alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 149.1 Definitions. ( a ) *Importer Security Filing Importer.* For purposes of this part, Importer Security Filing (ISF) Importer means the party causing goods to arrive within the limits of a port in the United States by vessel. For shipments other than foreign cargo remaining on board (FROB), the ISF Importer will be the goods' owner, purchaser, consignee, or agent such as a licensed customs broker. For immediate exportation (IE) and transportation and exportation (T&E) in-bond shipments, and goods to be delivered to a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ), the ISF Importer may also be the party filing the IE, T&E, or FTZ documentation. For FROB cargo, the ISF Importer will be the carrier or the non-vessel operating common carrier. For the purposes of this part the United States Postal Service is not an ISF Importer. Regulations related to the transmittal of advance electronic information for inbound international mail shipments are set forth in § 145.74 of this chapter.
( b ) *Importation.* For purposes of this part, “importation” means the point at which cargo arrives within the limits of a port in the United States.
( c ) *Bulk cargo.* For purposes of this part, “bulk cargo” is defined as homogeneous cargo that is stowed loose in the hold and is not enclosed in any container such as a box, bale, bag, cask, or the like. Such cargo is also described as bulk freight. Specifically, bulk cargo is composed of either: ( 1 ) Free flowing articles such as oil, grain, coal, ore, and the like, which can be pumped or run through a chute or handled by dumping; or
( 2 ) Articles that require mechanical handling such as bricks, pig iron, lumber, steel beams, and the like.
( d ) *Break bulk cargo.* For purposes of this part, “break bulk cargo” is defined as cargo that is not containerized, but which is otherwise packaged or bundled.
[CBP Dec. 08-46, 73 FR 71782, Nov. 25, 2008, as amended by USCBP-2016-0040, 83 FR 15740, Apr. 12, 2018; CBP Dec. 21-04, 86 FR 14279, Mar. 15, 2021]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 63572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Pub. L. 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the Advisory 
Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials will be held on November 30--
December 1, 2004, at the Veterans Affairs Central Office, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be held in conference 
room 530. On November 30, 2004, the meeting will begin at 8 a.m. and 
conclude at approximately 4 p.m. On December 1, 2004, the meeting will 
begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at approximately 4:30 p.m. The meeting is 
open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on the administration of national cemeteries, soldiers' lots 
and plots, the selection of new national cemetery sites, the erection 
of appropriate memorials, and the adequacy of Federal burial benefits. 
The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding 
these activities.
    On November 30, 2004, the Committee will receive updates on the 
following: recommendations from the previous meeting; National Cemetery 
Administration (NCA) issues; field operations; Memorial programs; the 
Fiscal Year 2005 budget; construction; and the State Cemetery Grants 
Program. In the afternoon, the Committee will visit the World War II 
Memorial and lay a wreath. On December 1, 2004, the Committee will 
reconvene for the following: Multiple briefings on NCA outreach 
initiatives; the business session; discussions of any unfinished 
business and recommendations for future programs, meeting sites, and 
agenda topics.
    Time will not be allocated for receiving oral presentations from 
the public. Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting is 
requested to contact Mr. Timothy Boulay, Designated Federal Officer, at 
(202) 273-5204. The Committee will accept written comments. Comments 
can be transmitted electronically to the Committee at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4115282c2e3529386f032e342d2038012c20282d6f37206f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ebbf8286849f8392c5a9849e878a92ab868a8287c59d8ac58c849d">[email protected]</span></a> or mailed to the National Cemetery 
Administration (41C2), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. 
In the public's communications with the Committee, the writers must 
identify themselves and state the organizations, associations, or 
persons they represent.

    Dated: October 26, 2004.

    By direction of the Secretary.
E. Phillip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-24402 Filed 11-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

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

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

No. 05-068 April 19, 2005

NRC ADOPTS MODEL MILESTONES TO INCREASE FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY 

OF ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations on the conduct of adjudicatory

hearings to establish “model milestones” for presiding officers to use in scheduling and managing

hearings.

The model milestones, set out in a final rule to be published shortly in the Federal Register, are

designed to ensure the fairness, predictability and efficiency of the NRC’s adjudicatory hearing

process. They will provide the presiding officer with a starting point for developing a hearing schedule

while preserving flexibility to adjust the schedule to the specific requirements of each proceeding. The

milestones are largely based upon time requirements set out in NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 2, as

amended in January 2004.

The final rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

###
#### Ray MEDINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. HALL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-17079.

D.C. No. CV-99-05292-AWI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

*657Before FERNANDEZ, RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ray Medina, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison personnel alleging retaliation, denial of due process, and excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review entry of summary judgment de novo. *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Medina’s claims of retaliation, because he failed to show his punishment constituted an atypical or significant hardship, or that his ability to seek redress was chilled or infringed. *See Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 448-49 (9th Cir.2000).

The district court rejected Medina’s due process claim under the doctrine of *Heck v. Humphrey,*512 U.S. 477, 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Medina’s allegation that he was denied procedural due process because of his placement in administrative segregation does not appear to implicate the lawfulness of his release date, and therefore would not be barred by *Heck. Cf. Edwards v. Balisok,*520 U.S. 641, 646, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997). However, Medina does not state a cognizable due process claim under section 1983 because administrative segregation of convicted prisoners does not implicate any protected liberty interest. *Resnick,*213 F.3d at 449.

Medina’s Eighth Amendment contention regarding excessive force has merit. In finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the force used against Medina, the district court did not properly consider the allegations in Medina’s complaint apparently because of its belief that the complaint was not verified. The court should have considered the complaint because Medina incorporated it in his sworn opposition to summary judgment. *See*Fed. R.Civ.P. 10(c); *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1132 n. 14 (9th Cir.2000) (holding verified complaint serves as affidavit for summary judgment purposes). Medina’s complaint creates genuine issues of material fact as to his allegations of wanton and unnecessary force. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Appellees’ Motion for Judicial Notice is granted.

Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

**

 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.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-14-0000509 28-FEB-2018 12:36 PM
### §74a–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 74a–3 was editorially reclassified as section 5141 of this title.
#### § 207.18 Notice of preliminary determination.

Whenever the Commission makes a preliminary determination, the Secretary shall serve copies of the determination and a public version of the staff report on the petitioner, other parties to the investigation, and the administering authority. The Secretary shall publish a notice of such determination in the Federal Register. If the Commission's determination is negative, or that imports are negligible, the investigation shall be terminated. If the Commission's determination is affirmative, the notice shall announce commencement of the final phase of the investigation.

[61 FR 37832, July 22, 1996]
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04170

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

04170\04170_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 04170\04170_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04170\04170_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04170\04170_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04170\04170_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04170\04170_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04170\4170_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04170\Certification Statement Plant ID 04170.jpg Plant certification statement

04170\Supplemental Documents\04170_TES Filer City Station_Site Map.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04170\Supplemental Documents\04170_TES Filer City Station_Water Balance WB-1.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### § 2604.101 Purpose.

This part contains the regulations of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended. It describes how any person may obtain records from OGE under the FOIA. It also implements section 105(b)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Ethics Act), as amended, which authorizes an agency to charge reasonable fees to cover the cost of reproduction and mailing of public financial disclosure reports requested by any person.
#### Skeele Coal Company, Respondent, *v.*Charles T. Baker, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 23d day of January, 1915, denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Hotchkiss, J., dissented.

Hotchkiss, J. (dissenting):

I dissent. The contract of the government was with defendant, and neither the contract nor any interest therein was assignable, nor could any lien be imposed thereon by any agreement between the parties. *(National Bank of Commerce*v. *Downie,*218 U. S. 345; *Nutt*v. Knut, 200 id. 12.) The warrants when received by defendant must necessarily have been received in his own right and as his property. The agreement to deliver the government warrants to plaintiff was no more than an executory promise, the breach of which was not a fraud.
### §1302c. Small publicly owned treatment works efficiency grant program

#### (a) Establishment

Subject to the availability of appropriations, not later than 180 days after November 15, 2021, the Administrator shall establish an efficiency grant program (referred to in this section as the "efficiency grant program") under which the Administrator shall award grants to eligible entities for the replacement or repair of equipment that improves water or energy efficiency of small publicly owned treatment works, as identified in an efficiency audit.

#### (b) Eligible entities

The Administrator may award a grant under the efficiency grant program to—

(1) an owner or operator of a small publicly owned treatment works that serves—

(A) a population of not more than 10,000 people; or

(B) a disadvantaged community; or

(2) a nonprofit organization that seeks to assist a small publicly owned treatment works described in paragraph (1) to carry out the activities described in subsection (a).

#### (c) Report

Not later than 2 years after the date on which the Administrator establishes the efficiency grant program, and every 2 years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report describing—

(1) each recipient of a grant under the efficiency grant program; and

(2) a summary of the activities carried out under the efficiency grant program.

#### (d) Use of funds

#### (1) Small systems

Of the amounts made available for grants under this section, to the extent that there are sufficient applications, not less than 15 percent shall be used for grants to publicly owned treatment works that serve fewer than 3,300 people.

#### (2) Limitation on use of funds

Of the amounts made available for grants under this section, not more than 2 percent may be used to pay the administrative costs of the Administrator.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title II, §225, as added Pub. L. 117–58, div. E, title II, §50207, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1165.)
§ 185.118 Rights of parties. Except as otherwise limited by this part, all parties may: ( a ) Be accompanied, represented, and advised by a representative;
( b ) Participate in any conference held by the ALJ;
( c ) Conduct discovery as provided under § 185.122;
( d ) Agree to stipulations of fact or law, which shall be made a part of the record;
( e ) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( f ) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
( g ) Present oral arguments at the hearing as permitted by the ALJ; and
( h ) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing.
### §1307. Public building construction

Amounts appropriated to construct public buildings remain available until completion of the work. When a building is completed and outstanding liabilities for the construction are paid, balances remaining shall revert immediately to the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 918.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1307 | 31:682. | June 23, 1874, ch. 476, §1, 18 Stat. 275. |

The words before the proviso in the Act of June 23, 1874 (ch. 476, 18 Stat. 275), are omitted as obsolete.
### §1108. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this subchapter, but sums appropriated for any one fiscal year shall not exceed $1,200,000.

(Pub. L. 89–454, title I, §9, June 17, 1966, 80 Stat. 208; Pub. L. 89–688, §2(b), Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 1001; Pub. L. 91–15, §2, May 23, 1969, 83 Stat. 10.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1969—Pub. L. 91–15 substituted "$1,200,000" for "$1,500,000".

1966—Pub. L. 89–688 substituted "this title" for "this Act", which, for purposes of codification, has been changed to "this subchapter".
No. 13,224.

#### Sharer *v.*The People.

(22 P. [2d] 415)

Decided April 24, 1933.

Rehearing denied May 29, 1933.

Mr. Prentiss E. Rowe, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Paul P. Prosser, Attorney General, Mr. Oliver Dean, Assistant, for the people.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

*548The defendant, plaintiff in error here, was found guilty of forgery. He was- sentenced to the penitentiary. The assignments of error and the briefs in support of them ask us to- reverse the judgment because of what are claimed to be prejudicial errors committed by the trial court. However, it will not be necessary to consider any of these alleg-ed errors. The point decisive of this case appears on the face of the- record. People’s exhibit D is a photostatic copy of the check set out in the information as follows:

“Colorado Springs, Colorado, 3/24/1927 No. 784

The Dollar Building and Loan Association Pay to the Order of Fred G-. Forbes $300.00

Exactly Three Hundred Dollars No Cents Dollars The Dollar Building and Loan Association Colorado Springs National Bank)

Colorado Springs, Colorado )

By E. C. Sharer President Treasurer”

People’s exhibit C is a photostatic copy of what appears to be the reverse side of a check. The original check, of which exhibit D is a copy, was not before the court. Witnesses for the people- testified positively that exhibit C correctly represents the reverse side of the check represented by exhibit D. Inasmuch as the endorsement “Fred GL Forbes” on exhibit C is the signature which the defendant is charged with forging on the back of the check whose face is pictured in exhibit D, and in fact the only endorsement upon which the evidence of either lay or expert witnesses was based at the trial, it is plain that, if exhibit C is not the reverse side of exhibit D as claimed by the people, the conviction must be set aside. An inspection of exhibits C and D reveals on each the existence of the usual perforation showing the date of payment at the bank. The perforation on exhibit C is “Paid 3-19-27,” reversed; the perforation on exhibit D is “Paid 3-26-27.” Furthermore, exhibit D *549is dated March 24, 1927, five days after exhibit C purports by its perforation to have been paid. It is obvious that exhibits C and D could not constitute one single check.

The judgment is reversed.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-05-0052 - Proposed Rulemaking for "Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical Requirements"

Accession Number: ML050480172

Date Released: Wednesday, April 13, 2005

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.
    - ML050480155 - SECY-05-0052 - Proposed Rulemaking for "Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical Requirements" (9 page(s), 3/29/2005)
    - ML050480160 - SECY-05-0052-Attachment 1 - FRN 50.46 - Proposed Rule on Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical Requirements (35 page(s), 3/29/2005)
    - ML050480169 - SECY-05-0052-Attachment 2-Reg. Analysis - Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant Accident Technical Requirements (34 page(s), 3/29/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
450 P.2d 634

#### John Lee SELLERS, Petitioner, v. J. E. BAKER, Warden of the New Mexico State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. 8797.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 27, 1969.

NOBLE, Chief Justice, and MOISE, COMPTON, CARMODY and TACKETT, Justices, concurring.

This cause coming on for hearing upon the Writ of Habeas Corpus heretofore issued by this Court, the Petitioner John Lee Sellers being present and represented by Joseph A. Roberts, an attorney appointed to represent him, and J. E. Baker, Warden qf the State Penitentiary, being represented by Hon. Carl B. Dunifon, and Hon. Larry N. Smith, Assistant Attorneys General, and'the Court having considered the evidence and heard arguments of counsel, and it appearing to the Court that the Writ of Habeas Corpus should be discharged as improvidently issued under the applicable rules as announced in Ex Parte Dalton, 56 N.M. 407, 244 P.2d 790; State v. Currier, 86 Ariz. 394, 347 P.2d 29; and Ex Parte Powers (Tex.Cr.App.), 391 S.W.2d 413.

Therefore ordered that the Writ of Habeas Corpus heretofore issued in the above entitled cause be and the same is hereby discharged as improvidently issued.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                  Exhibit 99.1










<PAGE>   2


                        IMC HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1997-5

                              Officer's Certificate




In connection with the above-referenced trust and pursuant to Section 8.16 of
the related Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("Agreement"), IMC Mortgage Company
(as "Servicer"), hereby confirms the following:

(i) a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1997 and of performance
under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement for the calendar year 1997.



                                        IMC Mortgage Company


                                        By:  /s/ Thomas G. Middleton
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Thomas G. Middleton
                                            President & Chief Operating Officer
Motion Granted, Appeal Reinstated, Appeal Dismissed, and Memorandum 

Opinion filed June 1, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00078-CV

MINAZ HASSANALI AND WESTMONT HOSPITALITY GROUP, 

Appellants

V.

MAHENDRA KAPADIA AND WESTCHASE INTERESTS, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-51498

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration 

signed January 13, 2022. On May 18, 2023, appellants filed a motion to dismiss 

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion is granted.

We reinstate the appeal and dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Poissant.