alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **7 9**  **5 9** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appell ee ,
v. DARRELL S. MERRICKS , Defendant

– Appell ant .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1 : 06

- c r - 00 4 1 9

- LMB

- 1 )

Submitted : Febr uary 25 , 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before DUNCAN and A GEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirme d by un publi shed per curiam opinion
.
Darrell S. Merricks , Appellant Pro Se
. Edmund P. Power , Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrell S. Merricks ap peals the district court ’ s order denying his motion to recall the mandate . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Merricks , No. 1:06

- cr - 00419

- LMB

- 1 (E.D. Va . Oct. 8 , 2009)
. We deny Merricks’ motion for transcript at government expense. 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 decis ional
process.
AFFIRMED
§ 207.101 Reporting of prohibited act and commencement of investigation. ( a ) Any person who has information indicating that a prohibited act has been committed shall immediately report all pertinent facts relating thereto to the Commission Secretary.
( b ) Upon receipt, the Commission Secretary shall record the information, assign an investigation number, and forward all information he or she received to the Office of Unfair Import Investigations.
( c ) As expeditiously as possible, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations shall conduct an inquiry to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a person or persons have committed a prohibited act. At any time, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations may request that the Commission assign an administrative law judge to oversee the inquiry.
( d ) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Office of Unfair Import Investigations shall assess whether the available information is sufficient to provide reasonable cause to believe that a person or persons have committed a prohibited act.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1569-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1569-DR), dated October 7, 2004, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 27, 2004. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective September 27, 2004. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

Michael D. Brown, 

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 04-23911 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
#### § 202.4 Public hearing.

A public hearing will be held in connection with each full investigation to which this part 202 relates.
Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

Editorial Note on Part 351
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 351 appear at 89 FR 20832, Mar. 25, 2024.

§ 351.510 Indirect taxes and import charges (other than export programs). ( a ) *Benefit* — ( 1 ) *Exemption or remission of taxes.* In the case of a program, other than an export program, that provides for the full or partial exemption or remission of an indirect tax or an import charge, a benefit exists to the extent that the taxes or import charges paid by a firm as a result of the program are less than the taxes the firm would have paid in the absence of the program.
( 2 ) *Deferral of taxes.* In the case of a program, other than an export program, that provides for a deferral of indirect taxes or import charges, a benefit exists to the extent that appropriate interest charges are not collected. Normally, a deferral of indirect taxes or import charges will be treated as a government-provided loan in the amount of the taxes deferred, according to the methodology described in § 351.505. The Secretary will use a short-term interest rate as the benchmark for tax deferrals of one year or less. The Secretary will use a long-term interest rate as the benchmark for tax deferrals of more than one year.
( b ) *Time of receipt of benefit* — ( 1 ) *Exemption or remission of taxes.* In the case of a full or partial exemption or remission of an indirect tax or import charge, the Secretary normally will consider the benefit as having been received at the time the recipient firm otherwise would be required to pay the indirect tax or import charge.
( 2 ) *Deferral of taxes.* In the case of the deferral of an indirect tax or import charge of one year or less, the Secretary normally will consider the benefit as having been received on the date on which the deferred tax becomes due. In the case of a multi-year deferral, the Secretary normally will consider the benefit as having been received on the anniversary date(s) of the deferral.
( c ) *Allocation of benefit to a particular time period.* The Secretary normally will allocate (expense) the benefit of a full or partial exemption, remission, or deferral described in paragraph (a) of this section to the year in which the benefit is considered to have been received under paragraph (b) of this section.
#### § 177.24 By whom request is filed.

A request may be filed by an individual or organization listed in § 177.23 or by a duly authorized attorney or agent on behalf of the individual or organization. A request filed by a corporation shall be signed by a corporate officer, and a request filed by a partnership shall be signed by a partner.
#### Leroy Jerred, Respondent, v. Oswego Construction Company, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless the plaintiff shall, within twenty *936days, stipulate that the verdict may be reduced by the sum of $560, that is, to the sum of $4,440, as of the date of the rendition thereof, in "which event the judgment is modified accordingly, and as so modified is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Held, that while the question that there was no evidence to submit to the jury on the question of the plaintiff’s hospital bills was not raised by exception to the charge, the proof is absolutely deficient in that regard. All concurred.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-02-0175 - Denial of Petition For Rulemaking To Eliminate Review of Alternative Sites, Alternative Energy Sources, and Need for Power in Nuclear Power Reactor Siting and Licensing Reviews (PRM-52-2)

Accession Number: ML022200420

Date Released: Thursday, October 2, 2003

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML022200469 - SECY-02-0175 - Denial of Petition For Rulemaking to Eliminate Review of Alternative Sites, Alternative Energy Sources, and Need for Power in Nuclear Power Reactor Siting and Licensing Reviews (PRM-52-2) (7 page(s), 9/27/2002)
    - ML022200479 - SECY-02-0175-Attachment 1 - PRM-52-2, Nuclear Energy Institute - Federal Register Notice (25 page(s), 9/27/2002)
    - ML022200533 - SECY-02-0175-Attachment 2-Letter to R. W. Bishop, Esq., NEI, re: Petition For Rulemaking (PRM 52-2) Regarding Review of Alternative Sites, Need For Power, and Alternative Energy Sources in Nuclear Power Reactor Siting and Licensing Reviews (4 page(s), 9/27/2002)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### § 206.47 Limited disclosure of certain confidential business information under administrative protective order.

In an investigation under section 421(b) or (o) of the Trade Act, the Secretary shall make confidential business information available to authorized applicants, subject to the provisions of § 206.17.

[67 FR 8192, Feb. 22, 2002]
### Evolving issues and practices in managing ground-water resources: Case studies on the role of science

By: Devin L. Galloway**William M. AlleyPaul M. Barlow**Thomas E. ReillyPatrick Tucci

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1247

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Hydrologic stresses throughout the 20th century and presently (2003) have caused the depletion and degradation of our Nation’s vital ground-water resources in many areas. Management strategies have been and are being implemented to optimize use of our ground-water resources with respect to achieving sustainability while mitigating the consequences of future withdrawals. The seven case studies presented herein show how the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with local, State and other Federal agencies, as well as the private sector, have addressed some of the complexities of ground-water management using scientifically-based hydrologic studies and hydrologic monitoring. It is clear that the managed conjunctive use of our combined ground-water and surface-water supplies, and the artificial recharge of our ground-water systems present both challenges and opportunities. How well we manage these options depends upon best science practices, improved understanding of the resources, and the informed consensus of all stakeholders.
#### § 400.211 Lender responsibilities.

The Lender shall have such obligations and duties to the Board as are set forth in the Guarantee.

[65 FR 70294, Nov. 22, 2000]
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. 03-073 June 3, 2003

NRC STAFF APPROVES TRANSFER OF

OPERATING LICENSES FOR DIABLO CANYON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved the transfer of the operating

licenses for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, from Pacific Gas and

Electric Company (PG&E) to Electric Generation LLC and Diablo Canyon LLC.

As provided by NRC regulations, the staff’s approval of the license transfer became

effective on May 27, contingent on the licensee receiving certain regulatory and judicial

approvals. Diablo Canyon LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Electric Generation LLC, which

is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of PG&E Corporation, the current parent of the licensee.

On November 30, 2001, PG&E submitted an application to the NRC requesting approval

for the license transfer. The application was supplemented by letters submitted January 18, 2002,

and May 1, 2002. Major issues considered by the NRC included financial qualifications, transfer

and maintenance of accumulated decommissioning funds, and the licenses’ antitrust conditions,

which will not carry forward to the new licensees.

A copy of the NRC's approval order and accompanying safety evaluation report will be

placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, 

Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852 (telephone 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737) and added

to the Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which is available

on the NRC’s Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html . 

The transfer’s ADAMS accession number is ML031350218. Help in using ADAMS is available

by calling the Public Document Room.

###
### §61e–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 61e–1 was editorially reclassified as section 6594 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1533 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1533

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
   To amend the securities laws to permit church pension plans to be 
                     invested in collective trusts.

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

SECTION 1. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS FOR CHURCH PLAN PARTICIPATION IN 
              COLLECTIVE FUNDS.

    (a) Amendment to the Investment Company Act of 1940.--Section 
3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(11)) 
is amended by striking ``such trusts or government plans, or both'' and 
inserting ``one or more of such trusts, government plans, or church 
plans, companies or accounts that are excluded from the definition of 
an investment company under paragraph (14) of this subsection''.
    (b) Amendments to the Securities Act of 1933.--Section 3(a)(2) of 
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77c(a)(2)) is amended--
        (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (B); and
        (2) by striking ``other than any plan described in clause (A), 
    (B), or (C)'' and inserting the following: ``or (D) a church plan, 
    company, or account that is excluded from the definition of an 
    investment company under section 3(c)(14) of the Investment Company 
    Act of 1940, other than any plan described in subparagraph (A), 
    (B), (C), or (D)''.
    (c) Amendments to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.--
        (1) Section 3(a)(12)(C) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
    (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(12)(C)) is amended--
            (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii); and
            (B) by inserting before ``other than any plan described in 
        clause (i)'' the following: ``or (iv) a church plan, company, 
        or account that is excluded from the definition of an 
        investment company under section 3(c)(14) of the Investment 
        Company Act of 1940,''.
        (2) Section 12(g)(2)(H) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
    (15 U.S.C. 78l(g)(2)(H)) is amended--
            (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i); and
            (B) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``, or (iii) a church plan, company, or account that 
        is excluded from the definition of an investment company under 
        section 3(c)(14) of the Investment Company Act of 1940''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 145.21 Administrative review.

Requests for adjustment of the amount of duty assessed under mail entries shall be handled as requests for administrative review in accordance with this subpart.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62433-62434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23884]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

APPALACHIAN STATES LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION


Annual Meeting

    Time and Date: 10 a.m.-12 p.m. November 3, 2004.
    Place: Harrisburg Hilton and Towers, One North Second Street, 
Harrisburg, PA 17101.
    Status: Most of the meeting will be open to the public. If there is 
a need for an executive session (closed to the public), it will be held 
at about 9:30 a.m.
    Matters To Be Considered:
    Portions Open to the Public: The primary purpose of this meeting is 
to (1) Review the independent auditors' report of Commission's 
financial statements for fiscal year 2003-2004; (2) Review the

[[Page 62434]]

Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) generation information for 2003; (3) 
Consider a proposed budget for fiscal year 2005-2006; (4) Review recent 
national developments regarding LLRW management and disposal; and (5) 
Elect the Commission's Officers.
    Portions Closed to the Public: Executive Session, if deemed 
necessary, will be held at about 9:30 a.m.
    Contact for Further Information: Richard R. Janati, Pennsylvania 
Staff member on the Commission, at (717) 787-2163.

Richard R. Janati,
PA Staff Member on the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-23884 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 0000-00-P
p.1 

OAR Box 1313 

Prepped by LaTeia Shed 

Document Number: 

56) ll-B-30 

Docket Number: 

A-88-02 

Printed 6/12/2008 9:03:29 AM Sheet 56 of 99 
P.2 

A-88-02 

Information on health or risk assessment was removed from the 

docket. This information was compiled before the Clean Air 

Act Amendments (1990) but was not used in the development of 

the chromium NESHAP.
§ 1215.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This regulation provides procedures for the collection by administrative offset of a Federal employee's salary without his/her consent to satisfy certain debts owed to the Federal Government. These regulations apply to all Federal employees who owe debts to the MSPB and to current employees of the MSPB who owe debts to other Federal agencies. This regulation does not apply when the employee consents to recovery from his/her current pay account.
( b ) This regulation does not apply to debts or claims arising under: ( 1 ) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.;*
( 2 ) The Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 *et seq.;*
( 3 ) The tariff laws of the United States; or
( 4 ) Any case where a collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute.
( c ) This regulation does not apply to any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's selection of coverage or a change in coverage under a Federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less.
( d ) This regulation does not preclude the compromise, suspension, or termination of collection action where appropriate under the standards implementing the Federal Claims Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq.* 4 CFR parts 101 through 105; 5 CFR part 1215.
( e ) This regulation does not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of an overpayment under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774 or 32 U.S.C. 716 or in any way questioning the amount of validity of the debt by submitting a subsequent claim to the General Accounting Office. This regulation does not preclude an employee from requesting a waiver pursuant to other statutory provisions applicable to the particular debt being collected.
( f ) Matters not addressed in these regulations should be reviewed in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards at 4 CFR 101.1 *et seq.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel PEREZ-MEDINA, aka, Omar, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-50684.

D.C. No. CR-00-00906-TJW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Perez-Medina appeals his 52-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).1 We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We review for clear error the factual findings underlying a district court’s determination of what constitutes relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. *United States v. Whitecotton,*142 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1998). The quantity of drugs used to determine a sentence must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. *Id.*

Perez-Medina contends that the district court erred by basing its sentencing decision on an overly inclusive determination of relevant conduct. According to Perez-Medina, the district court should have rested its determination of his base offense level solely on the quantity of cocaine involved in the count to which he pled guilty. Instead, he contends, the district court improperly considered as relevant conduct (1) a distribution count against him to which he did not plead guilty, and (2) a distribution count solely against his co-defendant.

*619In imposing a sentence, a district court may consider conduct underlying counts that have been dismissed or with which the defendant was not charged. *United States v. Fine,*975 F.2d 596, 600 (9th Cir.1992) (en banc). The presentence report here described a series of cocaine sales of specified quantities by Perez-Medina and his co-defendant to undercover law enforcement agents. Because Perez-Medina made no factual challenge to the presentence report, the district court did not err by relying on it to determine Perez-Medina’s base offense level. *See*U.S.S.G. § IB 1.3(a) (providing that defendant is accountable for all relevant conduct, including “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity”); *Fine,*975 F.2d at 599, 601 (affirming sentence based on relevant conduct that included dismissed counts, where the district court relied on unchallenged offense summary in the presentence report).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Perez-Medina also pled guilty to one count of being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He does not appeal his conviction or sentence following his guilty plea to that offense.
#### Joseph Neustadt, Respondent, v. Jamaica Estates and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Edward E. Dean and Others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.'