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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERARDO OGAZ,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 137

- C R

Appeal from

394 th District C ourt

of Culberson C ounty, Texas

(TC# 1789 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no

later than August 10 , 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26 th d ay of June , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
### §713. Transfer of funds

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, no funds appropriated under this chapter for any program or activity may be used for any purpose other than that for which the funds were specifically authorized.

(b) No more than 1 percent of funds appropriated for discretionary grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements authorized by this chapter may be used for the purpose of providing non-Federal panels of experts to review applications for such grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.

(Pub. L. 93–112, §16, formerly §14, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §403, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1113; renumbered §16, Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(f) [title VIII, §402(a)(1)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–412.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in section 715 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220.

A prior section 713, Pub. L. 93–112, §14, as added Pub. L. 95–602, title I, §122(a)(10), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2986; amended Pub. L. 98–221, title I, §103, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 99–506, title I, §§103(d)(2)(C), 106, title X, §1001(a)(5), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1810, 1812, 1841; Pub. L. 100–630, title II, §201(f), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3304; Pub. L. 102–569, title I, §§102(p)(5), 107, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4356, 4362, related to program and project evaluation, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §403, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1093. See section 711 of this title.

A prior section 16 of Pub. L. 93–112 was renumbered section 18 and is classified to section 715 of this title.

Another prior section 16 of Pub. L. 93–112 was classified to section 715 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–220.
#### Michael GILLIS, Appellant, v. CRITTENTON, d/b/a Crittenton Behavioral Center, a member of the Saint Luke’s-Shawnee Mission Health System, Appellee.

No. 01-3363.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002.

Filed May 29, 2002.

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and PRATT,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

*422PER CURIAM.

Michael Gillis appeals the order of the district court2 granting summary judgment to Crittenton. Mr. Gillis served as a behavioral health technician at Crittendon, a residential behavioral health center for minor children. When Mr. Gillis was terminated from his employment, he sued Crittenton for sex discrimination, alleging that Crittenton treated him differently from the way that it treated similarly situated female employees. Reviewing *de novo, Rheineck v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc.,*261 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir.2001), we affirm.

Under *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,*411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Mr. Gillis was required to establish a *prima facie*case of discrimination. Assuming, without deciding, that he did so, Crittenton, in turn, was required to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Mr. Gillis. *See id.*at 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Crittenton produced evidence that it terminated Mr. Gillis because of his excessive absenteeism. The burden then fell upon Mr. Gillis to show that the reason given by Crittenton was a pretext for discrimination. *See id.*at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Mr. Gillis failed to satisfy this burden because the persons with whom he sought to compare himself were not similarly situated to him in all relevant respects. *See Cronquist v. City of Minneapolis,*237 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir.2001).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. Rule 47B.

2

. The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-89 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
§ 350.6 Assistance in development of State and local plans. ( a ) An integrated approach to the development of offsite radiological emergency plans by States, localities and the licensees of NRC with the assistance of the Federal Government is the approach most likely to provide the best protection to the public. Hence, Federal agencies, including FEMA Regional staff, will be made available upon request to assist States and localities in the development of plans.
( b ) There now exists in each of the ten standard Federal Regions a Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) (formerly the Regional Advisory Committee) chaired by a FEMA Regional official and having members from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of Agriculture and Department of Commerce. Whereas in 44 CFR part 351, the Department of Defense is listed as a potential member of the RACs, it is not listed in this rule because military nuclear facilities are not the subject of concern. The RACs will assist State and local government officials in the development of their radiological emergency response plans, and will review plans and observe exercises to evaluate the adequacy of these plans and related preparedness. This assistance does not include the actual writing of State and local government plans by RAC members.
( c ) In accomplishing the foregoing, the RACs will use the standards and criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, and will render such technical assistance as may be required, appropriate to their agency mission and expertise. In observing and evaluating exercises, the RACs will identify, soon after an exercise, any deficiencies observed in the planning and preparedness effort including deficiencies in resources, training of staff, equipment, staffing levels and deficiencies in the qualifications of personnel.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS EPA METHOD SW-846 0061 Determination of Hexavalent & Total Chromium Emissions Guardian Fiberglass Inwood, WV Line 1 Melter Baghouse Stack Run Number 1 2 3 Avg Date: 02/21/12 02/21/12 02/22/12 ---  Net Time of Test, minutes 240 240 240 --- Tstart Test Start Time 755 1210 802 --- Tend Test End Time 1158 1612 1206 --- P b ar Barometric Pressure, in. Hg 29.58 29.40 29.15 29.38 P g Static Pressure, in. Hg 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 P S Stack Pressure, Absolute, in. Hg 29.599 29.419 29.169 29.396 V M Actual Meter Volume Sampled, cu. ft. 218.2 216.4 224.7 219.8  H Avg. Delta H, in. H 2 0 2.79 2.66 2.70 2.71 T M Avg. Gas Meter Temp., Deg. F 50.7 59.5 64.2 58.1  Dry Gas Meter Correction Factor 1.006 1.006 1.006 1.006 V STD Volume Sampled at Stand. Cond., cu. ft. 225.95 218.84 223.33 222.71 V STD M Volume Sampled at Stand. Cond., cu.m 6.40 6.20 6.32 6.31 V C Volume of Water Collected, ml 98.7 91.4 82.1 90.7 V WC Volume of Water Vapor at Std. Cond.,SCF 4.65 4.30 3.87 4.27 B WS Moisture Content of Gas Stream 0.020 0.019 0.017 0.019 P MV Percent Moisture in Stack 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.9 M FD Mole Fraction of Dry Gas 0.980 0.981 0.983 0.981 M d Mole. Wt. Stack Gas, Dry Basis, lb/lb mole 29 29 29 29 M S Mole. Wt. Stack Gas, Wet Basis, lb/lb mol e 28.622 28.631 28.656 28.636 C p Pitot Tube Constant 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84  PS Avg. Sqrt. Delta P, in. H20 0.845 0.853 0.824 0.840 T S Avg. Stack Temp., Deg. F 108.2 112.1 117.1 112.5 V S Avg. Stack Velocity, ft/sec 49.7 50.5 49.1 49.8 A Area Stack, ft 2 3.976 3.976 3.976 3.976 Q SD Gas Volume Flow, Dry Std. Cond. CFM 10,672 10,713 10,280 10,555 Q A Actual Gas Volume Flow, CFM 11,849 12,038 11,725 11,871SUMMARY OF RESULTS EPA METHOD SW-846 0061 Determination of Hexavalent & Total Chromium Emissions Guardian Fiberglass Inwood, WV Line 1 Melter Baghouse Stack Q SW Gas Volume Flow, Wet Std. Cond., CFM 10,892 10,924 10,458 10,758 D n Sample Nozzle Diameter, inches 0.257 0.250 0.257 0.255 A n Area of Nozzle, ft 2 0.00036 0.00034 0.00036 0.00035 I Percent Isokinetic 97.4 99.3 100.0 98.9 PPR Process Pull Rate, lbs/hr 6,826 6,822 6,823 6,824 PPRS Process Pull Rate, tons/hr 3.41 3.41 3.41 3.41 Total Chromium Concentration and Emission Rates

mn Chromium Catch, ug 4.80 1.74 0.91 2.48 C s Chromium Concentration, gr/dscf 3.28E-07 1.22E-07 6.27E-08 1.71E-07 C a Chromium Concentration, mg/dscm 0.00075 0.00028 0.00014 0.00039 C AW Chromium Emission Rate, lbs/hr 3.00E-05 1.12E-05 5.52E-06 1.56E-05 E Emission Rate, lbs/TGP 8.78E-06 3.29E-06 1.62E-06 4.56E-06 Hexavalent Chromium (Cr +6 ) Concentration and Emission Rates

mn Cr+ 6Catch, ug 1.14 1.46 1.36 1.32 C s Cr + 6Concentration, gr/dscf 7.79E-08 1.03E-07 9.40E-08 9.16E-08 C a Cr +6 C oncentrati on, mg /d sc m 0.00018 0.00024 0.00022 0.00021 C AW Cr + 6Emission Rate, lbs/hr 7.12E-06 9.45E-06 8.28E-06 8.28E-06 E Cr+ 6 Emission Rate, lbs/TGP 2.09E-06 2.77E-06 2.43E-06 2.43E-06
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-22 April 3, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH PUBLIC TO DISCUSS

FUTURE FERMI DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public

meeting on April 22 to discuss the future decommissioning plans

of Unit 1 of the Fermi Nuclear Power Station. The two-unit plant

is located in Monroe, Michigan.

Unit 1, which permanently shut down in 1972, is in long-term

storage. Its fuel was shipped from the site in 1973. Detroit

Edison Co., operator of the plant, currently plans to dismantle

Unit 1 when Unit 2's operating license expires in 2025.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. in the Monroe County Court

House, Commission’s Meeting Room, 125 East Second Street, Monroe,

Michigan.

The program will include presentations by the NRC on the

decommissioning regulatory process and by Detroit Edison on the

status of decommissioning activities. A question and answer

period will follow.

Fermi Unit 1 began operating in 1963. It was an

experimental sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor that was owned

and operated by a consortium of public utilities and equipment

manufacturers with Detroit Edison as the leader of the project.

Non-radiological work now under way at Unit 1 includes the

removal of asbestos that currently surrounds the equipment.

Under NRC decommissioning regulations, utilities are

permitted to immediately dismantle the plant or to place it in

safe storage for a period of time before dismantlement, provided

certain regulations are met.

Two years before it is ready to terminate Unit 1's license,

Detroit Edison is required to submit a final plan to NRC. This

plan, among other things, must describe any remaining

radioactivity on the site, the final radiation survey details and

the site’s planned end-use. NRC will hold a public meeting near
the plant to discuss the utility’s plans and receive public

comments. There is also an opportunity for a public hearing

regarding the utility’s license termination plans.

NRC is currently conducting inspections at Unit 1 and will

continue to do so during the decommissioning process. The agency

will also independently evaluate the radiological condition of

the plant site during the final phase.

In December of last year, Detroit Edison submitted to the

NRC a Safety Analysis Report on the status of Fermi Unit 1. This

report, which describes the unit’s radiological condition and

other facility details, is available for public inspection at the

Monroe County Library System, Ellis Reference and Information

Center, 3700 S. Custer Road, in Monroe, Michigan.

####
#### § 302.15 Acceptance of certifications made by Eligible Applicants.

EDA will accept an Eligible Applicant's certifications, accompanied by evidence satisfactory to EDA, that the Eligible Applicant meets the requirements for receiving Investment Assistance.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateRisk AssessmentCurrent Risk-Informed Activities

# Research and Test Reactors Sub-Arena

Research and test reactors comprise one of four sub-arenas that the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified in considering which areas of the reactor safety arena to target for greater use of risk information.

The staff will be conducting a review of NUREG-2150, "A Proposed Risk Management Framework," that will consider how modifications to the regulatory framework could be incorporated into important agency policy documents. As part of this review, the staff will seek stakeholder input on proposed options and recommendations. The proposed options and recommendations will be included in a paper to the Commission that will identify options and make recommendations. Those options and recommendations may or may not be applicable to research and test reactors. Estimated completion of this review, including the Commission Paper, is August of 2013.

## List of Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Activities

There are no current Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Activities in the Research and Test Reactors Sub-Arena.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 08, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Operating Reactors
          - New Light-Water Reactors
          - Advanced Reactors
          - Research and Test Reactors
          - Fuel Cycle
          - Byproduct Materials
          - Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation
          - Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning
          - Cross-Cutting Activities
          - Completed Risk-Informed Activities

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### We Welcome Your Views

            - To request additional information, contact us about risk-informed, performance-based regulation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 08, 2020
#### § 60.8 Definitions.

The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter are applicable to this part.
§ 333.14 Preferential scheduling. ( a ) A person must schedule operations, including the acquisition of all needed production items, in a timely manner to satisfy the delivery requirements of each rated order. Modifying production or delivery schedules is necessary only when required delivery dates for rated orders cannot otherwise be met.
( b ) DO rated orders must be given production preference over unrated orders, if necessary, to meet required delivery dates, even if this requires the diversion of items being processed or ready for delivery against unrated orders. Similarly, DX rated orders must be given preference over DO rated orders and unrated orders. ( 1 ) *Examples:* If a person receives a DO rated order with a delivery date of June 3 and if meeting that date would mean delaying production or delivery of an item for an unrated order, the unrated order must be delayed. If a DX rated order is received calling for delivery on July 15 and a person has a DO rated order requiring delivery on June 2 and operations can be scheduled to meet both deliveries, there is no need to alter production schedules to give any additional preference to the DX rated order. However, if business operations cannot be altered to meet both the June 3 and July 15 delivery dates, then the DX rated order must be given priority over the DO rated order.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Conflicting rated orders.* ( 1 ) If a person finds that delivery or performance against any accepted rated orders conflicts with the delivery or performance against other accepted rated orders of equal priority status, the person must give preference to the conflicting orders in the sequence in which they are to be delivered or performed (not to the receipt dates). If the conflicting rated orders are scheduled to be delivered or performed on the same day, the person must give preference to those orders which have the earliest receipt dates.
( 2 ) If a person is unable to resolve rated order delivery or performance conflicts under this section, the person should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in subpart E of this part. If the person's customer objects to the rescheduling of delivery or performance of a rated order, the customer should promptly seek special priorities assistance as provided in subpart E of this part. For any rated order against which delivery or performance will be delayed, the person must notify the customer as provided in § 333.13(d)(3).
( d ) If a person is unable to purchase needed production items in time to fill a rated order by its required delivery date, the person must fill the rated order by using inventoried production items. A person who uses inventoried items to fill a rated order may replace those items with the use of a rated order as provided in § 333.17(b).
### §2413. Executions in favor of United States

A writ of execution on a judgment obtained for the use of the United States in any court thereof shall be issued from and made returnable to the court which rendered the judgment, but may be executed in any other State, in any Territory, or in the District of Columbia.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 974.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §839 (R.S. §986).

Words "or in the District of Columbia" were added on the authority of 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 384, declaring that, under this section, a writ of execution in favor of the United States, obtained from a Federal court in any State, could be executed in the District of Columbia. (See, also, section 1963 of this title.)

Changes in phraseology were made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the six months ended December 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,738
<SECURITIES>                                     4,489
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                        77
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,359
<PP&E>                                           3,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,725
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,246
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,832
<SALES>                                         16,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,286
<CGS>                                           10,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                       524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       934
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
u 

^ 00 

•^ o 

I—] u 

U ^ 

Z -fa 

o 

M 00 o 

"^ .^ 2 

—; t ^ oo 

< t ^ r^ 

C53 O '— ^ 

^IC^" Brent R. Cole 

Marston & Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907)277-8001 

Attorneys for Smith Cable Systems, Inc. 

^-mTAT'nv 

m n 212010 

HEARING DOCKET 

In the matter of: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

) 

Smith Cable Systems, Inc. 

) FAA Docket No. CP09ALOOO12 

) 

) DMS NO. FAA-2009-0976 

APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA 

Smith Cable Systems, Inc. ("Smith"), by and through counsel, Marston & Cole, 

P.C, requests the hearing docket clerk issue a subpoena to the records custodian of Aero 

Services, Inc., requiring the production of the following documents: 

1. Employee records, timesheets, trip records, bills of lading, airbills, or any 

other documentation in their possession to show which employee picked up freight from 

Smith Cable Systems, Inc., on September 10, 2008. 

2. Copies of any correspondence in the deponent's possession sent to or 

received from the Federal Aviation Administration in regard to Smith Cable Systems, 

Inc. 

Aero Services, Inc., is the company that picked up the materials from Smith that 

were then transported to Alaska Air Cargo and prepared for shipment in the area where 

Application for Subpoena 

In re: Smith Cable Systems, Inc., DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

Page 1 of2 
u 

3 

o 

u 

< ^ 

o 

o 

<N 

<U 

.•s 

3 

!Z) 

<U 

(L» 

C/3 

Z 

, 

0 0 

ON 

O 

rt ^ i« 

< 

o 

J G 

o 

o 

O CN 

00 o 1 o 

r- 00 

. t ^ 

ON 

hazardous materials were discovered by Alaska Airlines employees. Smith requires the 

information from Aero to identify the individual who had direct contact with Smith and 

Alaska Air Cargo employees and Smith's materials that were to be shipped from 

Ketchikan. 

DATED this /^da y of June, 2010, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

MARSTON & COLE, P.C. 

Attorneys for Smith Cable Systems, Inc. 

By 

Brent R. Cole 

AK State Bar No. 8606074 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on this /jf/? f day of June, 2010, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing document was 

S f Mailed 

QHand-delivered 

^Faxe d 

to the following: 

Original and one copy: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy: 

Craig Wm. Black, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222West7th Avenue, #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

Fax: 271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey A}iMue, S.E. 

Wash i netoru-eC-^MPO 

Application for Subpoena 

In re: Smith Cable Systems, Inc., DMS No. FAA-2009-0976 

Page 2 of2