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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5328 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5328

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
                       terminal lakes assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TERMINAL LAKES ASSISTANCE.

    Section 2507(f) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 
2002 (16 U.S.C. 3839bb-6(f)) is amended by striking ``2023'' and 
inserting ``2025''.

            Passed the Senate December 20, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 5328

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
                       terminal lakes assistance.
```
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-189 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, October 21, 1998)

NRC SCHEDULES MEETING ON REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting November 13 in

Rockville, Maryland, to discuss suggested changes to its regulations on reporting

requirements for nuclear power plants.

The meeting will be from 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. in the auditorium of NRC’s

headquarters at Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike.

The NRC has previously discussed the proposal to change reporting

requirements in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal

Register on July 23 and at public meetings held on August 21 and September 1.

As spelled out in the advance notice, the NRC is considering amending the

requirements to reduce or eliminate the reporting burden associated with events of little

or no safety significance. The amendments would also revise the requirements based

on importance to risk and extend the required reporting times where consistent with the

need for prompt NRC action.

For example, the contemplated amendments would require that, if an event or

condition occurred that could keep a structure or system from fulfilling its safety

function, the licensee would have to report to the NRC within 8 hours if the plant is in a

mode where the structure or system is required to be operable. Otherwise, the initial

report would be required within 30 days. Currently such events or conditions must be

reported within 4 hours.

At the November 13 meeting, participants will focus on clarity and consistency of

the regulations by discussing how reportability decisions could be made for example

events. Topics for discussion will include: how to determine when a system is not

capable of performing its intended safety functions, triggering the need for a report to

NRC; the meaning of the term “significantly” in a requirement to report unanalyzed

conditions that significantly compromised nuclear plant safety; whether a suggested

change to the current requirement to report a condition that alone could prevent

fulfillment of a safety function would detract from clarity; and reporting requirements
regarding late performance of required tests and a nuclear power plant being in a

seriously degraded condition.

Persons who wish to speak or to introduce particular examples for discussion are

asked to contact Dennis P. Allison, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office for Analysis

and Evaluation of Operational Data, Washington, DC 20555-001, telephone 301/415-

6835, e-mail dpa@nrc.gov, or his alternate, Bennett M. Brady, at the same address,

telephone 301/415-6363, e-mail bmb1@nrc.gov. Contacts should be made in advance

of the meeting to facilitate the scheduling of available time and orderly conduct of the

meeting.

###
#### § 190.76 [Reserved]
Appliances Home

About Standards Laws & Regulations
Information Resources
Notices & Rules Priority Setting 2006 Schedule Setting Public Workshops >k Clearings State Petitions Useful Links Commercial Equipment Residential Products Battery Chargers & External Power- Supplies Central Air Conditioners & Heat Pumps Clothes Dryers Clothes washers Cooking Products Dehumidifiers Dishwashers Furnaces & Boilers Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Flurr?c:r.ent ?rir_ondo:-cent L^rnpr Plumbing Products Pool Heaters Refrigerators & Freezers Room Air Conditioners Small Duct , High Velocity Air Conditioners Water Heaters 

## Fluorescent and Incandescent La m p Rule m akin g The U.S. Department of Energy (Department) has initiated a rulemaking to amend energy conservation standards for residential, commercial and industrial general service fluorescent lamps, incandescent reflector lamps and general service incandescent lamps, An informal public meeting will be held June 15, 2006. Written comments are encouraged and should be received by June 29, 2006. For information related to the June 15, 2006, meeting, visit the Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamps Public Meeting web page. 

### The Department published a final rule "Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamp Test Procedures" on May 29, 1997. This final rule promulgated new and revised regulatory definitions applicable to lamps based on public comments. Lighting manufacturers must use these test procedures to meet the lamp energy efficiency standards as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Some of the following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Acrobat Reader. 

## Energy Conservation Standard Rule mAki
o Notice of public meeting and availability of Framework Document, Federal Register, May 31, 2006 (PDF 67 KB) 

## Framework Document
o Rulemaking Framework Document for General Service Fluorescent Lamps, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, and General Serltice 

### Incandescent Lamps, May 31, 2006 (PDF 692 KB) 

## Previous Rules and Documents Fluorescent and Incandescent Lamp Test Procedure, Federal Register, May 29, 1997 (PDF 195 KB)



### Contact Information Linda Graves, Esq. Program Manager (202) 586-1851

E5 Printable Version
Webmaster I Security & Privacy I Buil ding Technologies ProgramHome I SERE Home U.S. Department of Energy Content Last Updated: 06 / 01/2006

# Summary of Comments http://www.eere. energy. gov/buildings/appliance 

# -sta nd 

# ard 

# s/resi d 

# e Page: 1
Number: 1 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 9/14/2007 12:24:51 PM See comment 01.1 Number: 2 Author: DOE Subject: Note Date: 9/14/2007 12:25:17 PM See comment 01.2
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Lezer Corp., Plaintiff,

v.

Noble Partners LLC, dba Noble 

Medical Supply and Sean Grady, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-23235-Civ-Scola

Order Adopting Report and Recommendations 

The Court referred Plaintiff Lezer Corp.’s motion for a prejudgment writ of 

attachment and preliminary injunction (ECF No. 11) to United States Magistrate 

Judge Edwin G. Torres for a report and recommendation. Defendants Noble 

Partners LLC, doing business as Noble Medical Supply, and Sean Grady never 

responded and Judge Torres issued a report and recommendation, 

recommending that the Court deny the motion. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 16.) No 

objections to the report and recommendation have been filed by either party and 

the time to do so has passed.

Nonetheless, the Court has considered—de novo—Judge Torres’s report, 

the record, and the relevant legal authorities. The Court finds Judge Torres’s 

report and recommendation cogent and compelling. The Court thus adopts his

recommendations in full (ECF No. 16), denying Lezer’s motion (ECF No. 11)

and concluding that Lezer is not entitled to freeze the Defendants’ assets, either 

through a preliminary injunction or through a prejudgment writ of attachment 

or garnishment under Florida statutes.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on October 23, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-23235-RNS Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23420-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

WILLIE G. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MR. FUGEO, et al.

Defendants.

_____________________/

ORDER

On August 18, 2020, Plaintiff, Willie G. Harris filed a pro se Complaint Under the Civil 

Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. [Section] 1983 [ECF No. 1]. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge 

Lisette M. Reid for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a report and 

recommendation on dispositive matters under Administrative Order 2019-2. (See Clerk’s Notice

[ECF No. 2]). In her September 4, 2020 Report of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 4], Judge Reid 

recommends dismissing the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g), as Plaintiff is a “threestriker,” and closing the case. (See Report 1–2). Section 1915(g) states:

In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action . . . under this section if the prisoner 

has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, 

brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on 

the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury.

Id. § 1915(g) (alteration added).

Plaintiff, a prisoner at Dade C.I. in Florida City, Florida, has brought at least three prior 

actions or appeals that meet the section 1915(g) criteria warranting dismissal of a subsequent suit. 

(See Report 3). He has not filed any objections to the Report within the time allowed or requested 

additional time to do so. Accordingly, and as Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is “under 

Case 1:20-cv-23420-CMA Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 20-23420-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

2

imminent danger of serious physical injury” under section 1915(g), it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 4] is ACCEPTED. The 

Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED, all other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and 

the Clerk is instructed to mark the case as CLOSED. Furthermore, the Clerk is directed not to 

accept any future filings from Plaintiff unless Plaintiff either (1) pays the filing fee; (2) affirms 

under oath that he is in imminent threat of serious physical injury; (3) is represented by counsel; 

or (4) obtains leave of court to file. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1096–97

(11th Cir. 2008). 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 25th day of September, 2020.

_________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Willie G. Harris, pro se

Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid

Case 1:20-cv-23420-CMA Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 101.7 Customs seal. ( a ) *Design.* According to the design furnished by the Department of the Treasury, the Customs seal of the United States shall consist of the seal of the Department of the Treasury surrounded by an outer circle in which appear the words “Treasury” at the top and “U.S. Customs Service” at the bottom.
( b ) *Use of the Customs seal.* The Customs seal currently in official use, including the dies, rolls, plates, and like devices now in the possession of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, shall continue to be equally effective as the official seal of the United States Customs Service and shall continue to be so used by each Customs officer and employee having possession of the seal until that particular device requires replacing and is replaced. Use of the United States Customs seal shall be restricted in the following manner: ( 1 ) The Customs seal of the United States shall be impressed upon all official documents requiring the impress of a seal. It shall be impressed upon all marine documents and landing certificates, certificates of weight, gauge, or measure, and similar classes of documents for outside interests.
( 2 ) The impress of the seal is not necessary on documents passing within the Customs Service nor shall the seal be used in the manner of a notary seal to indicate authority to administer oaths.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   131
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     131
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,390
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                    (94,309)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       131
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,487
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,988)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,988)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

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

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-089 July 9, 2003

NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATE FOR KEWAUNEE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by the Nuclear Management

Co. to increase the generating capacity of the Kewaunee nuclear power plant by 1.4 percent. The

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

primarily through increased feedwater flow measurement accuracy.

The power uprate at the plant, located near Green Bay, Wisconsin, increases the

generating capacity of the plant from 550 to 557 megawatts electric. The licensee intends to

implement the uprate by the end of July.

The NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal

Register providing the public an opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or

hearing requests were received by the NRC.

 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 other

technical specification changes.

###
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00787

- CV

Helen HERRERA

, Appellant

v.

Julia MARTINEZ

, Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7296

Honorable Diana J. Bautista, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent

with this court’s opinion

.

It is ORDERED that appellant Helen Herrera recover her costs of this appeal from appellee

Julia Martinez.

SIGNED April 30, 2014.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
M14008

Part II, Section A.2 and A.3 – Industrial Sites Controlled by Submitter

Process Flow Diagram Page 1 of 1

 

Chemical CAS Weight (kg)

Poly(methylhydrogensiloxane), 63148-57-2 100

trimethylsiloxy-terminated

Tetramethyldisiloxane 3277-26-7 200

Trifluoromethanesulfonic acid 1493-13-6 0.3

PRODUCTION STEPS

 Charge raw materials to reaction vessel

 Heat to 80 °C for 8 hours

DRUM

50 kg Reaction Product

(CAS 4459-30-7)

CLEANOUT AND DISPOSAL

The process will be run in 2-batch campaigns, 4

times per year.

Filter solids and filter bag (1) will be sent for 

incineration. Expected to contain 0.1 kg PMN 

Intermediate M14008.

Empty drum (2) that contained M14008 will be 

rinsed with xylene and wash solution will also 

be sent for incineration.

Remainder of PMN Intermediate M14008 will 

be consumed in this reaction process so there 

will be no other exposure or release.

Chemical CAS Weight (kg)

Calcium Carbonate 471-34-1 0.2

Water 7732-18-5 0.02

PRODUCTION STEPS

 Charge raw materials to reaction vessel

 React for 30-60 minutes

1

PRODUCTION STEPS

 Fractional Distillation to separate “lights” 

from reaction mixture containing PMN 

Intermediate M14008

Fractional Distillation Lights

Recycled into next batch

Chemical CAS Weight (kg)

Hexamethyldisiloxane 107-46-0

Pentamethyldisiloxane 1438-82-0 100

Tetramethyldisiloxane 3277-26-7

Fractional Distillation Bottoms (PMN Intermediate 14008)

Recycled into next batch

Chemical CAS Weight (kg)

PMN Intermediate M14008 none 150

PRODUCTION STEPS

 Fractional distillation to separate PMN 

Intermediate M14008 from Reaction 

Product

 Intermediate M14008 is then filtered from 

reactor through a filter bag into a drum

1

2

CONFIDENTIAL
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 

re J.N., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5457.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-5457

IN RE J.N. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as In re J.N., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5457.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of In re D.S. 

(No. 2015-1977—Submitted July 13, 2016—Decided August 23, 2016.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 15AP-159, 2015-Ohio-4464. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of 

In re D.S., 146 Ohio St.3d 182, 2016-Ohio-1027, 54 N.E.3d 1184. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER, LANZINGER, and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent for the reasons stated in the 

dissenting opinion in In re D.S.

_________________ 

 Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine J. 

Press, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee, state of Ohio. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

 Yeura R. Venters, Franklin County Public Defender, and David L. Strait, 

Assistant Public Defender, for appellant, J.N. 

_________________
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****D.B. Cooper**
 
Parts: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |17
 
SuDoc:J 1.14/2:D 33
Item Number:0721 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000618621
 
November 2, 2017
#### J. Caples, Respondent, *v.*Louisville, Evansville *&*St. Louis Railway Company, Appellant.

March 17, 1885.

Common Carriers — Measure of Damages — Special Contract. — It is not error to exclude evidence of the value o‘f goods shipped at the point of their destination, where the freight contract provides that in case of loss the amount thereof shall be computed at the value of the goods at the time and place of their delivery.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Lubke, J.

*Affirmed with ten per cent, damages.*

*15Chas. F. Joy, for the appellant.

O. F. Hess, for the respondent.

Thompson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action against the defendant as a common carrier, for damages for failing to deliver a quantity of household goods placed in the defendant’s hands at New Albany, Indiana, for shipment to St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff had a verdict a,nd judgment.

The only ground on which we are asked to reverse the judgment is that the court refused to permit a witness for the defendant to testify as to the value of the goods at St. Louis, the place of their destination. It is clear that there was no error in this, because it was shown at the trial that the goods were shipped under a bill of lading which embodied a special contract, that, in the event of loss or damage to the goods, the amount of such loss or damage should be computed at the value or cost of the goods at the place and time of shipment.

■ We are asked, in affirming the judgment, to give ten per cent, damages for a frivolous appeal. The defendant no doubt acted faithfully in the execution of the duty it assumed towards the plaintiff of shipping his goods from New Albany to St. Louis. But the plaintiff’s wife, for reasons stated in her testimony, chose to ship them to him in the name of John Linch. She demanded them, representing herself as Mrs. Linch, and found another box of goods marked J. Linch, which on being opened was found to contain articles of little value.

The testimony tended to raise a suspicion that the plaintiff’s box had been delivered to the J. Linch, who was the consignee of this other box, through a mistake of the defendant’s agents ; but there was no definite evidence upon this point. It was mere conjecture.

The defendant had no real defense to the action. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the goods were worth $550.00 at New Albany. The bill of exceptions does not state what evidence the defendant adduced as to their value at that point, except that a witness for the defendant testified that they were worth less at New *16Albany than at St. Louis. The jury returned a verdict for four hundred dollars. There is nothing whatever in the record to justify the defendant in delaying the plaintiff in the fruits of his judgment by this appeal, and we think that, in the exercise of a proper discretion, we ought to affirm it with damages. It is accordingly ordered that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed with ten per cent, damages.

All the judges concur.