alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §276. Disbursement of appropriations

All appropriations for the Office of the Legislative Counsel shall be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

(Feb. 24, 1919, ch. 18, title XIII, §1303(c), (d), 40 Stat. 1142; June 2, 1924, ch. 234, title XI, §1101, 43 Stat. 353.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

As originally enacted, section provided for disbursement of one-half of appropriations for office of legislative counsel by Secretary of Senate and one-half by Clerk of House of Representatives. In view of nonapplicability of section to Speaker, employee, etc., of the House of Representatives pursuant to section 531 of Pub. L. 91–510, set out as a note under section 281 of this title, section has been revised to limit application to Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate. See section 282c of this title for provisions relating to expenditures by Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report fy...**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc:ID 1.27:C 14/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000636545
 
October 31, 2017
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 11590 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus TIMOTHY LAMAR THOMAS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:18

- cr
- 00036

- ELR

- JSA

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11590 Date Filed: 02/28/2022 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 21

- 11590

Before WILSON, LAGOA and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

– 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentenc e appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Grinard

- Henry , 399F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or ev en blatant error). USCA11 Case: 21-11590 Date Filed: 02/28/2022 Page: 2 of 2
#### § 111.50 General.

This subpart sets forth provisions relating to cancellation, suspension, or revocation of a license or a permit, or assessment of a monetary penalty in lieu of suspension or revocation, under section 641(d)(2)(B), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641(d)(2)(B)). The provisions relating to assessment of a monetary penalty under sections 641(b)(6) and (d)(2)(A), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641(b)(6) and (d)(2)(A)), are set forth in subpart E of this part.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-2063 

L.T. Case No. 2016-CF-031426-A

_____________________________

KHIRY MARTE REDDING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.

Charles G. Crawford, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. 

June 18, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and LAMBERT and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion 

under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________
### §150. Sale of copies of card indexes and other publications

The Librarian of Congress is authorized to furnish to such institutions or individuals as may desire to buy them, such copies of the card indexes and other publications of the Library as may not be required for its ordinary transactions, and charge for the same a price which will cover their cost and ten per centum added, and all moneys received by him shall be deposited in the Treasury and shall be credited to the appropriation for necessary expenses for the preparation and distribution of catalog cards and other publications of the Library.

(June 28, 1902, ch. 1301, §1, 32 Stat. 480; Pub. L. 95–94, title IV, §405(a), Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 682.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1977—Pub. L. 95–94 inserted provisions relating to crediting of the moneys deposited in the Treasury.

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

#### Effective Date of 1977 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–94, title IV, §405(b), Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 682, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on October 1, 1977."
### §2103. Supervision and maintenance of Old Senate Chamber

The Commission shall have responsibility for the supervision and maintenance of the Old Senate Chamber on the principal floor of the Senate wing of the Capitol and of the Old Supreme Court Chamber insofar as each is to be preserved as a patriotic shrine in the Capitol for the benefit of the people of the United States.

(Pub. L. 100–696, title IX, §901(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4610; Pub. L. 107–68, title I, §108(a), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 569.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 188b–2 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

Section is based on section 3 of Senate Resolution No. 382, Ninetieth Congress, Oct. 1, 1968, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 100–696.

#### Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–68 substituted "and of the Old Supreme Court Chamber insofar as each" for "insofar as it".

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

#### Effective Date of 2001 Amendment

Pub. L. 107–68, title I, §108(c), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 569, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 2105 of this title] shall apply to fiscal year 2002 and all succeeding fiscal years."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-61610-BLOOM

DYNZA MACKEY,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, 

ECF No. [32] (“Motion”). The Motion requests that this Court appoint Petitioner an attorney due 

to his current state of confinement, his limited access to legal materials, and the possibility that 

some of his claims may be redundant. Id. at 1. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the 

record in this case, and the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised.

A plaintiff has no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case, and the decision to appoint

counsel is within the Court’s discretion. Suggs v. United States, 199 F. App’x 804, 807 (11th Cir. 

2006). Indeed, counsel should only be appointed in “exceptional circumstances.” Id. (citing Dean

v. Barber, 951 F.2d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 1992)). Exceptional circumstances exist when there are 

“facts and legal issues which are so novel or complex as to require the assistance of a trained 

practitioner.” Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting Poole v. Lambert, 819 

F.2d 1025,1028 (11th Cir. 1987)) (quotations and alteration omitted). “The key is whether the pro

se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or her position to the court.” Suggs, 

199 F. App’x at 807 (quoting Kilgo, 983 F.2d at 193). 

Case 0:20-cv-61610-BB Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/25/2021 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 20-cv-61610-BLOOM

2

After reviewing the record in this case, the Court does not find this case presents such 

exceptional circumstances that counsel should be appointed. Nevertheless, Petitioner may request 

a referral to the Volunteer Attorney Program, where a volunteer attorney may accept the 

representation on a pro bono basis, if they so desire.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. [32], 

is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on February 24, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Dynza Mackey

19578-104

Moshannon Valley

Correctional Institution

Inmate Mail/Parcels

555 Geo Drive

Philipsburg, PA 16866

Case 0:20-cv-61610-BB Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/25/2021 Page 2 of 2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 60899 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Enoch Buckley, III,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi No. 2:20

- CR

- 44

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,**  and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Enoch Buckley , III , pleaded guilty , p e r a plea agreement, of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) . He was sentenced , above the advisory guideline range , to 120 months of impris

onment. Buckley waived his right to appeal, but he reserved the right to

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum

stances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 13, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60899 Document: 00516355148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022No. 21

- 60899

2 appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he maintains that his above

- guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable. In stead of a brief, the g overnment has filed a n oppo sed motion for dismissal, seeking enforcement of the appeal waiver , or, in the alternative, summary affirmance

. A defendant may waive the statutory right to appeal in a valid plea
agreement

. United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).

“ This court reviews de novo whether an appeal waiver bars an appeal.” United States v. Keele , 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). We “conduct a two

step inquiry: (1) whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary and (2) whether the waiver applies to the cir cumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the agreement.” United States v. Bond , 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).

T he record demonstrates that Buckley knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal, and the appellate waiver applies in t his circum

stance. See McKinney , 406 F.3d at 746; United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567

– 68 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is **GRANTED** , and the appeal is
**DISMISSED**

. Th e g overnment’s alternative motion for summary affirm

ance is **DENIED** as unnecessary. Case: 21-60899 Document: 00516355148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287-DPG

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v .

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al.,

Defendants.

[Proposed] Order Granting Agreed Motion to Reset/Extend Date for Plaintiffs’ Response to 

Defendants WPP plc’s, Young & Rubicam LLC’s And BCW LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction and for Other Relief

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Agreed Motion to Reset/Extend Date for 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants WPP plc’s, Young & Rubicam LLC’s And BCW LLC’s Motion to Dismiss for 

Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for Other Relief, and good cause appearing therefore, it is ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that the Motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs’ response to WPP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 93] is hereby adjourned sine die and 

Defendants’ reply to said motion is similarly adjourned sine die. The joint status report previously ordered in the 

Court’s December 6, 2021 order [D.E. 159] shall now be due on the earlier of (i) March 21, 2022, or (ii) ten (10)

days after a ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, this

____ day of , 2021.

_____________________________________________

HONORABLE DARRIN P. GAYLES 

United States District Judge

Copies furnished via CM/ECF to Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 163-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 1 of 1
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-124 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Wednesday, September 18, 1996)

NRC NAMES JOHN J. BARTON

TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has appointed John J.

Barton, a retired executive of General Public Utilities Corp.

(GPU), to its independent Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS).

Mr. Barton, a graduate of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,

began his career in the nuclear industry in 1960, working in the

Navy nuclear program before joining GPU in 1971. While there, he

developed and implemented a plan to improve the overall

performance of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, which

resulted in achieving the highest performance ratings in the 25-

year history of the station, as measured by regulatory and

external performance assessment organizations.

He also managed many key activities associated with the

recovery of Three Mile Island Unit 2 following the 1979 accident.

Mr. Barton retired from GPU last year as Vice President/Director

of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.

The ACRS was established in 1957 by Congress to advise the

former Atomic Energy Commission, and subsequently the NRC, on the

safety aspects of proposed and existing nuclear facilities and

the adequacy of related safety standards. The ACRS also performs

such other special assignments as the Commission may request,

such as the review of NRC research programs.

A list of other ACRS members follows:

CHAIRMAN: Dr. Thomas S. Kress, retired Head of Applied Systems

Technology Section, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN;

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Dr. Robert L. Seale, Professor Emeritus of

Nuclear and Energy Engineering, Department of Nuclear and Energy

Engineering, College of Engineering and Mines, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ;

Dr. George Apostolakis, Professor, Nuclear Engineering

Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA;

Dr. Ivan Catton, Professor of Engineering, Department of

Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, School of

Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los

Angeles, CA;

Dr. Mario H. Fontana, Adjunct Professor, Nuclear Engineering

Department, University of Tennessee, and retired from Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN;

Dr. Don W. Miller, Professor and Chair, Nuclear Engineering,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University,

Columbus, OH;

Dr. Dana A Powers, Manager, Nuclear Facilities Safety Department,

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM;

Dr. William J. Shack, Associate Director, Energy Technology

Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.

#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22680-FAM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR SPV LLC,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby dismisses 

with prejudice her civil action against Defendant MCALISTER'S FRANCHISOR SPV LLC.

Dated: July 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 7, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22680-FAM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §392. Record

#### (a) Hearing on papers, depositions, and exhibits

Contested election cases shall be heard by the committee on the papers, depositions, and exhibits filed with the Clerk. Such papers, depositions, and exhibits shall constitute the record of the case.

#### (b) Appendix to contestant's brief

Contestant shall print as an appendix to his brief those portions of the record which he desires the committee to consider in order to decide the case and such other portions of the record as may be prescribed by the rules of the committee.

#### (c) Appendix to contestee's brief

Contestee shall print as an appendix to his brief those portions of the record not printed by contestant which contestee desires the committee to consider in order to decide the case.

#### (d) Contestant's brief; service on contestee

Within forty-five days after the time for both parties to take testimony has expired, contestant shall serve on contestee his printed brief of the facts and authorities relied on to establish his case together with his appendix.

#### (e) Contestee's brief; service on contestant

Within thirty days of service of contestant's brief and appendix, contestee shall serve on contestant his printed brief of the facts and authorities relied on to establish his case together with his appendix.

#### (f) Reply brief of contestant

Within ten days after service of contestee's brief and appendix, contestant may serve on contestee a printed reply brief.

#### (g) Form of briefs; number of copies served and filed

The form and length of the briefs, the form of the appendixes, and the number of copies to be served and filed shall be in accordance with such rules as the committee may prescribe.

(Pub. L. 91–138, §13, Dec. 5, 1969, 83 Stat. 289.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to any general or special election for Representative in, or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress of the United States occurring after Dec. 5, 1969, see section 19 of Pub. L. 91–138, set out as a note under section 381 of this title.
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.475 [Reserved]
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-01-002 January 5, 2001

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO DISCUSS HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT CONCERNS WITH CP&L

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a regulatory conference with CP&L (a

Progress Energy company) at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, in Atlanta to discuss the

company’s position on the significance of a bearing failure on a charging/safety injection pump at the

Harris nuclear power plant southwest of Raleigh. Those pumps are designed to inject water into the

reactor coolant system under certain accident conditions.

Normally two of those pumps are available, but the pump with the bearing problem was used at

times to temporarily replace one of the two normally available pumps. If that pump had failed, only

one pump would have been available to perform the safety function.

The NRC staff, through its significance determination process, has made a preliminary

determination that the finding is White -- an issue with some increased importance to safety, which

may require additional NRC inspection. Under the significance determination process, NRC officials

classify certain conditions at nuclear power plants as being in one of four colors which delineate

increasing levels of significance, beginning with green and progressing in severity to white, yellow or

red.

Two apparent violations -- the plant staff’s failure to comply with Technical Specifications and

the failure to initially classify the issue correctly within the licensee’s corrective action program -- have

also been identified, and are being considered for enforcement action.

The meeting will be held in the NRC’s Region II offices on the 24th floor of the Sam Nunn

Atlanta Federal Center, located at 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. It is between the NRC staff and CP&L

management but is open to observation by the public.

No decision on the final significance, the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement

action will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

###
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel Torgovnick, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
§ 133.61 Donations of intellectual property rights technology and related support services. ( a ) *Scope.* The Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is authorized to accept donations of hardware, software, equipment, and similar technologies, as well as related support services and training, from private sector entities, for the purpose of assisting CBP in enforcing intellectual property rights. Such acceptance must be consistent with the conditions set forth in this section and section 308(d) of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. 4301 note), as well as either section 482 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by section 2 of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016 (6 U.S.C. 301a), or section 507 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-90). However, this section does not apply to merchandise provided to CBP as samples, *e.g.,* as referenced in §§ 151.10 and 177.2 of this chapter.
( b ) *Donation offer.* A donation offer must be submitted to CBP either via email, to *dap@cbp.dhs.gov ,* or mailed to the attention of the Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, or his/her designee. The donation offer must describe the proposed donation in sufficient detail to enable CBP to determine its compatibility with existing CBP technologies, networks, and facilities (*e.g.* operating system or similar requirements, power supply requirements, item size and weight, *etc.*). The donation offer must also include information pertaining to the donation's scope, purpose, expected benefits, intended use, costs, and attached conditions, as applicable, that is sufficient to enable CBP to evaluate the donation and make a determination as to whether to accept it. CBP will notify the donor, in writing, if additional information is requested or if CBP has determined that it will not accept the donation.
( c ) *Agreement to accept donation.* If CBP accepts a donation of hardware, software, equipment, technologies, or related support services and training, for the purpose of enforcing intellectual property rights, CBP will enter into a signed, written agreement with an authorized representative of the donor. The agreement must contain all applicable terms and conditions of the donation. An agreement to accept a donation must provide that the hardware, software, equipment, technologies, or related support services and training are offered without the expectation of payment, and that the donor expressly waives any future claims, except those expressly reserved in the agreement, against the government related to the donation.
### §61e–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61e–3 was editorially reclassified as section 6593 of this title.