alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* The case is unanimously ordered submitted withoutoral argument

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case. The cour t generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 18 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MITCHELL THEOPHILUS GARRAWAY,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 03-1003
v. (D. Colorado) UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent-Appellee. (D.C. No. 02-Z-2201)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , HENRY , and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Mitchell Theophilus Garraway, a federal prisoner se rving his sentence in an institution in Florence, Colorado, filed a 28 U.S.C . § 2241 action challenging the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP’s) allegedly i llegal disclosure of confidential information. He alleged that the disc losure of this information-2-

caused the United States Parole Commission to deny him parole. He seeks immediate release from custody. The district court dismissed Mr. Garraway’s action without prejudice. We conclude that this disposition was proper. Because Mr. Garraway is challenging the decision of the Parole Commission, he must name that agency as a party and must exhaust his administrative remedies. See, e.g. , Brown v. Smith , 828 F.2d 1493, 1495 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing regulations that allowed the plaintiff to contest the Parole Commission’s decisions and concl uding that “[t]his administrative remedy must be utilized before a sui t can be brought pursuant to § 2241[]”); Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) (stating that “[a] prisoner challenging a Parole Commission decision is require d to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal co urt”). Accordingly, for substantially the same reasons as the district court, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Mr. Garraway’s § 2241 petit ion without prejudice.

Entered for the Court,

Robert H. Henry Circuit Judge
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.480 General.

Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, all criminal, civil or administrative penalties which may be imposed on U.S. importers, exporters and producers for violations of the customs and related laws and regulations will also apply to U.S. importers, exporters and producers for violations of the laws and regulations relating to the US-CFTA.
### §122. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–391, title I, §111, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 777

Section, acts July 2, 1954, ch. 455, title I, 68 Stat. 403; Sept. 7, 1957, Pub. L. 85–301, §1, 71 Stat. 622; Sept. 29, 1965, Pub. L. 89–211, §1(a), 79 Stat. 857, provided for office space in the home districts of House Members and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico.

The repeal of this section is based on section 6(b) of House Resolution No. 687, Ninety-fifth Congress, Sept. 20, 1977, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 95–391.

Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Aug. 1, 1953, ch. 304, title I, 67 Stat. 325.

July 9, 1952, ch. 598, 66 Stat. 470.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Section 6(b) of House Resolution No. 687, Ninety-fifth Congress, Sept. 20, 1977, provided that the repeal of this section is applicable beginning on Jan. 3, 1978, upon the enactment of House Resolution No. 687 as permanent law, which was effected by Pub. L. 95–391, §111.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.521 Goods eligible for tariff preference level claims.

Goods eligible for a TPL claim consist of cotton or man-made fiber apparel goods provided for in Chapters 61 and 62 of the HTSUS that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in Singapore from fabric or yarn produced or obtained outside the territory of Singapore or the United States, and that meet the applicable conditions for preferential tariff treatment under the SFTA, other than the condition that they are originating goods. The preferential tariff treatment is limited to the quantities specified in U.S. Note 13, Subchapter X, Chapter 99, HTSUS.
### §§103, 104. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 103, R.S. §62, authorized Secretary of Senate and Clerk of House to require disbursing officers subject to their authority to return analytical statements and receipts for expenditures and to communicate such returns annually to Congress. See sections 4108 and 5535 of this title.

Section 104, R.S. §63, required that all expenditures of Senate and House be made up to end of each fiscal year and reported to Congress at beginning of each regular session. See sections 4108 and 5535 of this title.
#### George Samuels, Respondent, v. May F. Samuels, Appellant.

Order affirmed by default, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.
§ 63.2 Condemnation in lieu of certification. ( a ) The condemnation required by section 1306(c)(6)(B) of the Act in lieu of certification need not be grounded in a finding that the structure is subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion, but may be issued for other reasons deemed sufficient by the State or local authority.
( b ) The condemnation may be in the form of a court order or other instrument authorized by State or local law, e.g., a notification to the property owner of an unsafe condition, or unsanitary condition, or other deficiency at the property address, coupled with a statement that the property owner must vacate the property if the condition giving rise to the condemnation notice is not cured by repair, removal, or demolition of the building by a date certain.
( c ) In addition to a condemnation in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, a structure must be found by the Federal Insurance Administrator to be subject to imminent collapse or subsidence as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels to be eligible for benefits under section 1306(c) of the Act.
HomeAbout NRCEmergency Preparedness & ResponseAbout Emergency  Preparedness

# Emergency Exercise Schedule

The NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determine two-year evaluated emergency preparedness exercise requirements for nuclear power plant operators and State, Tribal, and local governments. This ensures both onsite and offsite emergency preparedness capabilities are adequately evaluated.

NRC Headquarters and Regional staff typically participate in four full-scale emergency response exercises each year, selected from the list of full-scale FEMA-graded exercises required of nuclear power plants. Regional staff and selected Headquarters staff also participate in post-plume, ingestion phase response exercises. On-scene participants include the NRC licensee, as well as State, Tribal, county, and local emergency response agencies.

The NRC's Biennial Evaluated Exercise Schedule is available as a Microsoft Excel dataset with an associated data dictionary (variable list). This projected schedule includes a list of full-scale NRC/FEMA evaluated exercises. The list identifies the date and type of exercise (e.g., plume, ingestion, partial), and the participants. NRC Headquarters and Regional staff members typically participate in four full-scale emergency response plume exercises each year and may also participate in additional ingestion exposure exercises. Exercise participants may include licensee, State, Tribal, county and local governmental and emergency response agencies, NRC, FEMA and other appropriate Federal agencies.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Emergency Classification
          - Emergency Action Level Development
          - Emergency Planning Zones
          - Protective Action Recommendations
          - Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Responsibilities
          - Emergency Exercise Schedule
          - Response to Terrorism
          - Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness
          - Use of Potassium Iodide

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 2, 2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2358
HYRATHA C. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITIBANK (MARYLAND), N.A., Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-3546-JFM) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 18, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hyratha C. Spriggs, Appellant Pro Se. Jana Howard Carey, Todd James Horn, VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The order assessing costs against Spriggs was entered May 20, 1996. Spriggs' motion for extension of time to respond to the order was not filed until June 10, 1996. In that motion, Spriggs claims that she failed to receive notice of the order because it was sent to her attorney, whom she previously had discharged. The district court reopened the case and granted Spriggs several extensions of time before denying the motion. 2 PER CURIAM:Hyratha C. Spriggs appeals the district court's orders assessing costs against Spriggs following her unsuccessful employment discrimination suit against the Defendant, and denying her motion to rescind the court's order assessing costs. * We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spriggs v. Citibank (Maryland), N.A. , No. CA-91-3546-JFM (D. Md. June 20 & Aug. 6, 1996). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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-99-19 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, April 2, 1999)

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT SUMMER 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 Summer nuclear power plant,

operated by South Carolina Electric & Gas Company near Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

In a letter to the company which outlined the results of the review, NRC official Robert

C. Haag said that “overall, performance at Summer has been consistent “ since the July 1998

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance report in which all SALP functional areas

were rated superior. He said plant activities have been performed “in a deliberate and careful

manner as demonstrated by the plant being on line since January 1998". Haag added that the

NRC will conduct normal inspection efforts at Summer during the next period of evaluation.

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 by the NRC as an interim measure to

monitor nuclear power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after

suspending the 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.

#
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), we, Richard E. Stoddard, Chief Executive Officer and James F. Verhey, Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC (the
Company), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                     |  |  |  |                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 18, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard E. Stoddard                 
|                     |  |  |  | Richard E. Stoddard                     
|                     |  |  |  | Chairman of the Board, President & CEO  
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ James F. Verhey                     
|                     |  |  |  | James F. Verhey                         
|                     |  |  |  | Executive Vice President - CFO          
|                     |  |  |  | Principal Financial & Accounting Officer

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

This certification accompanies this Report on Form
10-KSB pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, the deemed filed by the Company for purposed of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporated it by
reference.
### §179t. Staff of Board; experts and consultants

#### (a) Staff

The Librarian may appoint and fix the pay of such personnel as the Librarian considers appropriate to carry out sections 179l to 179w of this title.

#### (b) Experts and consultants

The Librarian may, in carrying out sections 179l to 179w of this title, procure temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, but at rates for individuals not to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum rate of basic pay payable for GS–15 of the General Schedule. In no case may a member of the Board or an alternate be paid as an expert or consultant under this section.

(Pub. L. 104–285, title I, §110, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3381.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The General Schedule, referred to in subsec. (b), is set out under section 5332 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION BY JOSEPH H. ROSSI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

The following certification accompanies the issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-K
and is not filed, as provided in Release 33-8212.34-47551 dated March 21, 2003.

The undersigned officer of the Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form
10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Joseph H. Rossi
-------------------
Joseph H. Rossi
President/Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc. and will be retained by
Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff on request.
#### NENZEL *v.*ROCHESTER SILVER CORPORATION

No. 2756

(See 50 Nev. 352)

February 8, 1928.

On Petition for Rehearing

*Per Curiam:*

It is ordered that the petition for rehearing be denied, since the court is entirely satisfied with its former opinion, 50 Nev. 352, 259 P. 632, as to the matters presented on original submission, and as to the new points urged they cannot be now considered. Pedroli v. Scott, 47 Nev. 313, 221 P. 241, 224 P. 807, 31 A. L. R. 841.

Ducker, J.: I concur.

Coleman, J.: I concur.

*440Sanders, C. J.

(dissenting) :

I concurred only in the order made herein. Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing I entertain serious doubt as to the correctness of the point decided, that water rights are “realty,” subject to unlawful detainer under Revised Laws, sec. 5588, and therefore I dissent from the order denying the petition for rehearing.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

PRESS RELEASE CORRECTION DUE TO CHANGE IN MEETING

LOCATION

No. 97-030 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, February 20, 1997)

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ON TRITIUM PRODUCTION

The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with officials from the

Department of Energy (DOE) February 25 in Rockville, Md., to discuss a DOE proposal to

produce tritium in commercial light water reactors. Following a 90-minute technical presentation

by the DOE and comments by the NRC staff, members of the public will be provided an

opportunity to ask questions and offer comments.

The meeting will be held from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the auditorium located within the Two

White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike.

Members of the public who are interested in presenting comments about the DOE

proposal will be able to sign up at the meeting. Time allotted for presentations by members of

the public will be determined based upon the number of requests received. Other aspects of the

meeting, are described in a Notice of Meeting published in the January 27 edition of the Federal

Register.

#
A SPEECH BY CHAIRMAN JACKSON GIVEN ON FEB. 14, 1997 AT LUCENT

TECHNOLOGIES, BELL LABS INNOVATIONS IN BREINIGSVILLE, PA. IS AVAILABLE

FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

61 Forsyth Street, S. W.

Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-55 FOR

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Friday,

July 18, 1997)

E-Mail kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

E-Mail rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH FPC OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON ON JULY 22

TO DISCUSS PROGRESS TOWARD RESTART OF CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT

Meeting Is Open To Observation By The Public

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with Florida

Power Corporation managers in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, July 22

to discuss the status of company efforts to restart the Crystal

River nuclear power plant near Crystal River, Florida.

This is a continuation of meetings held every other month by

agency and company officials to discuss the status of company

initiatives to ready the plant for restart by the end of the year.

The meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. at the NRC White Flint

headquarters

complex, located in Room 0-10B11 at 11555 Rockville Pike in

Rockville, MD.

The meeting is open to observation by interested members of

the public, and NRC officials will be available at its conclusion

to answer questions from those who attend.

#
SCI 001733

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-156 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 3
SCI 001734

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-156 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 3
SCI 001735

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-156 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

December 3, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Documentation of Changes from EO 12866 Review

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents the docket entries which describe the changes due to the EO 

12866 Review of the Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Medium- and Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The corresponding entries in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0162 are the following:

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0336, 0336.1, 0336.2

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0337, 0337.1, 0337.2, 0337.3, 0337.4, 0337.5, 0337.6

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0338

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0339

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0340

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0341

 EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162-0342, 0342.1 through 0342.35