyears. Scientific evidence continues to build to reveal that unrestrained pollution ofair and water are putting us at a level ofclimate change risk never previously experienced by humans. Evidence of past geologic events ofcomparable magnitude and scale has been clearly associated with mass extinctions ofdiverse lifeforms. We've been on avery bad path, but are now beginningturn in the right direction. We're struggling as individuals, as communities, and as a nation to change our culture, habits, and economic dependencies to avoid the worst effects of heating our planet. With this sense ofthe challenge totransform our approach to howwe live on ourworld, I applaud the EPA for theirwork in bringingforward the proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants. It is common sense to inhibitfurther exposure to air pollutantsfrom power plants when the adverse effects ofcarbon emissions and other contaminants are so well understood. It is the role of governmentto help maintain the balance between health and prosperitythrough policy and incentives. The proposed Standards are well designed to avoid negative economic impactwhile atthe same time providinggreat latitude in the approach energy companies can take in producing power. I also support applying similar standards to existing power plants, knowingthat we must do everything we can to eliminate excessive carbon pollution. America has the capacityfor great innovation and transformational change. Our national culture is one ofaggressive ambition and individualism, and findingcommon purpose can be a challenge. When we find common purpose, however, we've shown we can change the world. Leadership has never been more in need than now, as we face some ofgreatest global challenges for ensuring prosperity and health for future generations.
## EPA SLN No. KS-070003*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment**Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment**Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*