alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4d. Plants, machinery, and equipment

The United States Bureau of Mines is further authorized, under the general direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to erect such plants, construct and purchase such machinery and equipment, and to take such other steps as it may deem necessary and proper to effectuate the purposes of section 4c of this title.

(May 15, 1936, ch. 397, §2, 49 Stat. 1275; Pub. L. 102–285, §10(b), May 18, 1992, 106 Stat. 172.)

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

#### Change of Name

"United States Bureau of Mines" substituted in text for "Bureau of Mines" pursuant to section 10(b) of Pub. L. 102–285, set out as a note under section 1 of this title. For provisions relating to closure and transfer of functions of the United States Bureau of Mines, see Transfer of Functions note set out under section 1 of this title.
§ 190.61 Verification of drawback claims. ( a ) *Authority.* All claims are subject to verification by CBP.
( b ) *Method.* CBP personnel will verify compliance with the law and this part, the accuracy of the related general manufacturing drawback ruling or specific manufacturing drawback ruling (as applicable), and the selected drawback claims. Verification may include an examination of all records relating to the transaction(s).
( c ) *Liquidation.* When a claim has been selected for verification, liquidation will be postponed only on the drawback entry for the claim selected for verification. Postponement will continue in effect until the verification has been completed and a report is issued, subject to the limitation in 19 CFR 159.12(f). In the event that a substantial error is revealed during the verification, CBP may postpone liquidation of all related product line claims, or, in CBP's discretion, all claims made by that claimant.
( d ) *Errors in specific or general manufacturing drawback rulings* — ( 1 ) *Specific manufacturing drawback ruling; action by CBP.* If verification of a drawback claim filed under a specific manufacturing drawback ruling (*see* § 190.8) reveals errors or deficiencies in the drawback ruling or application therefor, the verifying CBP official will promptly inform CBP Headquarters (Attention: Entry Process and Duty Refunds Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade).
( 2 ) *General manufacturing drawback ruling.* If verification of a drawback claim filed under a general manufacturing drawback ruling (*see* § 190.7) reveals errors or deficiencies in a general manufacturing drawback ruling, the letter of notification of intent to operate under the general manufacturing drawback ruling, or the acknowledgment of the letter of notification of intent, the verifying CBP official will promptly inform CBP Headquarters (Attention: Entry Process and Duty Refunds Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade).
( 3 ) *Action by CBP Headquarters.* CBP Headquarters will review the stated errors or deficiencies and take appropriate action (*see* 19 U.S.C. 1625; 19 CFR part 177).
474 P.2d 76

#### STATE of New Mexico, Respondent, v. Thomas Joseph BRILL, Petitioner.

No. 9103.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 21, 1970.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 489, 81 N.M. 785, 474 P.2d 77, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
### §1313. Limitation on payments

(a) No institutions of higher education may receive more than $4,000,000 for the construction of its coal research laboratory, including initially installed fixed equipment, nor may it receive more than $1,500,000 for initially installed movable equipment, nor may it receive more than $500,000 for new program startup expenses.

(b) No institution of higher education may receive more than $1,500,000 per year from the Federal Government for operating expenses.

(Pub. L. 95–87, title VIII, §803, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 528.)
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 02–041 April 4, 2002

NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATE FOR CLINTON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by AmerGen Energy Company,

LLC, to increase the generating capacity of the Clinton Power Station by about 20 percent, or about 186

megawatts.

The power uprate at the plant, near Clinton, Illinois, will increase the generating capacity of the

reactor to about 1,116 megawatts of electricity. The facility intends to implement the power increase in

two phases beginning this spring. The application for the increase in power was submitted to the NRC

on June 18, 2001.

The NRC's safety evaluation of the requested power uprate for the plant focused on several

areas, including nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems,

accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations and technical specification changes. The

NRC staff determined that the licensee could safely increase the power output of the reactor primarily

by using new fuel in the core and making certain plant modifications.

###
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6031

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.TRINI MCDANIEL, a/k/a John Paul Morris, a/k/a Brother-inLaw, a/k/a Bro-Law, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:96-cr-00041-JRS-7)

Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trini McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Trini McDaniel appeals a district court order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). The district court found McDaniel was not eligible for a reduction because he was responsible for more than 4.5 kilograms of crack cocaine. We affirm. We find the district did not abuse its discretion denying McDaniel’s motion for a sentence reduction. United States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
#### § 192.4 Liability of carriers.

Under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1436, the vessel master is charged with the responsibility for presenting a true manifest. If used vehicles are not included on the manifest or are inaccurately described thereon, a liability for penalties may be incurred.

[T.D. 89-46, 54 FR 15403, Apr. 18, 1989, as amended by T.D. 98-74, 63 FR 51290, Sept. 25, 1998]
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

No. II-02-041 July 30, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH TVA TO DISCUSS 

RESTART OF UNIT 1 AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Tennessee Valley Authority

officials on Wednesday, August 7, to discuss the Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart Project. The meeting

will be held at 10:00 a.m. EDT in the NRC Region II office, Sam Nunn Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street in Atlanta.

The Browns Ferry plant is located near Athens, Alabama, and all three units at the plant were

shut down by TVA in 1985. After NRC approval, TVA returned Unit 2 to service in 1991 and Unit 3

in 1996. Unit 1 has remained shut down since 1985 and the NRC will review its readiness to operate

again after TVA completes the activities needed for restart.

The August 7th meeting, involving NRC and TVA management, will focus on general TVA

plans to complete the work necessary to restart the unit and the NRC role in inspecting those activities. 

That management meeting will be followed by a working level meeting between TVA and NRC staff

to discuss coordination of NRC inspections with the TVA restart activities.

Both meetings are between the NRC and TVA but are open to observation by interested

members of the public. NRC officials will also be available prior to the conclusion of both meetings to

answer any questions observers may have.

###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. David Mungai NJENGA, aka David Wilfred; Wilfred David Mungai; Patrick M. Njenga; John K. Taskin, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-30310.

D.C. No. CR-01-00062-R.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*673Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

David Mungai Njenga appeals his 16-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction to conspiracy to present and presentation of false claims to the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 287. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Njenga contends the district court erred by denying his request for a downward departure based on his status as a deport-able alien. We lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward. *United States v. Webster,*108 F.3d 1156, 1158 (9th Cir.1997).

Njenga’s claim that the district court’s denial of his request for a downward departure was not discretionary fails because there is no indication in the record that the district court believed it was prohibited by law from departing from the Guidelines. *See United States v. Pinto, 48*F.3d 384, 389 (9th Cir.1995).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23151-BLOOM/Louis

KAREEM PICKERING and

AARON MUHAMMED,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AKAL SECURITY, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Joint Notice of Settlement, ECF No. [30], filed 

on May 4, 2021, indicating that the parties have reached a settlement of the claims in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The above-styled action is administratively CLOSED without prejudice to the parties 

to file a settlement agreement for the Court’s consideration and/or appropriate 

dismissal documentation.

2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only.

3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, 

all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are 

TERMINATED.

Case 1:20-cv-23151-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 20-cv-23151-BLOOM/Louis

2

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 4, 2021.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23151-BB Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 2 of 2
### §937. Application of BBEDCA

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) notwithstanding section 275 of BBEDCA, the provisions of sections 905, 906, 907, and 922 of this title, as amended by this title,1 shall apply to the provisions of this chapter;

(2) references in sections 905, 906, 907, and 922 of this title to "this subchapter" or "this title" 1 shall be interpreted as applying to this chapter;

(3) references in sections 905, 906, 907, and 922 of this title to "section 904 of this title" shall be interpreted as referencing section 934 of this title;

(4) the reference in section 906(b) of this title to "section 902 or 903 of this title" shall be interpreted as referencing section 934 of this title;

(5) the reference in section 906(d)(1) of this title to "section 902 or 903 of this title" shall be interpreted as referencing section 935 of this title;

(6) the reference in section 906(d)(4) of this title to "section 902 or 903 of this title" shall be interpreted as referencing section 934 of this title;

(7) section 906(k) of this title shall apply to a sequestration, if any, under this chapter; and

(8) references 2 in section 907(e) of this title to "section 901, 902, or 903 of this title" shall be interpreted as referencing section 933 of this title.

(Pub. L. 111–139, title I, §8, Feb. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 21.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 111–139, Feb. 12, 2010, 124 Stat. 8, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 931 of this title and Tables.

Section 275 of BBEDCA, referred to in par. (1), is section 275 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99–177, which is set out as a note under section 900 of this title.

As amended by this title, referred to in par. (1), means as amended by title I of Pub. L. 111–139.

"This title", appearing in quotes in par. (2), refers to the references to "this title" in the original in sections 905, 906, 907, and 922 of this title. "This title" appears untranslated in sections 906(h)(1), (j)(1), (3) and 922(a)(2), (3) of this title and translated as "this chapter" following "subchapter I of" in section 922(d) of this title. Those references to "this title" mean title II of Pub. L. 99–177, known as the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. See References in Text notes set out under section 906 and 922 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.

2 So in original. Probably should be "the reference".
§ 210.29 Interrogatories. ( a ) *Scope; use at hearing.* Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served. Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under § 210.27(b) or § 210.61, and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. Absent stipulation of the parties, any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories not exceeding 175 in number including all discrete subparts. Related respondents are treated as one entity. The presiding administrative law judge may increase the number of interrogatories on written motion for good cause shown.
( b ) *Procedure.* ( 1 ) Interrogatories may be served upon any party after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of investigation.
( 2 ) Parties answering interrogatories shall repeat the interrogatories being answered immediately preceding the answers. Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections are to be signed by the attorney making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers and objections, if any, within ten days of service of the interrogatories or within the time specified by the administrative law judge. The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under § 210.33(a) with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory.
( 3 ) An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but the administrative law judge may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed or until a prehearing conference or a later time.
( c ) *Option to produce records.* When the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit, or inspection of such records, or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based thereon, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries. The specifications provided shall include sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party served, the documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
[59 FR 39039, Aug. 1, 1994, as amended at 73 FR 38323, July 7, 2008; 78 FR 23484, Apr. 19, 2013]
#### § 191.186 Person entitled to claim drawback.

The person named in the foreign trade zone operator's certification on the notice of transfer or the drawback entry, as applicable, shall be considered to be the transferor. Drawback may be claimed by, and paid to, the transferor.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsElectromagnetic potential vectors and the Lagrangian of a charged particleMaxwell's equations can be shown to imply the existence of two independent three-dimensional potential vectors. A comparison between the potential vectors and the electric and magnetic field vectors, using a spatial Fourier transformation, reveals six independent potential components but only four independent electromagnetic field components for each mode. Although the electromagnetic fields determined by Maxwell's equations give a complete description of all possible classical electromagnetic phenomena, potential vectors contains more information and allow for a description of such quantum mechanical phenomena as the Aharonov-Bohm effect. A new result is that a charged particle Lagrangian written in terms of potential vectors automatically contains a 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' potential.Document ID19930007366Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypePreprint (Draft being sent to journal)AuthorsShebalin, John V.*(Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1992Subject CategoryPhysics (General)Report/Patent NumberICASE-IR-24NASA-TM-107703NAS 1.15:107703AD-A259474Accession Number93N16555Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-90-52-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007366.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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO.: 20-CV-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

 INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al., 

____________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S NOTICE OF FILING 

FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST ABFP RECEIVERSHIP ENTITIES, 

COURT FILINGS REGARDING ALLEGED CBSG AGENT FUNDS, 

AND RECENT CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission hereby files the following: 

 Exhibit A: The Final Judgment, by consent, entered against Receivership Entities 

ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 3, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 3 Parallel, 

LLC, ABFP Income Fund 4, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 4 Parallel, LLC, ABFP Income Fund 6, 

LLC, ABFP Income Fund 6 Parallel, LLC, ABFP Multi-Strategy Investment Fund, LP, and 

ABFP Multi-Strategy Investment Fund 2, LP. in SEC v. ABFP Income Fund Parallel, LLC, et 

al., Case No. 23-cv-23721-BB (S.D. Fla. 2023). 

 Exhibit B: Complaint, SEC v. Shannon Westhead, et al., Case No. 23-cv-23749 

(S.D. Fla. 2023). 

 Exhibit C: Complaint, SEC v. A.G. Morgan, et al., Case No. 22-cv-03421 

(E.D.N.Y. 2022). 

 Exhibit D: The recent indictment and filing in U.S. v. James LaForte, Case No. 23-

cr-443 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (referencing CBSG). 

 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1762 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

November 28, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: s/ Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Senior Trial Counsel 

 Florida Bar No. 630020 

 Direct Dial: (305) 982-6322 

 Email: berlina@sec.gov 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

 COMMISSION 

 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 982-6300 

 Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 28th day 

of November 2023 via cm-ecf on all defense counsel in this case. 

 s/ Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1762 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2023 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR PILLOWTEX
CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           7,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  368,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,911
<INVENTORY>                                    460,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               822,478
<PP&E>                                         781,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                 134,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,786,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          948,341
<BONDS>                                        399,582
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           72,199
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           142
<OTHER-SE>                                     228,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,786,779
<SALES>                                      1,146,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,146,781
<CGS>                                          984,757
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,084,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,464
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,203
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                948
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       948
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)


</TABLE>
### §61g–6b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61g–6b was editorially reclassified as section 6154 of this title.