alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 209.3 Roles and responsibilities. The following describes the general roles of FEMA, the State, local communities or other organizations that receive grant assistance, and participating homeowners. ( a ) *Federal.* We will notify States about the availability of funds, and will allocate available funding to States that received major disaster declarations during the period covered by the supplemental authority. Our Regional Administrators will verify project eligibility, provide technical assistance to States upon request, make grant awards, and oversee program implementation.
( b ) *State.* The State will be the Grantee to which we award funds and will be accountable for the use of those funds. The State will determine priorities for funding within the State. This determination must be made in conformance with the HMGP project identification and selection criteria (44 CFR 206.435). The State also will provide technical assistance and oversight to applicants for project development and to subgrantees for project implementation. The State will report program progress and results to us. The States also will recover and return to us any funds made available from other sources for the same purposes. When Native American tribes apply directly to us, they will be the grantee and carry out “state” roles.
( c ) *Applicant (pre-award) and subgrantee (post-award).* The applicant (a State agency, local government, or qualified private nonprofit organization) will coordinate with interested homeowners to complete an application to the State. The subgrantee implements all approved projects, generally takes title to all property, and agrees to dedicate and maintain the property in perpetuity for uses compatible with open-space, recreational, or wetlands management practices. The subgrantee will receive, review and make final decisions about any appraisal disputes that are brought by participating homeowners. The subgrantee is accountable to the State, as well as to us, for the use of funds.
( d ) *Participating homeowners.* The participating homeowners will notify the community of their interest to participate; provide necessary information to the community coordinator about property ownership, disaster damage, and other disaster benefits received or available; review the offer made from the community; and accept it or request a review appraisal.
#### In the Matter of Long Acre Properties, Inc., Appellant. K. *&*K. Hat Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Present • — • Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [191 Misc. 429.] [See 276 App. Div. 894.]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-99-8 January 22, 1999

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS WITH CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and officials of

Hartford Hospital will meet on Tuesday, January 26, to discuss

apparent violations of agency requirements at the Hartford,

Conn., medical facility relating to the loss of control and

unauthorized disposal of radioactive material.

The predecisional enforcement conference, which will be

open to the public for observation, will begin at 1 p.m. in the

Main Conference Room of the NRC Region I Office in King of

Prussia, Pa.

On December 10, the NRC learned that radioactive

material had been detected in a dumpster at an incinerator in the

Hartford area. The container had been transported to the

incinerator from the hospital. The material was subsequently

removed from the dumpster and kept for decay-in-storage at

Hartford Hospital.

During a follow-up inspection at the hospital on

December 14, NRC staff found five apparent violations, including

unauthorized disposal of radioactive material; failure to control

and maintain constant surveillance of radioactive material;

failure to label containers holding radioactive material; failure

to perform radioactive surveys; and failure to adequately train

personnel regarding the handling of radioactive material.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.
2

#
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateGeneric Issues

# Form to Propose a Generic Issue (GI)

**GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING AND SUBMITTING THE ELECTRONIC FORM:**

The Generic Issue Program is managed by the Regulatory Guide and Programs Management Branch in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The submitter should review the Generic Issues Program Web Site to understand the criteria that will be used by staff to screen a proposed issue.

Please follow the steps/instructions below and submit the online form when it is complete. Alternately, you can fill out the NRC Form 833, then email it to GIP.Resource@NRC.gov or send by US Mail to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Generic Issues Program, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Mail Stop C-2C07M.

Please contact a NRC Generic Issues Program representative for assistance in completing this form if needed.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

**CalendarToday

Captcha

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 19, 2021
#### § 107.840 Maximum term of Financing.

The maximum term of any Loan or Debt Security Financing must be no longer than 20 years.
#### Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Respondent, *v.*Ruth Hoyes Heinze and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Others.

*Practice*— *bill of particulars—order*— *provision precluding giving of evidence.*

Appeal from an order, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 26th day of May, 1914, directing appellants to furnish verified bill of particulars.

Per Curiam:

We think the court below was justified in requiring the defendants to serve the bill of particulars as required by the order appealed from. It was, however, improper to insert in the order for the service of a bill of particulars a provision precluding the parties required to give the particulars from giving evidence in respect to a defense, as that question could only be presented after bill of particulars has been ordered and defendants have failed to give the particulars required. If the defendants fail to furnish the particulars required, plaintiff may then move to preclude them from giving evidence as to the defense for which they have failed to furnish such particulars.* The order appealed from is, therefore, modified by striking out the last paragraph, which precludes the defendants from giving evidence, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Order modified as directed in opinion, and as modified affirmed, without costs. Order to be settled on notice.

*

 See Code Civ. Proe. § 531.—[Rep.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Docket 34-2004]

The comment period for the application to establish a general-purpose foreign-trade zone in Conroe (Montgomery County), Texas, submitted by the City of Conroe, Texas (69 FR 51060, 8/17/04), is being extended to November 19, 2004 to allow interested parties additional time in which to comment. Rebuttal comments may be submitted until December 6, 2004. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:

1. Submissions via Express/Package Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Franklin Court Building-Suite 4100W, 1099 14th St., NW., Washington, DC 20005; or

2. Submissions via U.S. Postal Service: Foreign-Trade Zones Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB-Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Dated: October 13, 2004.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-23476 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Sherburne Village Baptist Society, Respondent, v. Frank Ryder, Appellant.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffeman, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.
### §139. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Feb. 19, 1897, ch. 265, §1, 29 Stat. 546; Pub. L. 94–273, §30, Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 380, which required the Librarian of Congress to make an annual report to Congress on the affairs of the Library, including copyright business and a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 10 of House Document No. 103–7.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No.: II-97-01 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Thursday, January 2, 1997)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC SCHEDULES MEETING AT FLORIDA

POWER CORPORATION'S CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with

officials of Florida Power Corporation on Thursday, January 9, at Florida

Power Corporation's Crystal River nuclear power plant in Crystal River,

Florida to discuss issues related to the operation and restart of the nowidled plant.

The meeting, scheduled for 12:00 noon, actually combines two meetings

-- the first is one in a continuing series of meetings to discuss the

status of FPC's progress on its Corrective Action Program at the plant; the

second is a meeting of the NRC's restart panel, formed in November, with

FPC. The combined meeting will be in the plant's Nuclear Administation

Building Conference Room 101 and is open for public observation.

The Crystal River plant was voluntarily shut down in early September

by FPC which identified several potential unreviewed safety questions. In

addition, the NRC staff has observed significant performance concerns at

the plant during the past two years.

###
458 P.2d 231

#### CARLSBAD IRRIGATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation, and State of New Mexico, ex rel. S. E. Reynolds, State Engineer, Petitioners, v. George L. REESE, Jr., District Judge in and for the Fifth Judicial District, Chaves County, New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 8908.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 4, 1969.

MOISE, Acting Chief Justice, and COMPTON, TACKETT and WATSON, Justices, concurring.

NOBLE, Chief Justice, being absent and not participating.

Ordered that petition for alternative writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.
#### Isidor Resnikoff et al., Appellants, v. Meyer Keilsohn et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.
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-98-48 April 29, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH PP&L

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Pennsylvania

Power & Light (PP&L) Company on Tuesday, May 5, to discuss three apparent

violations of agency requirements involving an emergency shutdown system at the

Susquehanna nuclear power plant. PP&L owns and operates the facility, which is

home to twin boiling-water reactors and is located in Berwick, in Northeastern

Pennsylvania.

Scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region 1

office in King of Prussia, Pa., the predecisional enforcement conference will be open to

the public for observation.

The apparent violations may have led to the Unit 1 Standby Liquid Control System

being in a degraded condition and possibly inoperable. In the event the plant’s control

rods were unavailable to shut down the reactor, the system would be used to inject a

neutron-absorbing solution and halt the fission process.

Two of the potential infractions involve pressure below an acceptable level in a

Standby Liquid Control System accumulator, a nitrogen-filled tank that helps reduce

vibrations in the system. The other stems from the adequacy of maintenance activities

for a portion of the system.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that

the NRC has determined a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That

decision will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

#
#### Mayer Brothers Company, Appellee, v. John Parenti, Appellant.

Gen. No. 17,858.

1. *Judgments—slight grammatical error.*Judgment will not be reversed for slight grammatical error in the order.

2. *Damages—appeal prosecuted for delay.*The appellate court will assess damages when a frivolous appeal is taken for delay.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles A. McDonald, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate *301Court at the October term, 1911.

Affirmed with damages.

Opinion filed January 14, 1913.

Albert O. N. Gualano, for appellant.

William S. Newburger, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the appellee and against the appellant for $1,033.93 (erroneously stated in the abstract to be $10,033.93). No bill of exceptions is included in the record. The only error complained of is that in the closing part of the judgment order the language used is, “together with *Ms*costs and charges in this behalf expended,” etc., instead of “together with *its*costs and charges in this behalf expended,” etc.

We do not regard this slight grammatical error as sufficient to warrant a reversal of the judgment. The judgment will therefore be affirmed, and the court, being of the opinion that the appeal herein was prosecuted for delay, assesses damages in favor of the said appellee and against the said appellant in the sum of one hundred dollars for such delay, for which sum the said appellee shall have judgment in addition to the costs.

*Affirmed with additional costs**
#### Anna Agresta, as Administratrix, etc., Plaintiff, v. Federal Steam Navigation Company of England, Defendant.

Reargument of motion ordered for Friday, May 14, 1915. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case Number: 20-22905-CIV-MORENO

DAMIAN J. VAZ, 

Petitioner,

vs.

WILLIAM BARR and JOHN KELLY, 

secretary D.H.S.,

Respondents.

_________________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner’s Emergency Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (D.E. 1), filed on July 14, 2020. THE COURT 

has considered the emergency petition, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ADJUDGED that the emergency petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with 

leave to refile in the appropriate district court. In the petition, Petitioner explains that he is 

currently being detained at Baker County Detention Center in MacClenny, Florida, and is awaiting 

removal to Jamaica. But, since Petitioner is specifically bringing the instant petition under section

2241, the court dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to federal law, district court are 

limited to granting habeas relief “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). 

As the Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Baker County, which lies in the Middle 

District of Florida, his petition must be brought in that district. The petition is therefore dismissed 

Case 1:20-cv-22905-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

for lack of jurisdiction.1 See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language 

of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging 

present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”); 

see also United States v. Kinsey, 393 F. App’x 663, 664 (11th Cir. 2010) (similar).

The case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th of July 2020.

______________________________________

FEDERICO A. MORENO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Damian J. Vaz

A#097-348-754

Baker County Detention Center

Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. Box 16290

MacClenny, FL 32063

PRO SE

 

1

It may in fact be the case that no district court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the 

instant emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus, because all challenges to an administrative order of 

removal must typically be made only in the appropriate appellate court. The REAL ID Act provides that 

“a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the 

sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any provision 

of this chapter.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); accord Madu v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 470 F.3d 1362, 1366 (11th Cir. 

2006). In any event, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present emergency petition.

Case 1:20-cv-22905-FAM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 5, 2010

LIBERTY STATE BANK v. CHARLES WAYNE SMITHSON

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dekalb County

No. 2010-CV-50 John J. Maddux, Jr., Judge

No. M2010-01881-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 7, 2010

The defendant has appealed from a default judgment granting the plaintiff possession of his

1995 Lincoln Towncar. Because the defendant did not file his notice of appeal within the

time permitted by Tenn. R. App. P. 4, we dismiss the appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, P.J., M.S., FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR. and ANDY D. BENNETT, JJ.

Charles Wayne Smithson, Jr., Smithville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Bratten Hale Cook, Smithville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Liberty State Bank.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

____

On June 18, 2010, Liberty State Bank filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for

DeKalb County alleging that the defendant, Charles Wayne Smithson, had defaulted on a

February 7, 2009 note secured by a 1995 Lincoln Towncar. Liberty State Bank sought

possession of the vehicle as well as a monetary judgment, interest and attorney fees. On June

28, 2010, the trial court entered a default judgment awarding Liberty State Bank possession

of the vehicle. No monetary damages were awarded. Mr. Smithson filed his notice of appeal

Tenn. R. Ct. App. 10 states: 1

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse

or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion

would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it shall

be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited

or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
on August 3, 2010.

Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) requires that a notice of appeal be filed with and received by the

trial court clerk within thirty (30) days after entry of the order appealed. Mr. Smithson did

not file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk until thirty-six (36) days after entry of

the order appealed. On September 13, 2010, this court ordered Mr. Smithson to show cause

why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Mr.

Smithson failed to respond.

The thirty day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional.

Albert v. Frye, 145 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Tenn.2004); Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252, 255

(Tenn. 2003). This court can neither waive nor extend the time period. Tenn. R. App. P. 2

and 21(b); Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d 856, 869 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 2008); Jefferson v. Pneumo Serv. Corp. 699 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).

The failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the

matter. Flautt & Mann v. Council of City of Memphis, 285 S.W.3d at 869.

The appeal is hereby dismissed for failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The costs

are taxed to Charles Wayne Smithson and his surety for which execution, if necessary, may

issue.

PER CURIAM

-2-
#### Alvin M. Miller v. William H. Walker.

Filed November 16, 1904.

No. 13,640.

Appeal: Dismissal. A judgment of the district court dismissing an appeal from the county court examined and approved.

Error to the district court for Scott’s Bluff county: Charles L. G-utterson, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*W. G. Simonson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wright &*Wright, *contra.*

Oldham, C.

This was a suit on the justice’s side of the county court of Scott’s Bluff county, instituted by plaintiff in the court *661below to recover $74.10, alleged to have been due on account. The cause was heard in the county court on June 16, 1903, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed. On June 25, 1903, defendant in the court -below filed his appeal bond. On July 17, 1903, a transcript of the proceedings of the county court was filed with the clerk of the district court for Scott’s Bluff county. At the following term of the district court, plaintiff’s attorneys filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the appeal, because the transcript was not filed within 30 days from the rendition of the judgment in the lower court. This motion was sustained by the district court and defendant brings error to this court.

The only excuse offered for the failure to file the transcript within the time prescribed by section 1008 of the code is the claim of defendant’s attorney that he was mis-led as to when the trains left from Alliance to G-eriug, and that this mistake prevented him from tendering the fees, and having the transcript filed within the time prescribed by statute. It is useless to say that this excuse is legally no excuse at all, and we therefore recommend that the judgment of the district court be affirmed.

Ames and Letton, CC., concur.

By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.