alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DEVLIN JAKE JONES, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 81 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of August, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
### §46a–2. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 89–545, §101, Aug. 27, 1966, 80 Stat. 356, provided, effective fiscal year 1967 and thereafter, for stationery allowance of $3,000 per annum for Senators from States having population of 10 million or more inhabitants. See amendment by Pub. L. 90–21 to section 6117 of this title providing such an allowance to all Senators effective fiscal year 1967 and thereafter.
Memorandum To: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505 for Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector: Emission Standards for New and Modified Sources

Re: EPA call with States on the September 18, 2015, proposed oil and gas 

actions

Message: On Sept. 18, EPA published in the Federal Register a suite of actions related to oil and 

gas emissions. The purpose of this call is for EPA to answer questions states may have about the 

draft rules and draft CTG. Specifically, EPA wanted to circle back with the original group of 

states and California districts who self-nominated to speak with us this past spring. Others from 

the National Oil and Gas Emission Inventory Committee were also invited.

States Attended: 

- New York

- Pennsylvania

- North Carolina

- Michigan

- Louisiana

- Oklahoma

- Kansas

- Colorado

- North Dakota

- California ARB

- Ventura Co.

- Santa Barbara Co.

- San Luis Obispo Co.

- Lia Parisien, ECOS

- Theresa Pella, CENSARA

EPA Attended:

- David Cozzie, OAQPS

- Alison Davis, OAQPS

- Bruce Moore, OAQPS

- Amy Hambrick, OAQPS

- Lisa Thompson, OAQPS

- Ravi Srivastava, OAQPS

- Cheryl Vetter, OAQPS

- Chris Stoneman, OAQPS

- Andrea Barbery, OCIR
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-37 July 5, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 708/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 708/829-9662

Internet e-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

CHANGE IN DATE FOR NRC CHAIRMAN'S NEWS BRIEFING

AT POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT -- NEW DATE: JULY 11

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson

has changed her plans for a visit to Wisconsin nuclear power

facilities.

She will now visit the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station on

July 11 and hold a briefing for news media following the visit.

The planned visit to the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Station has been

cancelled. The briefing was previously scheduled to be on July

12.

The Point Beach facility, which is operated by Wisconsin

Electric Power Co., is north of Two Rivers.

The briefing for news media representatives will be at 2:30

p.m., July 11, in the Energy Information Center at the Point

Beach Nuclear Power Station. The Point Beach facility is located

on Nuclear Road east of Highway 42 and north of Two Rivers.

The visit to the plant is part of a series of visits to

nuclear facilities across the country by Chairman Jackson. She

has been Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since July

1, 1995.

While at Point Beach, she will tour the facility, meet with

the NRC resident inspectors and other NRC personnel, and meet

with utility and plant management.

#####
20-20178-CR-WILLIAMS/TORRES

Jul 6, 2020

Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 1 of 9

MC
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:20-cr-20178-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2020 Page 9 of 9
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. 98-88 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, June 11, 1998)

NRC AMENDS REGULATIONS GOVERNING TIMEPIECES CONTAINING TRITIUM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to simplify the

licensing process for timepieces containing tritium. The amended regulations will

permit timepieces containing Gaseous Tritium Light Sources (GTLS) to be licensed

under the same regulatory requirements as timepieces containing tritium paint.

The amendments are in response to a petition for rulemaking submitted by mbmicrotec, Inc. of North Tonawanda, New York.

Tritium, a radioactive material, interacts with various radioluminescent materials

incorporated in hands, numbers or other parts of timepieces to make the dials and

hands visible in the dark. The tritium may be either in the form of a gas contained in

tiny sealed tubes -- or in a luminescent paint. The amendments will not change the

level of radiation protection provided to users and wearers of tritium-illuminated

timepieces. In fact, the dose to the public from timepieces using GTLS is expected to

be less than that from timepieces using the same quantity of tritium as paint, because

the tritium leak rate from sealed glass tubes is significantly lower than from paint.

Under existing regulations, timepieces containing tritium paint may be licensed

under a section of the regulations that contains specific prototype testing requirements.

License applicants able to meet these prototype tests and whose products do not

exceed the quantity limits per timepiece are able to meet the NRC licensing

requirements. Some of these prototype tests, however, are not suitable for testing

GTLS timepieces, so that applicants for a license to manufacture timepieces containing

gaseous tritium cannot apply under this section of the NRC regulations. They must now

apply for a license under a separate section of the regulations that requires submittal of

much additional information, such as detailed drawings, dimensions, and materials of

construction for each model or series.

The revised regulations remove the specific requirements for prototype testing

from the regulations but do not change the intent of the existing product performance

standard. Specific tests applicable to timepieces containing either tritium paint or

gaseous tritium light sources will be incorporated in an NRC document for license

applications for distribution of such products. The document, “Standard Review Plan

for Applications for Licenses to Distribute Byproduct Material to Persons Exempt from

the Requirements for an NRC License,” (NUREG-1562) will be issued for use by the
effective date of the rule. The effective date will be 60 days after publication of a

Federal Register notice on this subject, expected shortly.

This amendment simplifies the licensing process for timepieces containing

GTLS, facilitates the use of a new technology in self-illuminated timepieces, and results

in significant savings to licensees and to the NRC.

###
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

1:20-cv-22693-COOKE/GOODMAN

DOLORES REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY WATCH PROTECTIVE 

SERVICES, INC. and PERCY PALMA,

Defendants. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON JOINT MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order 

Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case with Prejudice (the “Joint Motion”) (ECF No. 

30). On December 30, 2020, the Undersigned referred the Parties’ Joint Motion to U.S. 

Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a report and recommendation. ECF No. 31. Judge 

Goodman then held a fairness hearing on the Parties’ Joint Motion on January 12, 2021. See 

ECF Nos. 32 and 34. On that same day, Judge Goodman issued his Report and 

Recommendation on FLSA Settlement (the “Report”). ECF No. 35. In his Report, Judge 

Goodman recommends that the Undersigned “find that the parties’ settlement agreement is 

fair and reasonable, approve the settlement . . . dismiss this action with prejudice . . . reserve 

jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement, close the case, and deny all pending 

motions as moot.” Id. at p. 3. 

Neither party objected to Judge Goodman’s Report and the time to do so has long 

since passed. Moreover, after reviewing Judge Goodman’s Report, I find the Report to be 

clear, cogent, and compelling. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as 

follows:

1. The Undersigned finds the Parties’ Settlement Agreement to be fair and 

reasonable, and, therefore, APPROVES the Parties’ settlement.

2. The Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Settlement and 

Case 1:20-cv-22693-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2021 Page 1 of 2
Dismissing Case with Prejudice (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. 

3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

4. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Parties’ settlement.

5. The Clerk of Courts is directed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if 

any, are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 16th day of April 2021. 

Copies furnished to:

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-22693-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2021 Page 2 of 2
### §1822. Leasing of space

#### (a) In general

Funds appropriated to the Architect of the Capitol shall be available—

(1) for the leasing of space in areas within the District of Columbia and its environs beyond the boundaries of the United States Capitol Grounds to meet space requirements of the United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, United States Capitol Police, and the Architect of the Capitol under such terms and conditions as the Committee or Commission referred to under subsection (b) may authorize; and

(2) to incur any necessary expense in connection with any leasing of space under paragraph (1).

#### (b) Conditions to lease space

The Architect of the Capitol may lease space under subsection (a) upon submission of written notice of intent to lease such space to, and approved by—

(1) the Committees on Appropriations and Rules and Administration of the Senate for space to be leased for the Senate;

(2) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the House Office Building Commission for space to be leased for the House of Representatives; and

(3) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, for space to be leased for any other entity under subsection (a).

#### (c) Effective date

This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2004, and each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 108–83, title I, §1102, Sept. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 1027; Pub. L. 110–161, div. H, title I, §1306(a), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2243.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is from the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004.

#### Amendments

2007—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 110–161, §1306(a)(1), substituted "Committees on Appropriations and Rules and Administration" for "Committee on Rules and Administration".

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 110–161, §1306(a)(2), substituted "the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the House Office Building Commission" for "the House Office Building Commission".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 110–161, §1306(a)(3), substituted ", for space to be leased for any other entity under subsection (a)." for period at end.

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

#### Effective Date of 2007 Amendment

Pub. L. 110–161, div. H, title I, §1306(b), Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2243, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004 [Pub. L. 108–83]."
### §165. Conflict of laws

Wherever the application of the provisions of section 272 of chapter 10 of the Act entitled "An Act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States", approved July 1, 1898, and Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto (U.S.C., title 11, sec. 672), conflicts with the application of the provisions of this subchapter, this subchapter shall prevail: Provided, That in any situation where the provisions of this subchapter cannot be validly enforced, the provisions of such other Acts shall remain in full force and effect.

(July 5, 1935, ch. 372, §15, 49 Stat. 457; June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title I, §101, 61 Stat. 151.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act approved July 1, 1898, referred to in text, popularly known as the Bankruptcy Act, was classified generally to former Title 11, Bankruptcy, and was repealed effective Oct. 1, 1979, by Pub. L. 95–598, §§401(a), 402(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2682, section 101 of which enacted revised Title 11.

#### Amendments

1947—Act June 23, 1947, amended section generally by inserting new subject matter which was formerly covered by section 164 of this title. Section formerly referred to separability provisions, see section 166 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1947 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section 104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of this title.
#### KAAS, Appellant, v. FIRST STATE BANK OF LAKE CITY et al, Respondents.

(193 N. W. 54.)

(File No. 5201.

Opinion filed April 3, 1923.)

Time — Foreclosure—Mortgages—Publication—Notice of Foreclosure Sale by Advertisement Held1 Sufficient.

In an action begun to enjoin the issuance of a, sheriff’s deed under a foreclosure sale, during the period of redemption, and. before the deed on foreclosure had been issued, where it appeared that the foreclosure sale- was 'by advertisement under Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 2879, that the sixth publication of the •notice was had on April 1st, and that the sale was held April 2d, the notice was sufficient.

Appeal from 'Circuit Court, Marshall 'County; Hon. B. A. Walton, Judge.

*370Action ¡by Otto B. Kaas against the First State Bank of Bake City and another. From an order sustaining" a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed1.

*Harold W. King,*of Britton, for Appellant.

*C. A. Sasse,*of Veblen, and *Waddel & Dougherty,*of Webster, for Respondents,

Respondent cited: Printup et al v. Kenner, 43 S. D. 473, 180 N. W. 512; Thomas v. Issenhuth, r8 S. D. 303, 100 N. W. 436.

GATES, J.

This appeal brings up the sufficiency of the publication of a notice of foreclosure sale by advertisement (Rev. Code 1919, § 2879'). The sixth publication of the notice was had on April 1, 1921, and the sale was held on April 2, 1921. This action was begun on March 30, 1922, to enjoin the issuance of sheriff’s deed. The plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. In his brief appellant quotes that portion of our opinion in Printup v. Kenner, 43 S. D. 473, 180 N. W. 512, wherein we admitted the correctness • of the decision) of the N'orth Dakota Supreme Court upon this subject, but hield that we were bound by the rule of stare. decisis to adhere to the decision in Thomas v. Issenhuth, 18 S. D. 303, 100 N. W. 436. Appellant seeks to differentiate this case from those, in that here, the action was begun to set aside the sale during the period of redemption, and before the sheriff’s deed on foreclosure had been issued.

*We*are still of tine view that the rule of stare decisis compels us to adhere to the former decisions, even though this action was brought before the sheriff’s deed had been issued.

The order appealed from is affirmed.
#### § 3838.14 What will BLM do when I submit a NOITL for SRHA lands?

When BLM accepts a properly completed and executed NOITL, we will note the official land status records. The 90-day segregation period begins the day we receive a complete NOITL.
**PRESENT LAW AND BACKGROUND**

**RELATING TO TAX TREATMENT OF**

**"INNOCENT SPOUSES"**
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

Walnut Creek Field Office

1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5378

RIV-5397

CONTACT: Mark Hammond (510) 975-0254

Sept. 12, 1997

NRC GIVES GUAM ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY

60 DAYS TO AVOID $2,750 FINE FOR VIOLATIONS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $2,750 fine against the

Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) unless it disposes of a device containing a

radioactive source that it possesses in violation of NRC requirements.

An NRC inspection conducted in February and March found four apparent violations of

NRC requirements, including GEPA’s failure to store a gas chromatograph in such a way that it

would not be accessible to unauthorized users, and failure to store it in the location indicated on

GEPA’s NRC license.

The gas chromatograph contains a slightly radioactive source of nickel-63 and is used to

measure and analyze chemicals and environmental contaminants. The island of Guam is a

U.S. Territory in the South Pacific.

Ellis W. Merschoff, NRC Region IV Regional Administrator in Arlington, Texas, said in a

letter to GEPA, ‘’NRC normally considers failures to provide adequate security and control for

licensed radioactive material stored or used in unrestricted areas to be of significant concern. In

addition, the four apparent violations collectively indicate a lack of management oversight of this

licensed activity.’‘

The NRC inspection found that the gas chromatograph had not been stored in a locked

room at GEPA’s facility on Rojas Street in Harmon, Guam, as indicated on the NRC license.

Rather, the entire GEPA operation, including the chromatograph, was moved in March 1996 to

a new facility in Barrigada, Guam. There, GEPA failed to satisfy requirements that the device

be kept in a room accessible only to authorized users and locked when an unauthorized user

was not present.

The inspection also found two other violations, in GEPA’s failure to prepare required

shipping papers to transport the gas chromatograph from Harmon to Barrigada, and failure to

inform the NRC that the radiation safety officer specified on its NRC license had left GEPA.

GEPA informed the NRC in February that it intended to dispose of the chromatograph

by returning it to its manufacturer, and to then terminate its NRC license. GEPA reiterated that

position in a n Aug. 5 letter to NRC. However, GEPA has yet to transfer the chromatograph,

and nor has it amended its license NRC to reflect the Barrigada location for the device and its

new radiation safety officer.
NRC has given GEPA until Nov. 10 to properly dispose of the device, or face a $2,750

fine for what has been classified as a Severity Level III problem on the NRC’s 1 to 4 Severity

Level scale for enforcement actions. Level 4 is the least serious.

###
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-99-74 September 3, 1999

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC ASSIGNS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR TO FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia,

Pa., have assigned Richard A. Skokowski as a resident inspector

at the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Station in Scriba, N.Y.

Mr. Skokowski joins Senior Resident Inspector Richard Rasmussen.

Most recently, Mr. Skokowski was a resident inspector at

Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in Scriba. Prior to that he worked

as a reactor engineer in the electrical branch of the NRC Region

I Division of Reactor Safety. He began his NRC career in 1991.

Prior to joining the NRC, Mr. Skokowski served in the United

States Navy as an electrical operator.

He has a degree in electrical engineering from Temple

University in Philadelphia.

Mr. Skokowski grew up in Pottstown, Pa. He and his family

now live in Oswego, N.Y.

The FitzPatrick resident inspectors can be reached at

315/342-4907.

#
§ 12.104h Exempt materials and articles. The provisions of these regulations shall not apply to— ( a ) Any archaeological or ethnological material or any article of cultural property which is imported into the U.S. for temporary exhibition or display, if such material or article is rendered immune from seizure under judicial process by the U.S. Information Agency, Office of the General Counsel and Congressional Liaison, pursuant to the Act entitled “An Act to render immune from seizure under judicial process certain objects of cultural significance imported into the United States for temporary display or exhibition, and for other purposes”, approved October 19, 1965 (22 U.S.C. 2459); or
( b ) Any designated archaeological or ethnological material or any article of cultural property imported into the U.S. if such material or article— ( 1 ) Has been held in the U.S. for a period of not less than 3 consecutive years by a recognized museum or religious or secular monument or similar institution, and was purchased by that institution for value, in good faith, and without notice that such material or article was imported in violation of these regulations, but only if— ( i ) The acquisition of such material or article has been reported in a publication of such institution, any regularly published newspaper or periodical with a circulation of at least 50,000, or a periodical or exhibition catalog which is concerned with the type of article or materials sought to be exempted from these regulations,
( ii ) Such material or article has been exhibited to the public for a period or periods aggregating at least 1 year during such 3-year period, or
( iii ) Such article or material has been cataloged and the catalog material made available upon request to the public for at least 2 years during such 3-year period;
( 2 ) If paragraph (b)(1) of this section does not apply, has been within the U.S. for a period of not less than 10 consecutive years and has been exhibited for not less than 5 years during such period in a recognized museum or religious or secular monument or similar institution in the U.S. open to the public;
( 3 ) If paragraphs (b) (1) and (2) of this section do not apply, has been within the U.S. for a period of not less than 10 consecutive years and the State Party concerned has received or should have received during such period fair notice (through such adequate and accessible publication, or other means, as the Secretary or his designee shall prescribe) of its location within the U.S.; and
( 4 ) If none of the preceding subparagraphs apply, has been within the U.S. for a period of not less than 20 consecutive years and the claimant establishes that it purchased the material or article for value without knowledge or reason to believe that it was imported in violation of law.
### §1612. Sense of Senate that lobbying expenses should remain nondeductible

#### (a) Findings

The Senate finds that ordinary Americans generally are not allowed to deduct the costs of communicating with their elected representatives.

#### (b) Sense of Senate

It is the sense of the Senate that lobbying expenses should not be tax deductible.

(Pub. L. 104–65, §23, Dec. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 705.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, see section 24 of Pub. L. 104–65, set out as a note under section 1601 of this title.