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

|  |  |
|--|--|

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

|   | **I  LOVE  LUCY** 
I Love Lucy is a Television program featuring Lucille Ball and her husband Desi Arnaz. It was filmed at the Desilu Studio by the Desliu Productions. A company was offering the first 20 shows of their first season for sale for $50.00. The letter wants to know if it was illegal to sell copyrighted material. 

Part1

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 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### §102a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 102a was editorially reclassified as section 4107 of this title.
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-02-013 April 2, 2002

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

NRC TO MEET WITH EXELON GENERATION CO. APRIL 9 TO DISCUSS 

BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATION SAFETY PERFORMANCE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Exelon Generation

Co. in Byron, Illinois, on Tuesday, April 9, to discuss the results of the agency’s annual assessment of

safety performance at the Byron Nuclear Power Station. The two-reactor facility is located near Byron.

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

p.m. in the Jarrett Prairie Center at the Byron Forest Preserve, 7993 North River Road, Byron. 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/byro_2001q4.pdf

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

(Unit 1) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BYRO1/byro1_chart.html and (Unit 2)

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BYRO2/byro2_chart.html

# # #
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Distribución y Servicio D&S S.A (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Rodrigo Cruz Matta, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

| (1)    | The Report   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the   Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                     |
| (2)    | The   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

| By:    | /s/ Rodrigo Cruz   Matta |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |                               |   |
| Name:  | Rodrigo Cruz Matta            |   |
| Title: | Chief   Executive Officer     |   |
| Date:  | June 30, 2006                 |   |

          This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except as to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.1031 Corrected claim or certification by importers.

An importer who makes a corrected claim under § 10.1003(c) of this subpart will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties under 19 U.S.C. 1592 for having made an incorrect claim or having submitted an incorrect certification, provided that the corrected claim is promptly and voluntarily made.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 30535 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**
versus **Courvisier U. Glover,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:22

- CR

- 291

- 2

**_____________ _________________**  Before **King, Haynes,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** Courvisier U. Glover appeals his sentence of 32 months of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a felon . He argues that his sentence was unreasonable in light of a subsequently adopted amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors

.

**_____________________**
* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**
**. R** 
**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 22, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-30535 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2024Glover preserved his general substantive reasonableness challenge, which we review for abuse of discretion

. S ee Holguin

- Hernandez v. United States , 140 S. Ct. 762, 766

- 67 (2020). We presume that a within

- guidelines sentence , such as this one, is reasonable. See United States v. Hernandez , 876 F.3d 161, 166 (5th Cir. 2017)

. A defendant may rebut th is reasonableness presumption by showing that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors. Id. To the extent that Glover contends that the district court should have applied the then

- forthcoming amendment to the Guidelines, we review for plain error, see United States v. Zarco

- Beiza , 24 F.4th 477, 481

- 82 (5th Cir. 2022) , and he has not demonstrated error , plain or otherwise, in the application of the S entencing G uidelines that were in effect at the time of the offense and sentencing , s ee United States v. Rodarte

- Vasquez , 488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007 ). Nor has he shown that Amendment 821 to the S entencing G uidelines was merely clarifying and should therefore be considered on direct appeal. See United States v. Huff , 370 F.3d 454, 465

- 66 (5th Cir. 2004)

. S everal § 3553(a) factors supported the sentence

. Glover ’s argument s — including his contention that his criminal history category over

represented the significance of his prior convictions

— fail to rebut the presumption of reasonable ness attached to his within

- guidelines sentence. See Hernandez , 876 F.3d at 166
. **AFFIRMED.** Case: 23-30535 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2024
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22935-FAM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC,

Defendant.

/

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS, and Defendant, MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC, having 

entered into a confidential settlement and release agreement, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of this 

civil action. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in 

connection with this action.

Dated: September 24, 2020

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court

Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

 /s Kevin M. Young

Kevin M. Young, Esq.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

FBN: 114151

1075 Peachtree Street, N.E.

Suite 2500

Atlanta, GA 30309

Email: kyoung@seyfarth.com

Telephone: 404-885-1500

Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:20-cv-22935-FAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 24, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22935-FAM Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2020 Page 2 of 2
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. 02-026 March 4, 2002

NRC MAKES AVAILABLE REVISION 2

OF DRAFT REVIEW PLAN FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is making publicly available Draft Revision 2 of a plan

that it would use to review an application to build a potential high-level nuclear waste repository at

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, if the Department of Energy (DOE) submits such an application. The

principal purpose of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan would be to ensure the quality and uniformity of

the NRC staffís licensing reviews.

An earlier, out-of-date version of the draft plan which was not consistent with NRCís final

regulations was made public last year. The revision being made available today was revised to be

consistent with NRC final regulations on Yucca Mountain, issued in November 2001.

The plan has separate sections for potential reviews of repository safety before permanent

closure, safety after permanent closure, the performance confirmation program and administrative and

programmatic requirements. Each of these sections would define NRCís review of DOEís compliance

with NRC regulations.

The ìYucca Mountain Review Plan, Draft Revision 2î is available electronically through the

NRCís website at http://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal/draft-yucca-plan.pdf .

The NRC plans to issue in several weeks a Federal Register notice requesting public comments

on the draft. The agency also plans to hold public meetings, with dates, times and locations to be

announced later. 

###
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00350

- CR

B RANDON K EONI R

ICKARD

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 3

of Tarr ant County (1478001D)

October 3, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment s . It is ordered that the judgment s of the

trial court are affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
#### Alexander A. M. Bulgrin et al., appellees, v. Alma Schlechte, appellant.

Filed January 9, 1911.

No. 16,248.

Appeal: Stare Decisis. Where the only question presented on appeal to this court is one of law which has already by frequent decisions of this court become the settled law in this state, it will not ordinarily be again considered.

Appeal from the district court for York county: George F. Corcoran, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*O. F: Strornan,*for appellant.'

*A. B. Taylor*and *A. (Jt.*Wray, *contra.*

Fawcett, J.

The facts in this case, which the brief of defendant concedes “are not in dispute,” are: Albert L. Bulgrin died *279intestate about October 25, 1889. At the time of his death he was the owner of and occupied as a homestead the southeast quarter of section 33, township 10 north, of range 1 west, of the sixth P. M., in York county, Nebraska. He left surviving four children, Alexander, Paul, Wanda and Robert, and his widow, Emma. In the settlement of his estate the probate court entered the following decree: “It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that said homestead of Albert L. Buigrin, deceased, descend to Emma Buigrin, the widow of Albert L. Buigrin, deceased, in absolute title, subject to the incumbrance on the same, and that she pay to the other heirs their shares as follows” : To the four children . above named the sum of $330.25 each. These sums she never paid. Later on she married one Lewis Schlechte. Defendant was the issue of said second marriage. About October 11, 1899, Emma died, and in the settlement of her estate the county court entered the following decree: “The court finds that the deceased died seized of real estate as follows” — describing the land as above set out. In that decree the county court also adjudged that the four children of Albert L. and Emma Buigrin, and the defendant, Alma Schlechte, were the heirs of Emma, deceased, and that the five “are entitled to, and that the said property, both real and personal, descends to them equally, share and share alike.” Plaintiffs brought this suit in the district court for York county to quiet their title as against the decrees entered by the county court. The court entered a decree in their favor as prayed, and defendant, by her guardian *ad litem,*appeals.

As stated in defendant’s brief, “the matter resolves itself into a question of law.” Defendant contends: (a) That what is commonly known as the “Baker act” (laws 1889, ch. 57) was valid, and that the district court erred in holding the decrees.of the county court, entered under the terms of the Baker act, void; *(b)*that the decrees of the county court were never appealed from, and for that reason the district court erred in permitting them to be *280assailed collaterally. The points presented and argued by defendant have all been carefully considered and decided adversely to her contention in *Finders v. Bodle,*58 Neb. 57; *Draper v. Clayton,*87 Neb. 443; *Helming v. Forrester,*87 Neb. 438; and *McFarland v. Flack,*87 Neb. 452. Under the above decisions, these questions are now foreclosed in this state.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Reese, C. J., not sitting.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-00-14 May 15, 2000

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC MONITORS UNUSUAL EVENT AT DIABLO CANYON

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is closely monitoring conditions at Diablo

Canyon, a nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California, following an automatic reactor

shutdown and declaration of an “Unusual Event” at the plant at 12:43 a.m. PDT.

At this time the unit 1 reactor has been safely shutdown. Because the reactor tripped from full

power, steam was released to the atmosphere. The steam released could contain minute amounts of

radioactivity well below federal release limits. No impacts to public health and safety are anticipated.

Events at the plant began at about 12:25 a.m. when a fault occurred in electrical cabling inside

the Unit 1 turbine generator building. This resulted in a protective shutdown of the main generator

followed by the unit 1 reactor trip. Plant operators declared a Notice of Unusual Event, which is the

lowest emergency action level in the NRC required emergency response plan for nuclear reactors,

shortly afterward.

Diablo Canyon operators are working to restore electrical power. There were no injuries and all

reactor systems functioned properly during the shutdown and there are no significant complications at

this time.

###
**US Marines in the Persian Gulf,1990-1991:With the I Marine Expeditionary ForceIn Desert Shield and Desert Storm

First Page |Prev Page |Next Page |OCR Text |

**
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62654-62655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24057]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Science


DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science 
Advisory Committee (NSAC).

[[Page 62655]]

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the 
Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, November 18, 2004; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
20852-1699.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of 
Energy; SC-90/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: (301) 903-0536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing 
basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation 
on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science 
research.
    Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

    Thursday, November 18, 2004.
    <bullet> Perspectives from Department of Energy and National 
Science Foundation.
    <bullet> Discussion of NSAC Response and Transmittal Letter on 
Education.
    <bullet> Public Comment (10-minute rule).

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you 
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do 
so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral 
statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should 
contact Brenda L. May, (301) 903-0536 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#16546473787277385b776f5665757f737875733872797338717960"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5b787909b9194dbb8948cb586969c909b9690db919a90db929a83">[email protected]</span></a> (e-
mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 
business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to 
include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of 
the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, Room 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC on October 22, 2004.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-24057 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §§44 to 46. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 44, act May 7, 1906, ch. 2083, §1, 34 Stat. 170, authorized a mileage allowance to Delegate from Alaska, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete because Alaska was admitted into the Union with membership of one Representative in Congress on Jan. 3, 1959, upon issuance of Proc. No. 3269, Jan. 3, 1959, 24 F.R. 81, 73 Stat. c16, as required by sections 1, 7 and 8 of Pub. L. 85–508, July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 339, set out as notes preceding section 21 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Section 45, acts July 1, 1902, ch. 1369, §8, 32 Stat. 694; Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §20, 39 Stat. 552, which authorized a mileage allowance to Resident Commissioners from Philippine Islands, and was formerly covered by section 1237 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions, is no longer in force in view of the independence of the Philippine Islands effected by section 1394 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, and proclaimed by the President of the United States in Proc. No. 2695, July 4, 1946, 11 F.R. 7517, 60 Stat. 1352, set out as note under section 1394 of Title 22. Act Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 416, §20, 39 Stat. 552, from which section 45 of this title was derived, was repealed by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 643.

Section 46, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §36, 39 Stat. 963; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158, allowed sum of $500 as mileage for each session to Resident Commissioner, and was omitted from the Code as superseded by former section 43b–1 of this title.