alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Jornal Oficial C 18A/25 d

| | ISSN 1725-2482 |
| --- | --- |
| Jornal Oficial
  da União Europeia | C 18A |
| | |
| Edição em língua portuguesa | Comunicações e Informações | 49.o ano25 de Janeiro de 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2482

Jornal Oficial

da União Europeia

C 18A

Edição em língua portuguesa

Comunicações e Informações

49.o ano25 de Janeiro de 2006

---

| Número de informação | Índice | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informações |
| | Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos |
| 2006/C 018A/1 | Convite à manifestação de interesse para integrar o Comité Científico e os painéis científicos da Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos (a data limite para o envio das manifestações de interesse foi prorrogada até 17 de Fevereiro de 2006) | 1 |

Número de informação

Índice

Página

III   Informações

Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos

2006/C 018A/1

Convite à manifestação de interesse para integrar o Comité Científico e os painéis científicos da Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos (a data limite para o envio das manifestações de interesse foi prorrogada até 17 de Fevereiro de 2006)

1

| PT | |
| --- | --- |

PT

---

III Informações

Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos

| 25.1.2006 | PT | Jornal Oficial da União Europeia | CA 18/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2006

PT

Jornal Oficial da União Europeia

CA 18/1

---

CONVITE À MANIFESTAÇÃO DE INTERESSE PARA INTEGRAR O COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO E OS PAINÉIS CIENTÍFICOS DA AUTORIDADE EUROPEIA PARA A SEGURANÇA DOS ALIMENTOS

(A data limite para o envio das manifestações de interesse foi prorrogada até 17 de Fevereiro de 2006)

(2006/C 18 A/01)

Conforme publicado no
  Jornal Oficial da União Europeia C 289 A de 22.11.2005, p. 6, a data limite para envio de candidaturas foi fixada em 7 de Janeiro de 2006. Contudo, atendendo a aparentes problemas recorrentes relacionados com o envio electrónico, em especial durante a última semana do prazo previsto, a data limite para apresentação de candidaturas foi prorrogada até quinta-feira, 17 de Fevereiro de 2006.

O convite é dirigido a cientistas que desejem candidatar-se ao cargo de membro do Comité Científico ou de um painel científico da Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos, criada pelo Regulamento (CE) n.o 178/2002 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 28 de Janeiro de 2002, que determina os princípios e as normas gerais da legislação alimentar, cria a Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos e estabelece procedimentos em matéria de segurança dos géneros alimentícios. A Autoridade tem sede permanente em Parma, Itália.

---
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-60701 Summary Calendar

JAMES MATHEW HARRIS, Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections; GLORIA PERRY, D o c tor; R OBERT MOORE, Doctor; DAISY THOMAS, Doctor; RONALD WOODALL, Doctor; KEN KAISER, Doctor; JOHN DOE; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Also Known as Wexford Health Services, Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 3:11-CV-26

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 14, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-60701 Document: 00512274012 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2013No. 12-60701

In this matter tried by consent to a magistrate judge (“MJ”), James Harris, Mississippi prisoner # 67709, appeals a summary judgment on, and dismissal of, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 s uit seeking redress for alleged deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. A summary j udgment, which we review de novo , Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc. , 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009), “shall” be entered “if the movant shows that t here is n o g enuine dispute as to any material fact a nd the movant is entitled to j udgment as a matter of law.” F E D
. R. C I V
. P. 56(a). Harris contends that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by denying him treatment f or his H epatitis C i nfection and b ack p roblems. The record shows that H arris d id receive t reatment for those ailments a nd that his claim amounts to a disagreement with the treatment and a d e s ire for more. That is not enough for a v iable claim of deliberate indifference. See Domino v. Tex. D ep’t of Crim. Justice, I nstitutional Div. , 239 F.3d 752, 7 56 (5th Cir. 2001); Banuelos v. M cFarland , 41 F.3d 232, 235 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). To the extent Harris argues that certain defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, there is no error, because the M J did not c o nsider whether those defendants were entitled t o t hat i mmunity. Similarly, Harris’s conclusional assertions attacking the MJ’s discovery and inju n c t i o n rulings do not show that the MJ abuse d his discretion in denying t he disputed motions. See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. , 392 F.3d 8 12, 817 (5th Cir. 2004); W omen’s Med. Ctr. of Nw. Houston v. Bell , 248 F.3d 411, 418-19 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Harris has shown no error, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-60701 Document: 00512274012 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2013
### §31b–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–151, title I, §102(b), Nov. 13, 1985, 99 Stat. 797

Section, based on H. Res. No. 1238, §3, Dec. 23, 1970, enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 91–665, ch. VIII, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1989; Pub. L. 93–532, §1(a), Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1723, provided for reimbursement of former Speaker of House for telephone service charges for administration, etc., of matters pertaining to incumbency in office as Representative and Speaker.
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. 98-65 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, May 8, 1998)

NRC ISSUES COMMENTS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

ON ITS REVISED DRAFT OPINION ON UTAH SITE CLEANUP PLAN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued comments on the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s revised draft biological opinion on the proposed reclamation plan for

the Atlas Corporation’s uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah.

Atlas, an NRC licensee, has submitted a plan to stabilize its mill tailings on site.

The NRC has not yet made a final determination on the acceptability of this plan.

The next step in the process is for the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue its final

biological opinion on the plan. That final opinion will be the last piece of information

that NRC needs to complete its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NRC will

make its final decision on Atlas’s proposed remediation plan once the EIS is published.

The NRC found that the Fish and Wildlife Service revised draft opinion was a

significant improvement over the original draft opinion on the Atlas remediation plan.

The Fish and Wildlife Service revised draft opinion states that the Atlas

Corporation’s plan would jeopardize the continued existence of two endangered fish

species in the Colorado River. The revised draft also provides several “reasonable and

prudent’ alternatives that Fish and Wildlife Service believes would help reduce or

eliminate the likelihood of jeopardy to the endangered fish.

The NRC identified a number of technical, administrative and regulatory issues

concerning Fish and Wildlife Service’s new draft opinion. The NRC also said the draft

opinion did not consider the scientific analyses and basis for findings documented by

NRC. “Our primary interest has been, and continues to be, that all information and

views be considered such that a fair, objective, and implementable regulatory decision

can be made.” said Carl J. Paperiello, director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, in a May 7 letter to the Service.

Other NRC concerns with the revised draft opinion are contained in the NRC’s

May 7 letter. The letter also suggests that managers from the two agencies meet to

discuss issues associated with the Atlas site.
A copy of NRC’s comments on the Fish and Wildlife revised draft opinion will be

available at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

20555, and via an NRC web site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/.

###
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,386,725
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,000,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 27,935,083
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     62,176,783
<ALLOWANCE>                                    660,741
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,120,154
<DEPOSITS>                                  73,809,531
<SHORT-TERM>                                 3,200,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,442,035
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,767,489
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,670,663
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,230,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              94,120,154
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,767,963
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,734,348
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               216,285
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             6,718,596
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           3,076,826
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,327,812
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,390,784
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   24,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             (81,248)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,299,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,201,508
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,201,508
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   743,366
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     3.7
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   377,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               640,982
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,509
<RECOVERIES>                                       268
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              660,741
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           660,741
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### § 12.18 Labels.

Each separate container of such virus, serum, toxin, or analogous product imported is required by the regulations of the Department of Agriculture to bear the true name of the product and the permit number assigned by the Department of Agriculture in the following form: “U.S. Veterinary Permit No. ________,” or an abbreviation thereof authorized by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. Each separate container also shall bear a serial number affixed by the manufacturer for identification of the product with the records of preparation thereof, together with a return date.

[28 FR 14710, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 78-99, 43 FR 13060, Mar. 29, 1978]
No: I-24-002 January 29, 2024 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Names New Resident Inspector to Seabrook Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Eben Allen as the 

new resident inspector at Seabrook Station in Seabrook, New Hampshire. 

He joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Travis Daun at the plant, which is 

operated by NextEra Energy. 

Allen joined the agency in 2013 as a project manager for spent fuels 

in the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, and later worked 

on research and test reactor licensing and oversight in the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation. He also was a reactor engineer in NRC’s Region I 

Office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, before temporarily being assigned 

as the resident inspector at the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Most 

recently, he served as a resident inspector at Millstone Station in Waterford, Connecticut. 

Previously, he served for six years in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS Alaska and also was an 

NRC-licensed reactor operator at the University of Missouri Research Reactor. He earned a 

bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering technology from Thomas Edison State University. He 

earned a master’s degree in nuclear engineering with an emphasis in health physics, as well as a 

graduate certificate in nuclear security and safeguards, from the University of Missouri. 

“Eben has a combined 22 years of experience in the nuclear industry,” said NRC Region I 

Administrator Raymond Lorson. “That experience and his education make him a valuable asset to 

the NRC inspection team at Seabrook.” 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as 

the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects 

and interacting with plant workers and the public. Resident inspectors can be assigned to any one 

site for up to seven years.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4500 THOMAS H. LIGON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-97-131) Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 17, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELPaul A. Driscoll, PENDER & COWARD, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark A. Exley, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Thomas H. Ligon pled guilty to embezzling union funds in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501(c) (1994). The district court sentenced Ligon to a ten-month term of imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release and ordered restitution in the amount of $16,000. We affirmed Ligon's conviction, dismissed the appeal of his prison sentence, vacated the district court's restitution order, and remanded for the court to make explicit findings with regard to Ligon's ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered. See United States v. Ligon , No. 98-4230 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 1998) (unpublished). On remand, the district court considered Ligon's ability to pay and ordered Ligon to pay restitution in the amount of $5050. Ligon appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay $5050, given his financial resources. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendices, and the district court's order imposing $5050 in restitution and find no abuse of discretion.* See United States v. Blake , 81 F.3d 498, 505 (4th Cir. 1996) (statingstandard of review). We therefore affirm the district court's resentencing order.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________ *The government argues on appeal that the law-of-the-case doctrine should not preclude us from revisiting our prior decision. B ecause we find that there was no manifest injustice in this case, the government has not established an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine. See United States v. Aramony , 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir.) (discussing doctrine and exceptions), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 2022 (1999); United States v. Becerra , 155 F.3d 740, 754-56 (5th Cir. 1998) (rejecting government's attempt to show manifest injustice where government for first time on appeal after remand introduced new evidence that it had opportunity to present to prior panel).
2
### Part B—Research, Training, and Evaluation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 4:20-cv-10072-KMM

ROBERTO MORALES DIAZ,

Petitioner,

v.

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon pro se Petitioner Roberto Morales Diaz’s

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (“Pet.”) 

(ECF No. 1). The Court referred the matter to the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, United States 

Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Petition be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 7). Petitioner did not file objections 

and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court 

ADOPTS the R&R.

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

In the Petition, Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of his no contest plea entered in 

Monroe Circuit Court, Case No. 15-CF-000145-A-P. Pet. at 5. On July 22, 2020, Magistrate 

Judge Reid issued orders requiring Petitioner to (1) file an amended state habeas corpus petition, 

on or before August 21, 2020, on the proper form, because Petitioner raised an argument which 

did not appear to be a cognizable constitutional claim, and (2) pay the filing fee or file a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, on or before August 21, 2020. (ECF Nos. 5, 6). Both orders cautioned 

Case 4:20-cv-10072-KMM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2020 Page 1 of 2
2 

Petitioner that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the case. Id. To date, Petitioner has 

made no further filings. 

As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Reid finds that Petitioner’s non-response 

warrants dismissal for failure to comply with court orders and for want of prosecution. R&R at 3. 

Specifically, Magistrate Judge Reid finds that dismissal for failure to comply with court orders and 

for want of prosecution is within the Court’s inherent authority to manage its docket and is 

appropriate in this case because the Court gave Petitioner notice of same. Id. This Court agrees. 

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Petition, the R&R, the pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Reid’s R&R (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED and Petitioner’s

Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF 

No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this 

case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ____ day of October, 2020. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

26th

Case 4:20-cv-10072-KMM Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### § 206.63 Provision of assistance.

Assistance authorized by an emergency declaration is limited to immediate and short-term assistance, essential to save lives, to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93018, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 134.51 Procedure when importation found not legally marked. ( a ) *Notice to mark or redeliver.* When articles or containers are found upon examination not to be legally marked, the Center director shall notify the importer on Customs Form 4647, or its electronic equivalent, to arrange with the Center director's office to properly mark the article or containers, or to return all released articles to Customs custody for marking, exportation, or destruction.
( b ) *Identification of articles.* When an imported article which is not legally marked is to be exported, destroyed, or marked under Customs supervision, the identity of the imported article shall be established to the satisfaction of the Center director.
( c ) *Supervision.* Verification of marking, exportation, or destruction of articles found not to be legally marked shall be at the expense of the importer and shall be performed under Customs supervision unless the Center director accepts a certificate of marking as provided for in § 134.52 in lieu of marking under Customs supervision.
[T.D. 72-262, 37 FR 20318, Sept. 29, 1972, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61288, Oct. 13, 2015]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          61,982
<SECURITIES>                                    27,932
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,631
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               306,740
<PP&E>                                         106,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           628
<OTHER-SE>                                     269,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383,157
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               307,442
<CGS>                                          248,544
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  343,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (10,619)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,468
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,183)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,274)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Application of Charles H. Jones et al., as Executors of Mary E. Jones, Deceased, for Payment of an Award Made in a Proceeding to Acquire Title to Sunken Meadow Island in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York. Herbert A. Kneeland, as Ancillary Executor of Florence D. Kitchener, Deceased, et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.