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

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**SANTOS LUIS RODRIGUEZ,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 105 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
§ 207.68 Final comments on information. ( a ) The Commission shall specify a date after the filing of posthearing briefs on which it will disclose to all parties to the five-year review all information it has obtained on which the parties have not previously had an opportunity to comment. Any such information that is business proprietary information will be released to persons authorized to obtain such information pursuant to § 207.7.
( b ) The parties shall have an opportunity to file comments on any information disclosed to them after they have filed their posthearing brief pursuant to § 207.67. Comments shall be filed electronically, and nine (9) true paper copies shall be submitted on the same business day. Comments shall only concern such information, and shall not exceed 15 pages of textual material, double spaced and single-sided, when printed out on paper measuring 8.5 × 11 inches and single-sided. A comment may address the accuracy, reliability, or probative value of such information by reference to information elsewhere in the record, in which case the comment shall identify where in the record such information is found. Comments containing new factual information shall be disregarded. The date on which such comments must be filed will be specified by the Commission when it specifies the time that information will be disclosed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. The record shall close on the date such comments are due, except with respect to changes in bracketing of business proprietary information in the comments permitted by § 207.3(c).
[63 FR 30608, June 5, 1998, as amended at 76 FR 61944, Oct. 6, 2011; 79 FR 35926, June 25, 2014]
### §101. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 101 was editorially reclassified as section 4701 of this title.
### §104a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 104a was editorially reclassified as section 4108 of this title.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 561 

To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems and for 

prevailing rate employees by 3.2 percent, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2021 

Mr. SCHATZ (for himself, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. CARDIN, 

Mr. KAINE, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BROWN, Ms. HIRONO, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. 

MERKLEY, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To increase the rates of pay under the statutory pay systems 

and for prevailing rate employees by 3.2 percent, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Federal Adjustment 

5 of Income Rates Act’’ or the ‘‘FAIR Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT TO RATES OF PAY. 

7 (a) STATUTORY PAY SYSTEMS.—For calendar year 

8 2022, the percentage adjustment under section 5303 of 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 561 IS

1 title 5, United States Code, in the rates of basic pay under 

2 the statutory pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of 

3 title 5, United States Code) shall be 2.2 percent. 

4 (b) PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES.—Notwith5 standing the wage survey requirements under section 

6 5343(b) of title 5, United States Code, for fiscal year 

7 2022, the rates of basic pay (as in effect on the last day 

8 of fiscal year 2021 under section 5343(a) of such title) 

9 for prevailing rate employees in each wage area and the 

10 rates of basic pay under sections 5348 and 5349 of such 

11 title shall be increased by 2.2 percent. 

12 SEC. 3. ADJUSTMENT TO LOCALITY PAY. 

13 For calendar year 2022, the percentage adjustment 

14 under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, shall 

15 be an increase of 1.0 percent. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### § 4.69 Shipping articles.

No vessel of the U.S. on a voyage between a U.S. port and a foreign port (except a port in Canada, Mexico, or the West Indies), or if of at least 75 gross tons, on a voyage between a U.S. port on the Atlantic Ocean and a U.S. port on the Pacific Ocean, shall be granted clearance before presentation, to the appropriate Customs officer, of the shipping articles agreements, including any seaman's allotment agreement, required by 46 U.S.C. chapter 103, in the form provided for in 46 CFR 14.05-1.

[T.D. 92-52, 57 FR 23945, June 5, 1992]
§ 147.14 Articles not to be immediately entered and delivered to a fair. ( a ) *Placed in bonded warehouses.* If for any reason articles imported for a fair are not to be entered and delivered to a fair upon their arrival, the fair operator should request the port director, in writing, to cause such articles to be placed in a bonded warehouse under a “general order permit” at the risk and expense of the fair operator. If no request is made and the articles remain unentered after 5 days from the date of arrival, they will be placed in general order.
( b ) *Entry within 1 year.* At any time within 1 year from the date such articles are imported or brought in, they may be entered under this part for a fair or entered under the general tariff law, or for exportation.
( c ) *Abandonment.* If not entered within such period, they will be regarded as abandoned to the Government.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-cv-61690-SINGHAL

DEBRON WALLEN, 

SANJAY SHAKES, Individually and

On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

Vs. 

SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC. &

RICHARD FERNBACH

_________________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLAINCE WITH DOCKET ENTRY 5 ORDER REQUIRING 

SCHEDULING REPORT, CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND 

STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND RESPONSE IN FLSA CASE

I hereby certify; that on this 28th Day of September 2020, undersigned, personally, served 

Defense Counsel, via email, with the Court’s Order DE 5, Order Requiring Scheduling Report, 

Certificate of Interested Parties and Statement of Claim and Response In FLSA Case, the

Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim, and the supporting documents that Plaintiffs’ currently possess, in 

compliance with DE 5.

Respectfully Submitted this 28th Day of September 2020

LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC

200 S. Andrews Ave, Suite 900

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Phone: (954) 880-9500

Fax: (954) 755-2993

E-mail: jhs@lubellrosen.com

By: s/Joshua H. Sheskin

Joshua H. Sheskin, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 93028

Case 0:20-cv-61690-AHS Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/28/2020 Page 1 of 1
### §287. Extension of prospecting permits

Any prospecting permit issued under this subchapter may be extended by the Secretary of the Interior for a period not exceeding two years, upon a showing of satisfactory cause.

(Feb. 7, 1927, ch. 66, §7, as added May 7, 1932, ch. 174, 47 Stat. 151.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of act Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 437, known as the Mineral Leasing Act, which comprises this chapter.
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-97-66 June 12, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH DUQUESNE LIGHT OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT BEAVER VALLEY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

officials of Duquesne Light Company on Friday morning, June 13,

to discuss apparent violations at the Beaver Valley Power Station

in Shippingport, Pa. The predecisional enforcement conference,

which is open to the public for observation only, will be held at

10 a.m. in the NRC’s Region 1 office in King of Prussia, Pa.

Between March 16 and April 23, workers at Beaver Valley

missed six tests that are required to be performed at specific

intervals by the plant’s technical specifications. Although the

missed surveillance tests had minimal safety consequence,

collectively they indicated weaknesses in the surveillance test

program, particularly in the areas of procedural support,

scheduling and coordination.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference

does not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has

occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the

purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and

safety significance; to provide the licensee 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

thisconference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC

officials at a later time.

#
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE SIMIONE CENTRAL HOLDINGS, INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,629,169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,680,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,858,421
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,061,882
<PP&E>                                       1,728,306
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,225,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,992,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,240,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,779
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,356,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,992,298
<SALES>                                      8,909,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,909,622
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,473,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,029,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (69,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                417,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   417,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
* 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

March 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-30548

Summary Calendar

HAMID SAMADI,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL; BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, Mr. Eduardo Aquirre, Jr., Director;

CRAIG ROBINSON, INS Field Director for Louisiana District,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(2:03-CV-3576-C)

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Hamid Samadi, an Iranian native and citizen ordered deported

from the United States, was detained for deportation in April 2003

by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Service. Samadi filed a

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging the constitutionality of his

indefinite detention as a rem ovable alien and contesting the

validity of his immigration proceedings. Samadi was released from

detention; and, on respondents’ motion, the § 2241 petition was

dismissed as moot to the extent it challenged the constitutionality2

of the indefinite detention. Samadi filed a postjudgment motion,

which was properly construed as a F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b) motion. In

denying this motion, the district court obser ved that Samadi’s

collateral arguments against respondents’ dismissal motion were not

cognizable under § 2241.

For this pro se appeal, we must first determine the

jurisdictional scope of our review. E .g., Mosley v. Cozby

,

813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Samadi failed to file a timely

notice of appeal from the underlying judgment denying his § 2241

petitio n. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review that order.

See H alicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc. , 151 F.3d 465, 468

(5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1005 (1999).

Samadi’s notice of appeal was timel y with respect to the

denials of his Rule 60(b) motion; and his motion for an extension

of time to file a second postjudgment motion. Rule 60(b) allows a

court to relieve a party from a final judgment for reasons such as,

inter alia : “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence

... ; (3) fraud,

...

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party”; (4) a

void judgment; or (5) “any other reason justifying relief from the

operation of the judgment”. F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b). Denial of a

Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E .g.

,

Edwards v. City of Housto n , 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996).

Samadi has failed to contend or demonstrate that the district court3

abused its discretion in denying his postjudgment motion. S ee

Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).

(Accordingly, Samadi’s change of venue motion is DENIED .)

AFFIRMED ; MOTION DENIED
### §5341. Representational allowance for Members of House of Representatives

#### (a) In general

There is established for the House of Representatives a single allowance, to be known as the "Members' Representational Allowance", which shall be available to support the conduct of the official and representational duties of a Member or Member-elect of the House of Representatives with respect to the district from which the Member or Member-elect is elected.

#### (b) Merger

The Clerk Hire Allowance, the Official Expenses Allowance, and the Official Mail Allowance, as in effect on the day before September 1, 1995, are merged into the Members' Representational Allowance.

#### (c) "Member of the House of Representatives" defined

As used in this section, the term "Member of the House of Representatives" means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

#### (d) Regulations

The Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including regulations establishing under subsection (a) the official and representational duties during a Congress of a Member-elect of the House of Representatives who is not an incumbent Member re-elected to the ensuing Congress.

#### (e) Effective date

This section shall take effect on September 1, 1995 and shall apply with respect to official and representational duties carried out on or after that date.

(Pub. L. 104–186, title I, §101, Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1719; Pub. L. 116–260, div. I, title I, §117(a), (b), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 1641.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 57b of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2020—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–260, §117(a), substituted "a Member or Member-elect" for "a Member" and "the Member or Member-elect" for "the Member".

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 116–260, §117(b), substituted ", including regulations establishing under subsection (a) the official and representational duties during a Congress of a Member-elect of the House of Representatives who is not an incumbent Member re-elected to the ensuing Congress." for period at end.

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.

#### Effective Date of 2020 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–260, div. I, title I, §117(c), Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 1641, provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall apply with respect to Members-elect of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress and each succeeding Congress."
|  |
|--|

|  |  |
|--|--|

| ** ** |
|------------|

|   | ****Daily Worker**** 
223 pages

From 1948 through the 1950s, the FBI reviewed the "Daily Worker," an East coast daily newspaper published by the Communist Party of the United States, for articles of interest to the FBI.

**Part 1a**
**Part 1b**
**Part 1c**
**Part 1d**
**Part 1e** 

Introduction
Reading Room Index - A   B   C   D   E    F   G- H   I    J    K   L   M   N   -O   P   Q   R   S   T   U-V   W   X   Y   Z   
Electronic Reading Room
- Alphabetical Listing- Espionage-Famous Persons-Gangster Era- Historical Interest- Unusual Phenomena-Violent CrimeFBI              File Fact Sheet FOIA Request Instructions- FOIA Request Form - Privacy Waiver and Certificate of Identity Form Privacy Act Instructions- Privacy Act Request FormDOJ              Reference GuideU.S.              DOJ FOIASearch
All of these publications are in PDF (Portable Document Format). To view them you will need to have the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in installed on your computer. The Reader can be downloaded at no cost from Adobe's site on the World Wide Web.   If you have difficulty accessing any material on this site because of a disability, please contact us in writing or via telephone and we will work with you to make the information available.

Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Section    202-324-5520 |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-03-040 May 12, 2003

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

 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL IN MICHIGAN

FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $6,000 fine against St. Joseph Mercy

Health System in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for a radiation exposure in excess of NRC limits for a member

of the public.

The excessive radiation exposure involved a family member who had prolonged contact with a

patient receiving a nuclear medicine treatment in July of last year.

A patient at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital received a therapeutic dose of radioactive iodine-131 on

July 1 of last year. The patient’s condition subsequently worsened , and she died on July 7. There is no

indication that her death was associated with the iodine-131 treatment. 

Members of the patient’s family who visited during the treatment period of July 1 to 7 were in

prolonged, close contact with the patient.

The hospital staff provided shielding around the patient to reduce radiation levels and

counseled family members on the need to minimize their time and proximity to the patient. Family

members, who wanted to maintain close contact with the patient, disregarded the radiation safety

instructions provided by the staff. 

One family member, who spent the longest period of time in close contact with the patient,

received a total dose of 3,000 to 15,000 millirem (A millirem is a standard measure of radiation dose),

which exceeds the NRC limit of 100 millirem per year. Other members of the family may have

received significantly lower doses. 

The NRC conducted a special inspection to review the circumstances and causes regarding

exposures to members of the public which exceeded the NRC limits, as well as the hospital’s

corrective actions. Although the NRC determined that radiation exposures within the reported range

would not cause any significant health effects, the NRC inspectors found violations of NRC

requirements to limit radiation doses to members of the public, and promptly identify and implement

corrective actions.

In the letter to the hospital, NRC Region III Regional Administrator James Dyer states, “The

NRC staff understands that the case involved unusual circumstances and that you did not want to
appear uncompassionate toward the patient or her family.” However, the hospital could have taken

more proactive steps to determine the visitors’ doses more accurately and to limit their exposure, he

says. The letter also notes that the hospital has taken appropriate corrective actions to prevent

recurrence of violations.

The hospital has until June 6 to either pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and

subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing. 

The letter notifying St. Joseph Mercy Hospital of the proposed fine has been posted to the NRC

web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/.

# # #