alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10740 Summary Calendar

EDNA GORHAM

- BEY , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. WARDEN JODY UPTON , FMC

- Carswell, Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CV

- 214

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Edna Gorham

- Bey, federal prisoner # 39381

- 037, is serving an aggregate 111

- month sentence following her convictions on 15 counts of fraud

- related charges in the D istrict of Maryland and one count of conspiracy to defraud the Government in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Gorham

- Bey appeals the district court’s denial and dismissal o f her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 22, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10740 Document: 00512639415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/22/2014No. 13

- 10740 wherein she challenged the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) calculation of he r sentence. Gorham

- Bey’s motion to expedite this appeal is DENIED. Gorham

- Bey was convicted i n Maryland and began serving a 96

- month federal sentence prior to being indicted in Pennsylvania. A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum secured her appearance in Pennsylvania, where she remained detained in the county jail until her conviction and sentencing by the Pennsylvania district court. On appeal, she argues that the BOP should have credited the time she spent in the Pennsylvania county jail against the 15

- month sentence she received from the Pennsylvania district court. She further argues that the BOP also shoul d have credited against her sentence the time she spent in home detention prior to her conviction and sentencing in the Maryland distric t court. We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and issues of law de novo. Wilson v. Roy , 643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). The p eriod of time for which Gorham

- Bey seeks credit against the federal sentence imposed by the Pennsylv ania district court was credited against the federal sentence imposed by the Maryland district court ; thus, s he is not entitled to any additional sentencing credit

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Moreover, Gorham

- Bey is not entitled to sentencing credit for an y period of pre

- trial home confinement because she was not in “official detention” for purposes of § 3585(b). See United States v. Cleto , 956 F.2d 83, 84

- 85 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-10740 Document: 00512639415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/22/2014
§ 400.207 Application evaluation. ( a ) *Eligibility screening.* Applications will be reviewed to determine whether the Lender and Borrower are eligible, the information required under § 400.205(b) is complete, and the proposed loan complies with applicable statutes and regulations. The Board can at any time reject an application that does not meet these requirements.
( b ) *Evaluation criteria.* Applications that are determined to be eligible pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to a substantive review by the Board based upon the following evaluation factors, in order of importance: ( 1 ) The ability of the Borrower to repay the loan by the date specified in the Loan Document, which shall be no later than December 31, 2005. Evaluation of this factor will consider the prospective earning power of the Borrower. An essential and necessary element of the Board's evaluation of whether this criterion is satisfied is whether the applicant has committed to undertake significant efforts to eliminate or reduce economically unviable capacity;
( 2 ) The adequacy of the proposed provisions to protect the Government, including sufficiency of Security, the priority of the lien position in the Security, and the percentage of Guarantee requested; and
( 3 ) Adequacy of the underwriting analysis performed by the Lender in preparing the application and the ability of the Lender to administer the loan in full compliance with the requisite standard of care set forth in § 400.211(b).
( c ) *Decisions by the Board.* Upon completion of the evaluation of an application and as soon as possible after its receipt, the Board will approve or deny an eligible application that is timely received under this Program. The Board shall notify the Applicants and the Borrower in writing of the approval or denial of an application as soon as possible. Approvals for loan Guarantees shall be conditioned upon compliance with § 400.208.
[64 FR 57933, Oct. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 70294, Nov. 22, 2000; 66 FR 53080, Oct. 19, 2001]
#### Joan M. PAULEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 02-3154.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 1, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
§ 113.53 Waiver of CBP requirement supported by a bond. ( a ) *Waiver by the Commissioner of CBP.* When a CBP requirement supported by a bond is waived by the Commissioner of CBP, the waiver may be: ( 1 ) Unconditional, in which case the importer is relieved from the payment of liquidated damages;
( 2 ) Conditioned upon prior settlement of the bond obligation by payment of liquidated damages; or
( 3 ) Conditioned upon such other terms and conditions as the Commissioner of CBP may deem sufficient.
( b ) *Waiver by the port director or other authorized CBP officer.* When a CBP requirement supported by a bond is waived by the port director or other authorized CBP officer pursuant to the authority conferred by these regulations, the waiver will be unconditional.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70167, Nov. 13, 2015]
#### § 191.44 Destruction under Customs supervision.

A claimant may destroy merchandise and obtain rejected merchandise drawback by complying with the procedures set forth in § 191.71 of this part relating to destruction.
From : Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov Cc: RobertJ W ay land/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 11/01/2011 04:55 PM Subject: MACT Floor Appendices B
- F for OMB Cortney, Attached are the spreadsheets that you requested. W e are still doing a final review, and a few limits are different than those in the package that you currently have. I will be sending you a revised package first thing tomorrow that will be consistent wit h the calculations shown in these spreadsheets. Below is the name of each appendix as it is referred to in the memo, to help everyone navigate the files. The ordering is similar to what we used in the March 2011 final rule. Also, please note that these a re not formatted for printing at this point...and they are huge. Appendix A: Hg, HCl, and TSM Variability as a Function of Fuel Variability (not included
- under development) Appendix B: Ranked Emission Data for MACT Floor Analysis Appendix C: U pper Prediction Limit (UPL) Calculations for Existing Sources Appendix D: Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for Existing Sources Appendix E: UPL Calculations for New Sources Appendix F: Summary

of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Vari ability for New Sources Please let me know if you have any questions! The MACT floor memo will come later this evening or tomorrow morning. Thanks! Brian(See attached file: Appendix F
- Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for New Sources.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix B
- Ranked Emission Data for MACT Floor Analysis.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix C
- Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) C alculations for Existing Sources.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix D
- Summary of Statistical, Fuel, and RDL Variability for Existing ources.xlsx)(See attached file: Appendix E
- UPL Calculations for New Sources.xlsx)
### §88b–6. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §204(39), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1735

Section, Pub. L. 98–63, title I, §902, July 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 336; Pub. L. 104–53, title I, §4, Nov. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 517, related to withholding from salary charges for lodging, meals, and related services furnished Senate pages in page residence hall.
### §4311. Approval of employment and compensation of committee employees by House standing committees

Standing committees of the House shall have authority to approve the employment and compensation of committee employees (other than special and select committee employees) from the effective date of the beginning of each Congress, or such subsequent date as their service commenced.

(Pub. L. 87–130, §103, Aug. 10, 1961, 75 Stat. 334.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 72a–1b of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is based on House Resolution No. 16, Eighty-seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 1961, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 87–130.

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

#### Increases in Compensation

Increases in compensation for House officers and employees under authority of Federal Salary Act of 1967 (Pub. L. 90–206), Federal Pay Comparability Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91–656), and Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1988 (Pub. L. 100–202), see sections 4531 and 4532 of this title, and Salary Directives of Speaker of the House, set out as notes under those sections.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2


           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
                     ACT OF 2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In conjunction with the Annual Report of Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, David H. Gonci, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




                                   /s/ David H. Gonci
                                   ------------------
                                   David H. Gonci
                                   Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
                                   March 23, 2004





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
________________________________________________________________________________
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-97 August 1, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF ASSIGNS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR TO INDIAN POINT 3

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia,

Pa., have selected Laura A. Dudes as a resident inspector at the

Indian Point 3 nuclear plant. She joins Senior Resident

Inspector David Lew and Resident Inspector Scott Schwind at the

Buchanan, NY, facility.

Ms. Dudes joined the NRC in 1994 in the Reactor Engineer

Intern Program. As part of that two-year program, she was

assigned to the NRC’s resident office at the Limerick Generating

Station in Limerick, PA. In addition, she was assigned to the

Transportation Branch of the Spent Fuel Projects Office, the

Mechanical Engineering Branch, the Division of Reactor Projects

and to the Plant Systems Branch in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation at NRC headquarters. Most recently, she worked as a

reactor engineer in the Civil, Mechanical and Materials

Engineering Branch in the Region I Division of Reactor Safety.

Ms. Dudes earned both Master of Science and Bachelor of

Science degrees in mechanical engineering at the Stevens

Institute of Technology in Hoboken, NJ.

Ms. Dudes grew up in Clifton Park, NY., and currently lives

in Tarrytown, NY.

#
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov 

No. III-02-009 March 27, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

 

NRC TO MEET WITH EXELON GENERATION CO. APRIL 3 TO DISCUSS 

DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION PERFORMANCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Exelon

Generation Co. in Morris, Illinois, on Wednesday, April 3, to discuss the results of the agency’s annual

assessment of safety performance at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station. The two-reactor facility is

located near Morris.

The meeting, which will be the open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 2

p.m. in the County Board Room of the Grundy County Administration Building, 1320 Union St.,

Morris. Before the meeting is concluded, NRC officials will answer questions from members of the

public.

The performance period to be discussed is April 1 through December 31 of last year.

A letter sent from the NRC Region III office to Exelon 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/dres_2001q4.pdf

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

(Unit 2) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DRES2/dres2_chart.html and (Unit 3)

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DRES3/dres3_chart.html (Note: Dresden Unit 1

was shut down in 1978 and is undergoing decommissioning.)

# # #
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27182]



[[Page 64851]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 
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 on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Inflammation and Independence in Seniors.
    Date: January 8, 2019.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 
2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Anita H. Undale, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-747-7825, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4858a8d9085ca918a80858881a48a8d8cca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e2f20273a2f603b202a2f222b0e20272660292138">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 11, 2018.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-27182 Filed 12-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No: IV-24-006 January 30, 2024 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128 

NRC to Hold a Regulatory Conference with Empire Wireline

on Feb. 20 to Discuss a Proposed Violation

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a regulatory conference on Feb. 20 with 

officials from Empire Wireline, of Manvel, Texas, to discuss the safety significance of a proposed 

violation. 

The company is licensed to use radioactive materials in well-logging activities to identify 

mineral, oil, or gas deposits in Louisiana and Texas, except for areas of exclusive federal 

jurisdiction. 

The proposed violation, identified in a December 2023 inspection report, involves the 

company’s failure to file for reciprocity with the NRC prior to working in areas of exclusive federal 

jurisdiction in 2019 and 2020. The company, which is licensed by the states of Texas and Louisiana, 

should have filed with the NRC before conducting activities at the U.S. Department of Energy’s

Strategic Petroleum Reserve sites at Bryan Mound and Big Hill in Texas and West Hackberry in

Louisiana. 

The enforcement conference will be held at the NRC’s Region IV Office at 1600 East Lamar 

Blvd., Arlington, Texas, beginning at 12 p.m. Central time. 

Company representatives will have the opportunity to provide their perspective or additional 

information, including any actions planned or completed to prevent recurrence of the issues, before 

the agency makes its final enforcement decision. 

The meeting notice has information detailing how the public can participate in the meeting 

by phone or online. Members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of the NRC 

staff or provide comments about the issues discussed following the business portion of the meeting; 

however, the NRC staff is not soliciting comments pertaining to regulatory decisions. 

No decisions on the final safety significance or any potential NRC actions regarding the 

proposed violations will be made at the meeting.
### [§§1232 to 1232B. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §42(a)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 556]

Section 1232, acts Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 326; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–866, title I, §§50(a), 51, 72 Stat. 1642, 1643; June 25, 1959, Pub. L. 86–69, §3(e), 73 Stat. 140; Sept. 2, 1964, Pub. L. 88–563, §5, 78 Stat. 845; Dec. 30, 1969, Pub. L. 91–172, title IV, §413(a), (b), 83 Stat. 609, 611; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title XIV, §1402(b)(1)(S), (2), title XIX, §§1901(b)(3)(I), (14)(D), 1904(b)(10)(C), 90 Stat. 1732, 1793, 1796, 1817; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–34, title V, §505(b), 95 Stat. 331; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, title II, §§231(c), 232(b), title III, §310(b)(6), 96 Stat. 499, 501, 599; Jan. 12, 1983, Pub. L. 97–448, title III, §306(a)(9)(B), (C)(i), (ii), 96 Stat. 2403, 2404; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title X, §1001(b)(16), (d), (e), 98 Stat. 1012, related to bonds and other evidences of indebtedness. See section 1271 et seq. of this title.

Section 1232A, added Pub. L. 97–248, title II, §231(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 496; amended Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title II, §211(b)(17), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 756, related to original issue discount. See section 1271 et seq. of this title.

Section 1232B, added Pub. L. 97–248, title II, §232(a), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 499, related to stripped bonds. See section 1286 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to taxable years ending after July 18, 1984, see section 44 of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1271 of this title.
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-58 October 11, 2000

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

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

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH VIRGINIA COMPANY

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF NRC REQUIREMENTS

The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission staff will meet with representatives of Testing Technologies,

Inc., of Woodbridge, Virginia, in Atlanta on Wednesday, October 18, to discuss the company’s apparent

violations of NRC requirements.

The meeting, scheduled for 9:30 a.m. (EDST), will be held in the NRC offices located on the 24th

floor of the Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW. It will be open to observation by interested

members of the public and news media representatives. NRC officials will be available at its conclusion

to answer questions.

A special NRC inspection was conducted in response to an event that involved the failure of the

company to control access to radiographic operations, resulting in a member of the public receiving an

unplanned radiation exposure. The event occurred in August of this year in Washington, D.C. where

company radiographers were working.

Five apparent violations were found, including the failure to limit unrestricted dose limits to less

than two millirem in any one hour, the failure to post radiation areas with appropriate signs, the failure to

perform surveys necessary to demonstrate compliance with the regulations and to evaluate potential

radiological hazards, the failure to maintain continuous direct surveillance to protect against unauthorized

entry into high radiation areas, and the failure of two radiographers to obtain certification through a

radiographer certification program.

The decision to hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference does not mean that the NRC has

determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee 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 actions.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be

made by senior NRC officials at a later time.

#
#### Reginald H. Sayre v. Progressive Construction and Leasing Company.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.