alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2 9 6 Ga . 4 92

F INAL COP Y

S 1 5 Y0 3 7 2 . IN THE MATTER OF RAND J. CS E HY.

P ER CURIAM.

In Ap ril 2 0 1 4 , Ra n d J. C se h y (S ta te Ba r No

. 1 9 9 7 5 6 ) p le d n o lo c o n te n de re

to two c o u n ts o f p o sse ssio n o f a c o n tro lle d su b sta n c e , OCGA § 1 6 -1 3 -3 0 , a n d

o n e c ou n t o f p o sse ssio n of a fire a rm d u rin g th e c o m m issio n o f a c rim e , OCGA
§ 1 6 -1 1 -1 0 6

. He w a s se n te n c e d a s a first o ffe n d e r

. C se h y file d a p e titio n fo r

v o lu n ta ry disc ip lin e se e kin g a o n e -to -two -y e a r su sp e n sio n

. On Se pte m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 1 4, w h ile h is p e titio n wa s p e n d in g , th e S u p e rio r Co u rt o f C o b b Co u nty ,

n o tin g d u rin g a n a

p p e a ra nc e th a t Cse h y wa s d ish e v e le d a n d u n a b le to sta n d

with ou t su p p o rt, o rd e re d a d ru g te st, wh ic h sh o we d th e pre se n c e o f ille g a l d ru g s
in h is sy ste m

. Th e c o urt h e ld h im in c o n te m p t a n d in c a r ce r a te d h im fo r fiv e
d a y s. Im m e d ia te ly th e re a fte r, th e S ta te Ba r file d a n a m e n d m e n t to its re sp o nse

to Cse h y ’s p e titio n , re qu e stin g th a t it b e d e n i e d an d th a t a sp e c ia l m a ste r b e

a p p o in te d

. Th is Co u rt a

p p o in te d a s p ec i a l m a ste r, Jo h n Wa y n e Mo u lto n , o n
S e p te m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 4

. O n Oc to b e r 6 , 2 0 1 4 , th is Co u rt issu e d an o p in io n re je c tin g
Cse h y ’s p e titio n fo r v o lu nta ry d isc ip lin e , se e In th e Ma tte r o f Cse h y , 2 9 5 Ga

.8 5 3 (7 6 4 S E2 d 5 40 ) (2 0 1 4 ). On Oc to b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 4, th e sp e c ia l m a ste r c o n v e n e d

a h e a rin g in Cse h y ’s c a se , b ut Cse h y fa ile d to a pp e a r. Th e sp e c ia l m a ste r issu e d

h is re po rt a n d re c o m m e n d e d th a t, be c a u se Cs e h y wa s c o n v ic te d o f th re e
fe lo nie s, h e sh o u ld be d isb a rre d , se e Ba r Ru le 8 .4 (a ) (2 ) (v io la tio n o f Ba r Ru le s
fo r la w y e r to be c on vic te d o f fe lo n y ) a nd Ba r R u l e 8

. 4 (b ) (1 ) (ii) (c o n v ic tio n
in c lu de s a n a c c e p te d p le a o f n o lo c o n te n de re ) o f th e Ge o rg ia R u le s o f

P ro fe ssio n a l Co n d u c t, Ba r Ru le 4 -1 0 2 (d ).

We h a ve re v ie we d th e e n tire re c o rd o f th e p ro c e e d in g s a n d a g re e with th e

sp e c ia l m a ste r th a t disb a rm e n t is th e a p p ro p ria te sa n c tio n

. Ac c o rd in g ly , th e

n a m e o f Ra n d J. Cse h y h e re b y is re m o v e d fro m th e ro lls o f p e rso n s e n title d to

p ra c tic e la w in th e S ta t e o f G e o r g ia

. He is re m in d e d o f h is d u tie s u n d e r Ba r
Ru le 4 -2 1 9 (c ).

Disb a rre d . All th e Ju stic e s c o n c u r.

De c id e d F e bru a ry 2 , 2 0 1 5

. Disb a rm e n t.

Gra h a m & Je nse n , Ja so n W. Gra

h a m , fo r Cse h y
. P a u la J. F re d e ri c k , G e n e ra l Co u n se l Sta re Ba r, Je n n y K. Mitte lm a n , Assista n t Ge n e ra l Co u nse l S ta te Ba r, fo r S ta te Ba

r o f Ge o rg ia

.

2
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2368]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Review of Conference Grants (R13a).
    Date: March 16, 2004.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East 
Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, EC 122, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709 (Telephone conference call).
    Contact Person: RoseAnne M. McGee, Associate Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Office of Program 
Operations, Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat. Inst. 
of Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27709. 919-541-0752.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 92.113, Biological Response to 
Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 28, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-2368 Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
(March 31, 1948.)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Benedetto Romeo, Appellant.

■ Order unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-03 January 8, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROHIBITS INDIVIDUAL

FROM INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has barred a former

radiation protection technician at the Big Rock Point nuclear

plant, Charlevoix, Michigan, from any involvement in NRC-licensed

activities for three years because he deliberately falsified

radiological survey records.

NRC’s formal order also requires the former employee, Darrel

T. Rich, to notify the agency of his first involvement in NRClicensed activities for an additional three years following the

prohibition period, which began January 5.

In 1996 Mr. Rich entered data in plant records to show that

he had performed a routine radiation air sample and a building

survey. However, Consumers Energy, which operated the plant,

determined through security access records that he had not been

in the locations to perform the sample and survey on the dates

recorded.

Mr. Rich has until January 25 to respond to the order and

may request a hearing. Upon demonstration of good cause, the

director of NRC’s Office of Enforcement may relax or rescind any

of the order’s conditions.

####
§ 112.24 Issuance of license. The port director shall issue a customhouse cartage and lighterage license on Customs Form 3857 provided he is satisfied that: ( a ) The character, qualifications, and experience of the applicant and fitness of his equipment are satisfactory.
( b ) The applicant has complied with all the requirements of § 112.22.
§ 426.25 Reclamation audits. Reclamation will conduct reviews of a district's administration and enforcement of and landholder compliance with Federal reclamation law and these regulations. These reviews may include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Water district reviews;
( b ) In-depth reviews; and
( c ) Audits.
(No. 37316.

#### J. C. Berry *et al.,*Appellants, *vs.*Trudie B. Lewis *et al.,*Appellees.

*Opinion filed February 1, 1963.*

*62Brady, Donovan & Hatch, of East St. Louis, (Vincent J. Hatch, of counsel,) for appellants.

Mr. Justice Klingbiel

delivered the opinion of the court:

The purchasers at a partition sale of real estate described as lot 19, block 2, of a certain subdivision brought ejectment in the circuit court of St. Clair County to recover possession and damages for withholding it. Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that an adjoining parcel (lot 18), which they also owned, was the one intended to be partitioned, and that the subject property was mistakenly designated as lot 19 throughout the partition proceedings. A trial was had, at the conclusion of which a decree was entered dismissing the complaint and granting relief upon the counterclaim. Upon-appeal this court found that the evidence was insufficient to support the decree. It was reversed and the cause was remanded “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” *Berry*v. *Lewis,*23 Ill.2d 380.

Thereafter the circuit court denied plaintiffs’ motion for judgment and a writ of possession. Instead it entered an order granting a motion by defendants for new trial on the counterclaim. We have allowed plaintiffs’ motion for leave to appeal therefrom.

The circuit court was clearly in error. After a judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded the inferior court can take only such further proceedings as conform to the judgment of the reviewing court. *(People ex rel. Bauer*v. *Henry,*10 Ill.2d 324; *Ptaszek*v. *Konczal,*10 Ill.2d 326.) When the court of appellate jurisdiction, in considering a case, determines the issues and decides the questions involved on their merits, reversing the judgment and remanding the *63cause with directions to proceed in conformity with the views expressed in the opinion, there is no power in the court below except to enter a final order or judgment without retrial. *Nye*v. *Nye,*411 Ill. 408; *In re Estate of Maher,*210 Ill. 160.

On our consideration of this case in 23 Ill.2d 380, we determined there was no proof of any mistake in the partition proceeding or in the description of the property sold. We held, in short, that the defendants had failed to prove their counterclaim. The opinion shows we considered and decided the case on its merits. There is nothing in the opinion to show there was any other defense to the action, and its evident purport is that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed.

It appears by plaintiffs’ present petition in this court that they have now waived their right to damages. Nothing remains to be done, therefore, except to enter a judgment of ejectment as prayed in the complaint. The order is reversed and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of St. Clair County with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs in ejectment.

*Reversed and remanded, with directions.*
### §2b. Studies of productivity and labor costs in industries

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor is authorized and directed to make continuing studies of productivity and labor costs in the manufacturing, mining, transportation, distribution, and other industries.

(June 7, 1940, ch. 267, 54 Stat. 249; Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1076, §1(27), 68 Stat. 968.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Provision of this section authorizing appropriations of up to $100,000 for studies by the bureau in the first fiscal year was omitted.

#### Amendments

1954—Act Aug. 30, 1954, repealed second par. which required Secretary of Labor to submit annually to Congress reports of findings under this section.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Labor, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1950, §§1, 2, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Kelsey, Beales and Senior Judge Clements

VIKING CONTRACTING, INC. AND

LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION

MEMORANDUM OPINION *

v. Record No. 1701

- 12

- 4 PER CURIAM JANUARY 8, 2013

MARIA E LENA ALIAGA

FROM T HE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Alan D. Sundburg; Friedlander Misler, PLLC, on brief)

, for appellant s

.

(Andrew S. Kasmer, on brief)

, for appellee.

Viking Contracting, Inc. and Liberty Insurance Corporation (employer) appeal a decisio n

of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Maria E. Aliaga (claimant) was totally

disabled and had no duty to market her residual work capacity. 1 We have reviewed the record

and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without mer it. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reason s stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Aliaga v. Viking Contracting,

Inc. , JCN VA000

- 0015

- 5292 (Aug. 24, 2012). We dispense with oral argument and summarily

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1

- 413, this opinion is not designated for publication.

1 Claimant cont ends that the record fails to set forth when employer filed its notice of appeal. Although the notice of appeal was not included in the joint appendix, the record shows

that e mployer filed a notice of appeal with th e c ommission on September 25, 2012, sent via certified mail on September 21, 2012. Thus , the notice was timely filed. Claimant also contends that employer failed to preserve the marketing issue before the full commission. The deputy commissioner found that claimant was totally disabled, theref ore, she was under no obligation to market her residual ability. On July 13, 2011, employer filed a request for review before the full commission. In the request for review, employer claim ed error with the finding that “ claimant had no duty to market her residual capacity. ” The full

commission found that a questionnaire signed by claimant’s treating physician w as sufficient to support claimant’s ongoing disability. Employer preserved the issue.UNPUBLISHED- 2

- affirm because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the material s before

the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1

- 403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.
### §4123. Authority of Attending Physician in response to medical contingencies or public health emergencies at Capitol

#### (a) In general

The Attending Physician to Congress shall have the authority and responsibility for overseeing and coordinating the use of medical assets in response to a bioterrorism event and other medical contingencies or public health emergencies occurring within the Capitol Buildings or the United States Capitol Grounds. This shall include the authority to enact quarantine and to declare death. These actions will be carried out in close cooperation and communication with the Commissioner of Public Health, Chief Medical Examiner, and other Public Health Officials of the District of Columbia government.

#### (b) Definitions

In this section—

(1) the term "Capitol Buildings" has the meaning given such term in section 5101 of title 40; and

(2) the term "United States Capitol Grounds" has the meaning given such term in section 5102(a) of title 40.

#### (c) Effective date

Subsection (a) shall take effect on January 23, 2004, and shall apply during any fiscal year occurring on or after January 23, 2004.

(Pub. L. 108–199, div. H, §151, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 448.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 121g of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
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-99-48 April 20, 1999

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, GPU NUCLEAR TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATION AT TMI 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and representatives of GPU Nuclear Inc. will meet

on Friday, April 23, in Rockville, Md., to discuss an apparent violation of agency requirements at

the Three Mile Island 1 nuclear power plant. GPU Nuclear operates the facility, located in

Middletown, Pa.

The apparent violation involves changes to requirements for the plant’s emergency

feedwater system without first conducting a safety evaluation. The emergency feedwater

system would be used to help cool the reactor in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident.

Specifically, GPU Nuclear reduced the emergency feedwater system’s minimum required flow

rate to the plant’s steam generators. The steam generators are heat exchanges that take heat

from the radioactive water that circulates through the reactor and use it to heat non-radioactive

water to drive the turbines and generate electricity.

Scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in Room 3-B-4 at the NRC’s One White Flint North

headquarters building, the predecisional enforcement conference will be open to the public.

NRC’s headquarters is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md.

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.

#
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-20294

Summary Calendar

IBRAHIM SABAH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CV-3415

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ibrahim Sabah, Texas prisoner # 792971, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint

against the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). Sabah

contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his

complaint as frivolous because he has a colorable Eighth

Amendment claim. This court reviews a dismissal as frivolous for

an abuse of discretion. Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th
No. 06-20294

-2-

Cir. 1998). 

Sabah contends that he suffered from a serious medical

condition, that the prescribed medical care was delayed, and that

the delay resulted in substantial harm to his eye. However,

aside from conclusional allegations, he does not contend that

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs. Specifically, Sabah does not allege that anyone

at the Estelle Unit pharmacy deliberately withheld the prescribed

eye drops. Further, he does not allege that anyone at the

pharmacy was aware of and consciously disregarded the substantial

risk of serious harm to his eye by failing to provide the eye

drops in a timely manner. Sabah’s allegations amount at most to

negligence. Therefore, Sabah has not shown that the district

court abused its discretion when it dismissed his complaint as

frivolous. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.

1991).

Sabah’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is dismissed as

frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal

of Sabah’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of the instant

appeal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). 

Sabah is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under 

§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or
No. 06-20294

-3-

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
### §2252. Transfer from Capitol Guide Service

#### (a) Transfer of authorities and personnel of Congressional Special Services Office of Capitol Guide Service

In accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, effective on the transfer date—

(1) the contracts, liabilities, records, property, appropriations, and other assets and interests of the Congressional Special Services Office of the Capitol Guide Service, and the employees of such Office, are transferred to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services established under section 2172(a) of this title (as amended by section 2251 of this title), except that the transfer of any amounts appropriated to the Congressional Special Services Office that remain available as of the transfer date shall occur only upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate; and

(2) the employees of such Office shall be subject to the direction, supervision, and control of the Director of Accessibility Services.

#### (b) Treatment of employees at time of transfer

#### (1) In general

Any individual who is an employee of the Congressional Special Services Office of the Capitol Guide Service on a non-temporary basis on the transfer date who is transferred under subsection (a) shall be subject to the authority of the Director of Accessibility Services under section 2172(b) of this title (as amended by section 2251 of this title), except that the individual's grade, compensation, rate of leave, or other benefits that apply with respect to the individual at the time of transfer shall not be reduced while such individual remains continuously so employed in the same position within the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services established under section 2172(a) of this title (as amended by section 2251 of this title), other than for cause.

#### (2) Eligibility for immediate retirement on basis of involuntary separation

For purposes of section 8336(d) and section 8414(b) of title 5, an individual described in paragraph (1) who is separated from service with the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services shall be considered to have separated from the service involuntarily if, at the time the individual is separated from service—

(A) the individual has completed 25 years of service under such title; or

(B) the individual has completed 20 years of service under such title and is 50 years of age or older.

#### (3) Prohibiting imposition of probationary period

The Director of Accessibility Services may not impose a period of probation with respect to the transfer of any individual who is transferred to the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 110–437, title IV, §412, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4995.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 110–437, Oct. 20, 2008, 122 Stat. 4990, which is classified principally to this subchapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Tables.
**MP** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 02 57 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RICHARD LEE TOME,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee ’ s motion for a 45 -day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including February 1 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file the State’s response brief.

Electronically signed by: James Jeremiah Shea Justice, Montana Supreme Court December 10 2020

12/10/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0257