alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-02-022 March 22, 2002

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

NRC TO MEET WITH COMPANY TO DISCUSS SEABROOK PLANT PERFORMANCE

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of North Atlantic Energy

Service Corporation on Friday, March 29, to discuss the results of the agencyís annual assessment of

safety performance at the Seabrook nuclear power plant. The facility is located in Seabrook, N.H.,

and operated by North Atlantic Energy.

 The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 1

p.m. at the Seabrook Community Center, 311 Lafayette Road in Seabrook. Before the meeting is

adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plantís safety

performance and the role of the NRC in ensuring safe plant operation.

 The performance period to be discussed is April 1, 2001, to December 31, 2001. In addition,

NRC staff will provide an overview of the agencyís Reactor Oversight Process.

 A letter sent from the NRC Region I office to North Atlantic Energy addresses plant

performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on

the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/seab_2001q4.pdf

 Current performance information for Seabrook is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SEAB1/seab1_chart.html

 #
### §303. Dual compensation

For the purposes of applicable law relating to the payment to any employee subject to the House Employees Schedule or the House Wage Schedule of compensation from more than one civilian office or position, the rate of basic compensation of each employee subject to any such schedule shall be held and considered to be that rate which, when increased by additional compensation then currently authorized by law for House employees generally, equals or most nearly equals the per annum rate of compensation of such employee under such schedule.

(Pub. L. 88–652, §14, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1084.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1965, see section 17 of Pub. L. 88–652, set out as a note under section 291 of this title.
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2021 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 83-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/23/2021 Page 2 of 2
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0000951

25-JUN-2013

09:21 AM
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Lezer Corp., Plaintiff,

v.

Noble Partners LLC, dba Noble 

Medical Supply and Sean Grady, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-23235-Civ-Scola

Judgment

The Court has granted final default judgment in Plaintiff Lezer Corp.’s 

favor. (Order, ECF No. 30.) The Court now enters judgment in favor of Lezer, in 

the amount of $108,000, and against Defendants Noble Partners LLC, doing 

business as Noble Medical Supply, and Sean Grady, jointly and severally and as 

required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. For which sum, let execution 

issue. This case is to remain closed.

The Court directs the Clerk to mail copies of this order as well as the 

Court’s order regarding Judge Torres’s report and recommendation (Order, 

ECF No. 30) to the defaulting Defendants at the addresses listed below.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on December 30, 2020.

___________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Copies to:

Noble Partners LLC, doing business as Noble Medical Supply

Attn: Sean Grady, President 

12 Wellstone Drive 

Portland, ME 04013

Sean Grady

12 Wellstone Drive 

Portland, ME 04013

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/30/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### Ann COMPTON, Appellant, v. ERICSSON, INC, Appellee.

No. 01-7124.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 28, 2002.

Before SENTELLE, RANDOLPH, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment filed July 18, 2001, be affirmed. The district court properly held that appellant failed to establish that appellee’s proffered explanation for disciplining her—that is, to redress complaints that appellant had engaged in unprofessional behavior on several occasions—was a pretext for age discrimination. *See O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.,*517 U.S. 308, 312-13, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996); *Hall v. Giant Food, Inc.,*175 F.3d 1074, 1077 (D.C.Cir.1999). Appellant’s own perception of her work performance, and that of a co-worker uninvolved in the decision to discipline her, does not alone establish that those responsible for disciplining appellant did not honestly believe she had engaged in inappropriate behavior. *See O’Connor v. DePaul University,*123 F.3d 665, 670 (7th Cir.1997); *see also Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine,*450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). That appellant’s co-worker also sued appellee for age discrimination, based on facts that the co-worker does not disclose, is insufficient to show pretext. Moreover, the district court was not required to accept as true appel*6lant’s conclusory assertion, based on hearsay, that older workers had been terminated at another of appellee’s facilities. *See Greene v. Dalton,*164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“Although, as a rule, statements made by the party opposing a motion for summary judgment must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on that motion, some statements are so conclusory as to come within an exception to that rule.”); *Frito-Lay v. Willoughby,*863 F.2d 1029, 1035 (D.C.Cir.1988). Finally, appellant has demonstrated no temporal connection or causal nexus between her supervisor’s comment to another employee reflecting age bias, which the supervisor made almost two years after appellant was disciplined, and the actions at issue here. *Cf Kennedy v. Schoenberg, Fisher & Newman, Ltd.,*140 F.3d 716, 724 (7th Cir.1998) (discriminatory comment failed to establish pretext because it was made “at least five months before plaintiffs termination,” and plaintiff did not demonstrate “causal nexus” between comment and her discharge).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing *en banc. See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
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-99-76 September 9, 1999

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO RECEIVE INTERIM RESULTS OF INDIAN POINT 2 TRIP REVIEW

NOTE TO EDITORS:

On Tuesday, September 14, Consolidated Edison Company

will present Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff with the interim

results of its review of an August 31 reactor trip with

complications at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. The

meeting will begin at 1 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the

NRC Region I office. It will be open to the public for

observation.

The discussion will include preliminary root causes,

corrective actions taken to date and additional actions planned.

Also reviewing the event at the Buchanan, N.Y., plant are

members of an NRC Augmented Inspection Team. Once that team has

completed its work, a public exit meeting will be scheduled.

#
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number: 20-23402-CIV-MARTINEZ-BECERRA

LEON GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLEG FIRER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Jacqueline Becerra, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 39). On June 17, 2022, Magistrate 

Judge Becerra filed a Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 84), recommending that Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 71), be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART such that the 

First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, and Tenth Affirmative Defenses should be deemed denies and 

the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative Defenses be stricken. This Court has 

reviewed the entire file and record and notes that no objections have been filed. After careful 

consideration, it is:

ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Becerra’s Report and Recommendation, 

(ECF No. 84), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, it is ADJUDGED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 71), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED

IN PART as set forth herein:

a. Defendants’ First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, and Tenth Affirmative 

Defenses are deemed denials, and

Case 1:20-cv-23402-JEM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

b. Defendants’ Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-Second Affirmative 

Defenses are STRICKEN.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 5th day of July, 2022.

JOSE E. MARTINEZ

Copies provided to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Magistrate Judge Becerra

All Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23402-JEM Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2022 Page 2 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 09-3071 September Term, 2014

1:05-cr-00367-RMC-1

Filed On: February 6, 2015

United States of America,

Appellee

v.

Jaron Brice, also known as Jay Bird, also

known as Daddy, also known as Bird, also

known as Jay,

Appellant

BEFORE: Kavanaugh, Circuit Judge; Williams and Sentelle, Senior Circuit

Judges

O R D E R

It is ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the majority opinion and opinion

concurring in the judgment reissued on May 16, 2014, be replaced with the amended

opinions issued herein this date.

The Clerk is directed to issue an amended judgment. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Jennifer M. Clark 

Deputy Clerk
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 68 FR 51349, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 117.2 Application of this part. ( a ) This part applies to all recipients of Federal financial assistance administered by the Small Business Administration, whether or not the specific type of Federal financial assistance administered is listed in appendix A.
( b ) For the purposes of this part, the prohibition against age discrimination applies to natural persons of all ages.
( c ) This part does not apply to the employment practices of any recipients.
[50 FR 41648, Oct. 11, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 51349, Aug. 26, 2003]
§ 148.35 Length of stay for exemption of articles acquired abroad. ( a ) *Requirements for allowance of $800 or $1,600 exemption.* Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph or in paragraph (b) of this section, the $800 or $1,600 exemption for articles acquired abroad will not be allowed unless the returning resident has remained beyond the territorial limits of the United States for a period of not less than 48 hours. The $800 exemption may be allowed on articles acquired abroad by a returning resident arriving directly from Mexico without regard to the length of time the person has remained outside the territorial limits of the United States.
( b ) *Not required for allowance of $1,600 exemption on return from the Virgin Islands.* The $1,600 exemption applicable in the case of the arrival of a returning resident directly or indirectly from the Virgin Islands of the United States may be allowed without regard to the length of time such person has remained outside the territorial limits of the United States.
( c ) *Computation of time.* The 48-hour period a returning resident must have completed abroad to be entitled to an exemption will be computed exactly. For example, a resident leaving United States territory at 1:30 p.m. on June 1 would complete the 48-hour period at 1:30 p.m. on June 3.
[T.D. 73-27, 38 FR 2449, Jan. 26, 1973, as amended by T.D. 86-118, 51 FR 22516, June 20, 1986; T.D. 97-75, 62 FR 46442, Sept. 3, 1997; CBP Dec. 09-37, 74 FR 48855, Sept. 25, 2009]
Editorial Note on Part 181
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93026, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 181.73 Notification of verification visit. ( a ) *Written notification required.* Prior to conducting a verification visit in Canada or Mexico pursuant to § 181.72(a)(2)(iii) of this part, Customs shall give written notification of the intention to conduct the visit. Such notification shall be delivered: ( 1 ) By certified or registered mail, or by any other method that produces a confirmation of receipt, to the address of the Canadian or Mexican exporter or producer whose premises are to be visited;
( 2 ) To the customs administration of the country in which the visit is to occur; and
( 3 ) If requested by the country in which the visit is to occur, to the embassy of that country located in the United States.
( b ) *Contents of notification.* The notification referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall include: ( 1 ) The identity of the Customs office and officer issuing the notification;
( 2 ) The name of the Canadian or Mexican exporter or producer of the good, or producer of the material, whose premises are to be visited;
( 3 ) The date and place of the proposed verification visit;
( 4 ) The object and scope of the proposed verification visit, including specific reference to the good or material that is the subject of the verification;
( 5 ) The names and titles of the Customs officers performing the proposed verification visit;
( 6 ) The legal authority for the proposed verification visit; and
( 7 ) A request that the Canadian or Mexican exporter or producer of the good, or producer of the material, provide its written consent for the proposed verification visit.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 730 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to remove the prohibition 

on States and territories against lowering their taxes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2021 

Mr. BRAUN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to remove 

the prohibition on States and territories against lowering 

their taxes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Let States Cut Taxes 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION OF USE OF 

7 CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOVERY 

8 FUNDS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 602(c) 

10 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 9901 of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 730 IS

1 the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, is amended to 

2 read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(2) FURTHER RESTRICTION ON USE OF

4 FUNDS.—No State or territory may use funds made 

5 available under this section for deposit into any pen6 sion fund.’’. 

7 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 602 of 

8 such Act is further amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (d)(2)(A), by striking ‘‘, in10 cluding, in the case of a State or a territory, all 

11 modifications to the State’s or territory’s tax rev12 enue sources during the covered period’’; 

13 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘such sub14 section,’’ and all that follows through the period and 

15 inserting ‘‘such subsection.’’; and 

16 (3) in subsection (g)— 

17 (A) by striking paragraph (1); and 

18 (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) 

19 through (7) as paragraphs (1) through (6), re20 spectively. 

21 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

22 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact23 ment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTheory and computation of optimal low- and medium-thrust transfersThis report presents the formulation of the optimal low- and medium-thrust orbit transfer control problem and methods for numerical solution of the problem. The problem formulation is for final mass maximization and allows for second-harmonic oblateness, atmospheric drag, and three-dimensional, non-coplanar, non-aligned elliptic terminal orbits. We setup some examples to demonstrate the ability of two indirect methods to solve the resulting TPBVP's. The methods demonstrated are the multiple-point shooting method as formulated in H. J. Oberle's subroutine BOUNDSCO, and the minimizing boundary-condition method (MBCM). We find that although both methods can converge solutions, there are trade-offs to using either method. BOUNDSCO has very poor convergence for guesses that do not exhibit the correct switching structure. MBCM, however, converges for a wider range of guesses. However, BOUNDSCO's multi-point structure allows more freedom in quesses by increasing the node points as opposed to only quessing the initial state in MBCM. Finally, we note an additional drawback for BOUNDSCO: the routine does not supply information to the users routines for switching function polarity but only the location of a preset number of switching points.Document ID19930007239Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsChuang, C.-H.*(Georgia Inst. of Tech. Atlanta, GA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 5, 1993Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-191651NAS 1.26:191651Accession Number93N16428Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG8-921Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007239.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### SUBCHAPTER V—HISTORICAL PRESERVATION AND FINE ARTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

STONE TECHNOLOGY (HK) CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLOBALGEEKS, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. [141]

(“Report”). On August 10, 2020, the Honorable Lauren F. Louis issued the Report recommending 

that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Second Chair Counsel for Plaintiff, ECF No. [83] (“Motion”), 

be denied without prejudice. ECF No. [141] at 3. The Report further advised that any objections 

to the Report were due within fourteen days of receipt of the Report. Id. at 3-4. To date, neither 

party has filed any objections, nor have they sought any additional time within which to do so.

This Court has conducted a de novo review of Judge Louis’s Report, the record in this case, 

and is otherwise fully advised. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds Judge Louis’s Report to be well reasoned 

and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the 

Motion should be denied without prejudice for the reasons set forth therein.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Judge Louis’s Report, ECF No. [141], is ADOPTED. 

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2021 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 20-cv-23251-BLOOM/Louis

2

2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Second Chair Counsel for Plaintiff, ECF No. [83], 

is DENIED without prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 25, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23251-BB Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2021 Page 2 of 2
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. 96-143 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, October 16, 1996)

24TH ANNUAL NRC WATER REACTOR SAFETY INFORMATION MEETING

TO BE HELD OCT. 21-23 IN BETHESDA, MD.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 24th annual Water

Reactor Safety Information Meeting, featuring presentations and

discussions on a number of leading technical topics, will be held

Monday through Wednesday of next week (October 21-23) at the

Bethesda (Md.) Marriott Hotel.

Participants will include representatives from NRC, U.S.

government laboratories, private contractors, universities, the

Electric Power Research Institute, reactor vendors, and a number

of foreign agencies.

NRC Commissioner Kenneth Rogers will deliver the keynote

speech at 8:30 a. m. Monday at the opening plenary session, which

will also feature a panel discussion on "Research Needs for Riskinformed, Performance-based Regulation." Themis Speis, deputy

director of the NRC Office of Research, will address the meeting

luncheon on Tuesday. At the second plenary session at 8:30 a. m.

Wednesday, James M. Taylor, the NRC's executive director for

operations, will moderate a panel discussion on "The Role of

Research in Nuclear Regulation."

During the three-day meeting, presentations will be made in

seven technical areas ˇ high burnup fuel; reactor pressure

vessel embrittlement and thermal annealing; digital

instrumentation and control; probabilistic seismic hazard

assessment and seismic siting criteria; reactor vessel lower head

integrity; containment and structural aging; and steam generator

tube integrity.

Those wishing to attend are asked to register with the

meeting coordinator, Susan Monteleone of Brookhaven National

Laboratory, Building 130, P. O. Box 5000, Upton, NY 11973-5000.

The telephone number is 516/344-7235, and the fax number is

516/344-3957. Ms. Monteleone's electronic mail address is

SMONTELE@BNL.GOV. This Friday (October 18) is the deadline for

advance registration.

####