alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Bender, Plaintiff, *v.*Eugene Hutton et al., Defendants. James Bender, Respondent, *v.*Eugene Hutton et al., Appellants.

Fourth Department,

March 5, 1952.

*443
      *Joseph May*for appellants.

*Louis N. Blatt*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

At the close of the trial of this case in the City Court of Buffalo without a jury, counsel stipulated that the court might view the premises. The record indicates that a view was had. As was said in *Weiant*v. *Rockland Lake Trap Rock Co.*(61 App. Div. 383, 388, affd. without opinion 174 N. Y. 509): “ The method of his personal examination and the facts which he ascertained thereby do not appear upon the record, but must necessarily have been influential factors in his decision; and unless such decision is at variance with uncontradicted evidence, we may not disturb it.”

Section 56 of the Buffalo City Court Act makes the provisions of the Civil Practice Act applicable to the proceedings in that court when not in conflict with the City Court Act. We find nothing in that act as to the form of decision; consequently section 440 of the Civil Practice Act applies. That section required the court to incorporate in his decision the facts which he deemed essential to the decision which he made. As was stated by this court in *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.*v. *Union Trust Co.*(268 App. Div. 474, 479): “ That obviously means the facts upon which the rights or liability of the parties depend ’ ’.

In the instant case the court does not tell us what facts he found as a basis for his decision. Two questions of fact were presented by the defendants’ proof, first the adequacy of the *444repairs after the fire, second the question of the storeroom. We are unable to tell from this record the findings of fact on either of those questions.

The Special Term has reversed the judgment and given judgment to the plaintiff. Were it not for the “ view ” of the trial court, we would hold that the record supports that judgment. Under the circumstances here disclosed, we think the interests of justice require a new trial in the City Court.

All concur. Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ.

Judgment and order of Brie Special Term and judgment of Buffalo City Court reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted in Buffalo City Court, with costs in all courts to abide the event. [See *post,*p. 976.]
###### Editorial Note on Part 141

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 141 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 141.45 Certified copies of power of attorney.

Upon request of a party in interest, a Center Director or port director having on file an original power of attorney document (which is not limited to transactions in a specific Customs location) will forward a certified copy of the document to another Center director or port director.

[T.D. 95-77, 60 FR 50020, Sept. 27, 1995]
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 10.619 Repeated false or unsupported preference claims.

Where verification or other information reveals a pattern of conduct by an importer, exporter, or producer of false or unsupported representations that goods qualify under the CAFTA-DR rules of origin set forth in General Note 29, HTSUS, CBP may suspend preferential tariff treatment under the CAFTA-DR to entries of identical goods covered by subsequent representations by that importer, exporter, or producer until CBP determines that representations of that person are in conformity with General Note 29, HTSUS.
#### Thomas Russell EVANS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-6020.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Thomas Russell Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Russell Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Evans v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-638-2 (E.D.Va. Nov. 28, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3642 — Carlyle/Advent/HT Troplast JV)

(2006/C 25/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 01-075 June 27, 2001

 NRC SEEKS COMMENTS ON PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF

 NUCLEAR INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION ON AGENCYíS REGULATORY OVERSIGHT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comments as part of a preliminary

assessment of the potential impacts of the nuclear power industryís ongoing consolidation on the

agencyís regulatory oversight functions.

Specifically, the NRCís effort is designed to identify industry consolidation effects that may

warrant changes to the agencyís regulations, policies, processes, guidance and organizational structure. 

The NRC staff has identified about two dozen regulatory oversight areas that could be impacted

by industry consolidation, and has completed preliminary assessments of them. The staff is seeking

comments and suggestions from the industry and members of the public on the identified issues and

preliminary impact assessments that have been published, in their entirety, in todayís issue of the

Federal Register and on the NRCís web site, at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/REACTOR/CONSOLIMPACT/index.html . 

The comment period ends on August 27. Written comments may be mailed to Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. Comments may also be provided by accessing

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/wwwforms.html . 

Following an evaluation of the comments received, a public workshop will be held in late

October at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss the regulatory oversight areas

considered, the preliminary impact assessments, and the comments received. A notice about the

workshop will be issued at a later date.

###
November 10, 2000



Global Industries, Ltd.
8000 Global Drive
Carlyss, Louisiana 70665


We have made a review, in accordance with standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the
unaudited interim financial information of Global Industries,
Ltd. and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2000 and
1999, as indicated in our report dated November 1, 2000, because we
did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that
information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included
in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2000, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-58048, 33-89778, and 333-69949 of Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to
Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a
part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
### §6315. Telecommunications services for Senators; payment of costs out of contingent fund

The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate shall furnish each Senator local and long-distance telecommunications services in Washington, District of Columbia, and in such Senator's State in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration; and the costs of such service shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the Senate from moneys made available to him for that purpose.

(Pub. L. 98–181, title I, §1205(a), Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1290; Pub. L. 99–65, §1(b), July 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 163; Pub. L. 99–439, Oct. 2, 1986, 100 Stat. 1085.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 58a of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1984.

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–439 struck out "(except services for which the charge is based on the amount of time the service is used)" after "Senator's State".

1985—Pub. L. 99–65 inserted "and in such Senator's State (except services for which the charge is based on the amount of time the service is used)".

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

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–65 effective on first day of first calendar month beginning more than 60 days after July 12, 1985, see section 2 of Pub. L. 99–65, set out as a note under section 6314 of this title.

#### Payment for Telecommunications Service

Pub. L. 104–53, title I, §5, Nov. 19, 1995, 109 Stat. 517, as amended by Pub. L. 104–197, title I, §4(a), Sept. 16, 1996, 110 Stat. 2397; Pub. L. 107–68, title I, §104(a), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 568, provided that:

"(a) Any payment for local and long distance telecommunications service provided to any user shall cover the total invoiced amount, including any amount relating to separately identified toll calls, and shall be charged to the appropriation for the fiscal year in which the underlying base service period covered by the invoice begins.

"(b) As used in subsection (a), the term 'user' means a Senator, an Officer of the Senate, and any office, committee, or other entity the funds of which are disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate."

[Pub. L. 107–68, title I, §104(b), Nov. 12, 2001, 115 Stat. 568, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending section 5 of Pub. L. 104–53, set out above] shall take effect on October 1, 2001, and shall apply to base service periods beginning on or after that date."]

[Pub. L. 104–197, title I, §4(b), Sept. 16, 1996, 110 Stat. 2397, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending section 5 of Pub. L. 104–53, set out above] shall take effect on October 1, 1996, and shall apply to all payments made on or after such date for local and long distance telecommunications service."]
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.01

                       CONSOLIDATION CAPITAL CORPORATION
            STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Fiscal Year Ended
                                                             December 31, 1997
                                                             -----------------
<S>                                                          <C>
Net income                                                        $          7
                                                                  ============
Weighted average number of Common Shares outstanding                 4,911,401
Common stock equivlents from stock options and warrants                 79,099
Weighted average number of Common and Potentially Dilutive        ------------
  Shares outstanding                                                 4,990,500
                                                                  ============

Earnings per share:
  Net income per Common Share - Basic                             $       0.00
                                                                  ============
  Net income per Common Share - Assuming dilution                 $       0.00
                                                                  ============
</TABLE>
### §6138. Transfer of funds from appropriations account of Majority and Minority Whips of Senate to appropriations account, Miscellaneous Items, within Senate contingent fund

#### (a) Requests for transfers

Upon the written request of the Majority or Minority Whip of the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall transfer during any fiscal year, from the appropriations account appropriated under the headings "Salaries, Officers and Employees" and "offices of the majority and minority whips", such amount as either whip shall specify to the appropriations account, within the contingent fund of the Senate, "miscellaneous items".

#### (b) Authority to incur expenses

The Majority and Minority Whips of the Senate are each authorized to incur such expenses as may be necessary or appropriate. Expenses incurred by either such whip shall be paid from the amount transferred pursuant to subsection (a) by such whip and upon vouchers approved by such whip.

#### (c) Authority to advance sums

The Secretary of the Senate is authorized to advance such sums as may be necessary to defray expenses incurred in carrying out subsections (a) and (b).

(Pub. L. 105–55, title I, §2, Oct. 7, 1997, 111 Stat. 1180.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 31a–2c of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Congressional Operations Appropriations Act, 1998, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

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

No. 00-127 August 22, 2000

NRC ISSUES FINAL REVIEW PLAN FOR MIXED OXIDE

FUEL FABRICATION FACILITY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published a final plan for the review of an expected

application for a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication facility.

The Department of Energy has announced plans to construct a MOX fuel fabrication facility at

its Savannah River site in South Carolina through a contract with Duke Cogema Stone & Webster

(known as DCS). DCS would construct and operate a MOX facility that would convert surplus

weapons-grade plutonium provided by the DOE into fuel to power commercial nuclear reactors.

Commercial nuclear power plants in the United States currently use uranium as fuel; the mixed oxide

fuel would be a combination of uranium and plutonium.

This initiative is one strategy that the Department of Energy is undertaking to dispose of surplus

plutonium. By converting this material into spent fuel, the plutonium becomes more difficult to

recover and use in nuclear weapons.

The facility would be the first MOX fuel fabrication plant licensed by NRC that converts

weapons grade plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors.

Under NRC’s regulations, potential operators of plutonium facilities, such as a MOX fuel

fabrication plant, must obtain authorization from the agency to begin construction and must obtain a

license before operating the facility.

The Standard Review Plan provides guidance to the NRC staff performing safety, safeguards,

and environmental reviews of the anticipated applications for both construction and operation. The

plan ensures the quality, uniformity, and predictability of the reviews. NRC will be reviewing the

following information about the proposed MOX facility:

ˇ General information about the applicant and the plant site;

ˇ Applicant’s financial qualifications to construct and operate the facility;

ˇ Provisions for protection from radiation exposure, chemical exposure, fires, and other

emergencies;

ˇ Plans to protect against theft, loss or diversion of special nuclear material; and

ˇ Management and administrative procedures.
Each section of the plan addresses the responsibilities of NRC technical reviewers, regulations

pertinent to specific technical areas, acceptance criteria used by the staff, and the methods used to

accomplish the review.

The NRC published a draft plan in February, and received over 300 comments. A public

meeting was held in May, and all comments were considered in formulating the final version of the

plan.

A copy of the “Standard Review Plan for the Review of an Application for a Mixed Oxide

(MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility,” (NUREG-1718), is available by writing to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Distribution Services, Washington DC 20555-0001. The review plan is also

available on the agency’s website, at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1718/index.html

###
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6860** 

MACHOT KUOL MAYEN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 01018

- CMH

- TCB )

Submitted : September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Machot Kuol Mayen, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Machot Kuol Mayen seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). Whe n the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 48 4

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mayen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions for a certificate of appealability and the appointment of counsel, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauper is, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
#### § 145.58 Other restricted and prohibited merchandise.

Other restrictions and prohibitions pertaining to certain types of imported merchandise are set forth in part 12 of this chapter and are applicable to importations by mail.
# **Hydrologic Benchmark Network Stations in the Midwestern U.S. 1963-95 (USGS Circular 1173-B)**

**
**Circular 1173-A****Circular 1173-C****Circular 1173-D****Circular 1173-B Table of Contents**
List of Figures and Tables

Introduction

Analytical Methods

Environmental Characteristics and Water Quality of HBN Stations:

Cossatot River near Vandervoort, Arkansas (Station 07340300)Download PDFNorth Sylamore Creek near Fifty Six, Arkansas (Station 07060710)Download PDFSouth Hogan Creek near Dillsboro, Indiana (Station 03276700)Download PDFElk Creek near Decatur City, Iowa (Station 06897950)Download PDFBig Creek at Pollack, Louisiana (Station 07373000)Download PDFWashington Creek at Windigo, Michigan (Station 04001000)Download PDFKawishiwi River near Ely, Minnesota (Station 05124480)Download PDFNorth Fork Whitewater River near Elba, Minnesota (Station 05376000)Download PDFUpper Twin Creek at McGaw, Ohio (Station 03237280)Download PDFBlue Beaver Creek near Cache, Oklahoma (Station 07311200)Download PDFKiamichi River near Big Cedar, Oklahoma (Station 07335700)Download PDFDevils River at Pafford Crossing near Comstock, Texas (Station 08449400)Download PDFSouth Fork Rocky Creek near Briggs, Texas (Station 08103900)Download PDFPopple River near Fence, Wisconsin (Station 04063700)Download PDF
References

Appendix A- List of Map References

Appendix B- National Water Information System Site-Identification Numbers

**List of all HBN Stations****Abstract and Map Index**
This page maintained by Nichole Bisceglia (nbiscegl@usgs.gov)		Last updated Thursday, July 27, 2000.

**
**Exhibit 21.1**

OMNI Energy Services Corp’s Subsidiaries 

OMNI Energy Services Corp.

Trussco, Inc. 

Trussco Properties, L.L.C. 

American Helicopters Inc. 

OMNI Energy Seismic Services, L.L.C. 

OMNI Aviation Corp. 

OMNI Labor Corporation 

OMNI Properties Corp. 

OMNI Energy Services Corp. – Mexico 

OMNI Energy Transportation Corp. 

Preheat, Inc. 

RigTools, Inc. 

BMJ Industrial Investments, L.L.C. 

Charles Holston, Inc. (wholly-owned subsidiary of BMJ Industrial Investments, L.L.C.) 

B.E.G. Liquid Mud Services, Corp. 

Industrial Lift Truck & Equipment Co., Inc. 

OMNI Energia Mexicana 

OMNI International Energy Services 

American Aviation L.L.C. 

OMNI Energy Services – Alaska, Inc. 

Hamilton Drill Tech, Inc. 

Gulf Coast Resources, Inc.