alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 5650]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2004-16944]


Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of an Order dated 
January 21, 2004, requiring American Airlines/American Eagle and United 
Airlines/United Express to limit total scheduled arriving and departing 
flights during certain hours at Chicago O'Hare International Airport 
(ORD), beginning no later than March 4, 2004, and continuing through 
September 1, 2004.
    Availability of Order: A copy of the FAA Order has been place din 
the Department of Transportation Docket (Docket No. FAA-2004-16944). 
The Docket Web site is http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorelei Peter, Senior Attorney, Office 
of the Chief Counsel, AGC-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: (202) 
267-3134.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 21, 2004, the FAA Administrator 
issued an Order requiring American Airlines/American Eagle and United 
Airlines/United Express to each reduce by five percent their total 
scheduled operations at ORD from 1 p.m. through 7:59 p.m. local time 
beginning no later than March 4, 2004, and continuing through September 
1, 2004. The schedule reduction was needed to decrease an unacceptable 
level of air traffic delays related to flights scheduled in excess of 
the airport's capacity.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 29, 2004.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division.
[FR Doc. 04-2444 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE

REFER TO: M050525A

May 25, 2005

MEMORANDUM FOR: Luis A. Reyes 

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION, 9:25 A.M.,

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2005, COMMISSIONERS'

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH,

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I. SECY-05-0061 - Final Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, "Freedom of

Information Act Regulations," and Subpart B, "Privacy Act Regulations"

The Commission approved a final rule amending 10 CFR Part 9, Subpart A, “Freedom of

Information Act Regulations,” and Subpart B, “Privacy Act Regulations.” 

The Federal Register notice should be reviewed by the Rules Review and Directives Branch in

the Office of Administration and forwarded to the Office of the Secretary for signature and

publication.

(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 6/17/05)

cc: Chairman Diaz 

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield 

Commissioner Jaczko 

Commissioner Lyons 

DOC

OGC

CFO

OCA

OIG

OPA

OCAA

Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

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

No. I-05-044 August 24, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC UPDATES PUBLIC ON LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS AT OYSTER CREEK

LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. – Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) officials say the renewal

of the Oyster Creek nuclear plant license hinges on whether the plant can be operated safely.

“We will only approve an additional 20 years of operation if the agency finds that the Lacey

Township plant can be operated safely through that period,” NRC Senior Project Manager for the

Oyster Creek license renewal review Johnny Eads said in remarks prepared for the evening meeting at

the Lacey Township High School.

Agency officials were scheduled to outline to the public plans for what they describe as a

thorough and comprehensive review that will be undertaken before any decision is made on whether to

approve a license renewal for the plant. 

An agency spokeswoman said the staff will describe the NRC’s review process, specifically the

safety review portion of the review. The staff also planned to explain how the public can participate in

the regulatory process. 

The current operating license for Oyster Creek expires on April 9, 2009. Last month, plant

owner Amergen submitted an application for the renewal of the license for up to an additional 20 years. 

The review process consists of four major components – a safety review, plant inspections, an

independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and an environmental review. 

Members of the public have numerous opportunities to participate in the process. The first is a

60-day opportunity to request a hearing. The onset of that period will be announced in a Federal

Register Notice, as well as a press release. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards also will

hold a meeting at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., to discuss the Safety Evaluation. That meeting

is open for public observation. Finally, any formal meeting held with the company, Amergen, during

the safety review process will be noticed and open to the public for observation.

Separately, as part of the environmental review, the NRC conducts a scoping meeting to collect

public comments to help define the scope of the environmental review. The public can also participate
in a public meeting to discuss the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Public Meeting

or provide comments via email or regular mail during the 75-day comment period. 

“The NRC considers public involvement in, and information about our activities to be a

cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the nuclear industry,” said Eads. 

The NRC review process is expected to take 22 months if there is no adjudicatory hearing and

30 months with a hearing. 

###
§ 293.103 Recordkeeping standards. ( a ) The head of each agency shall ensure that persons having access to or involved in the creation, development, processing, use, or maintenance of personnel records are informed of pertinent recordkeeping regulations and requirements of the Office of Personnel Management and the agency. Authority to maintain personnel records does not constitute authority to maintain information in the record merely because it may be useful; both Government-wide and internal agency personnel records shall contain only information concerning an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish the Federal personnel management purposes required by statute, Executive order, or Office regulation.
( b ) The Office is responsible for establishing minimum standards of accuracy, relevancy, necessity, timeliness, and completeness for personnel records it requires agencies to maintain. These standards are discussed in appropriate chapters of the Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping. Before approval of any agency requests for changes in recordkeeping practices governed by the Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping, the Office will examine the proposal or request in the context of such standards set forth by the agency in support of the proposal and in light of the personnel program area that requires these records.
[44 FR 65033, Nov. 9, 1979, as amended at 66 FR 66709, Dec. 27, 2001]
§ 1632.4 Meetings open to public observation. ( a ) Except as provided in § 1632.5 of this part, every portion of every meeting of the agency shall be open to public observation.
( b ) The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Board's implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1611, shall govern the availability to the public of copies of documents considered in connection with the Board's discussion of agenda items for a meeting that is open to public observation.
( c ) The annual Board meeting schedule will be maintained on *frtib.gov.* In addition, agency announcements of meetings open to public observation will be published in the Federal Register. Requests for announcements may be made by telephoning or by writing to the Office of External Affairs, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street NE, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002.
[53 FR 36777, Sept. 22, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 55331, Nov. 7, 1994; 77 FR 11384, Feb. 27, 2012; 85 FR 12432, Mar. 3, 2020]
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 14

- 00067

- CR

____________________

DAPHNE OCTAVIA SPURLOCK

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

_________________________________ ______________________

On A ppeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 13

- 12

- 13492 CR

________________________________________ ____ ____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Daphne Octavia Spurlock of injury to a child and

sentenced Spurlock to forty years in prison. Spurlock ’s appellate counsel filed a

brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes

Spurlock ’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967);

High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted a n extension

of time for Spurlock to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from

Spurlock . We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have2 independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree

that no a rguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on September 11, 2014

Opinion Delivered September 24, 2014

D o Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson , JJ.

1 Spurlock may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose Luis AGUIRRE-BURCIAGA, also known as Alex, Appellant.

No. 01-3582.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2002.

Filed May 20, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After a jury convicted Jose Luis Aguirre-Burciaga of conspiring to distribute and possessing with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (Supp. V 1999), the district court * sentenced him to 235 months in prison. Aguirre-Burciaga appeals his conviction and sentence.

Aguirre-Burciaga contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. Joseph Godina, a drug dealer turned FBI informant, testified he was present for more than a half dozen transactions when Aguirre-Burciaga sold large quantities of methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana (or some combination of them) to Alejandro Tarin, who was Godina’s primary supplier. Further, Godina testified he frequently helped Tarin repackage large quantities of drugs for resale and these large quantities were often wrapped in the same packaging as the drugs he saw Aguirre-Burciaga sell to Tarin. Additional witnesses provided further circumstantial evidence of Aguirre-Burciaga’s involvement in the drug dealing conspiracy. Aguirre-Burciaga, however, denied any involvement in drug dealing. Having reviewed the evidence de novo in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to convince a reasonable jury of Aguirre-Burciaga’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. Morar-Higuera,*269 F.3d 905, 910 (8th Cir.2001).

Aguirre-Burciaga also appeals his sentence, arguing the district court committed clear error when it applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (2001) after finding Aguirre-Burciaga obstructed justice by perjuring himself at trial. *See United States v. Hollingsworth,*257 F.3d 871, 879 (8th Cir.2001). Under oath, Aguirre-Burciaga denied involvement in any conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs. The jury rejected this argument through its verdict. During sentencing, the court stated Aguirre-Burciaga “clearly lied, in my opinion, and that’s why I am going to give him the two points.” (Tr. 688). We conclude the court did not commit clear error in applying an obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement under these circumstances.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm Aguirre-Burciaga’s conviction and sentence.

*

 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
### §3005. Number of authorized commissioned officers

#### (a) In general

The total number of authorized commissioned officers on the lineal list of the commissioned officer corps of the Administration shall not exceed 500.

#### (b) Positions of importance and responsibility

Officers serving in positions designated under section 3028 of this title and officers recalled from retired status or detailed to an agency other than the Administration—

(1) may not be counted in determining the total number of authorized officers on the lineal list under this section; and

(2) may not count against such number.

(Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §215, Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3084; Pub. L. 110–386, §6, Oct. 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 4108; Pub. L. 116–259, title I, §102(a), Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1155.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 853a of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 107–372.

#### Amendments

2020—Pub. L. 116–259 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to number of authorized commissioned officers effective Oct. 1, 2009.

2008—Pub. L. 110–386 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "There are authorized to be on the lineal list of the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—

"(1) 270 officers for fiscal year 2003;

"(2) 285 officers for fiscal year 2004; and

"(3) 299 officers for fiscal year 2005."
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document



	

 	 	Exhibit 4.38




news release  


  
 

    NORANDA CONFERENCE ON RATIONALIZING OF MAGNESIUM BUSINESS
  Call at 9:00 a.m.    



Toronto, Ontario, January 28, 2003 — To access the Noranda Inc. conference call to review the
rationalization of Noranda's Magnesium business unit, please call 416-641-6654 or via the internet at: 


www.noranda.com 


-30- 


Contact:

Dale Coffin

Manager, External Communications

Noranda Inc.

416-982-7161

dale.coffin@toronto.norfalc.com 









QuickLinks


NORANDA CONFERENCE ON RATIONALIZING OF MAGNESIUM BUSINESS Call at 9:00 a.m.
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. 03-111 September 3, 2003

NRC JUDGE TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL

IN ALLENTOWN, PENN., ON CFC LOGISTICS IRRADIATOR

An independent administrative judge from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hear

presentations Wednesday, September 10, in Allentown, Penn., from lawyers for organizations

supporting and challenging the license NRC Staff recently issued to CFC Logistics, Inc., for operation

of a cobalt-60 irradiator in Milford Township (Bucks County), Pa. The session is open to the public,

which is encouraged to attend as observers.

Counsel’s statements, known as “oral arguments,” will focus on whether the Judge, serving as

Presiding Officer over the proceeding, should grant the petition of a number of Milford Township

citizens for an evidentiary hearing on the validity of the license. Only counsel for the citizen

Petitioners, the NRC Staff and CFC Logistics will participate in the September 10 oral argument,

which will be held in Courtroom 1A on the second floor of the Historic Courthouse of the Lehigh

County Court of Common Pleas, located at 501 Hamilton Street, beginning at 5:30 and concluding by

8:00 p.m. Members of the public wishing to observe are urged to arrive early because of the security

precautions that will be taken.

The Presiding Officer for this case is Judge Michael C. Farrar, whose Special Assistant for

purposes of analyzing technical matters is Judge Charles N. Kelber, Ph.D. Questions to be argued, on

which the litigants have filed extensive written legal briefs, involve the “standing” of the Petitioners to

intervene in the proceeding and the “germaneness” of the areas of concern they have presented.

CFC Logistics filed its application for a license on February 25. The citizen Petitioners filed

their request for a hearing on June 23. Under NRC rules, the request for a hearing did not itself

prohibit granting of the license, which the NRC Staff issued on August 27. The citizen Petitioners

have indicated, however, that they will be filing a motion for a stay of the effectiveness of the license, 

and oral argument on that stay motion will also be heard on September 10.

 ###
### §1514. Administrative division of apportionments

(a) The official having administrative control of an appropriation available to the legislative branch, the judicial branch, the United States International Trade Commission, or the District of Columbia government, and, subject to the approval of the President, the head of each executive agency (except the Commission) shall prescribe by regulation a system of administrative control not inconsistent with accounting procedures prescribed under law. The system shall be designed to—

(1) restrict obligations or expenditures from each appropriation to the amount of apportionments or reapportionments of the appropriation; and

(2) enable the official or the head of the executive agency to fix responsibility for an obligation or expenditure exceeding an apportionment or reapportionment.

(b) To have a simplified system for administratively dividing appropriations, the head of each executive agency (except the Commission) shall work toward the objective of financing each operating unit, at the highest practical level, from not more than one administrative division for each appropriation affecting the unit.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 930.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1514(a) | 31:665(g)(2d sentence). | R.S. §3679(g)(2d sentence); Mar. 3, 1905, ch. 1484, §4(1st par.), 33 Stat. 1257; Feb. 27, 1906, ch. 510, §3, 34 Stat. 48; restated Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, §1211, 64 Stat. 767; Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1970, eff. July 1, 1970, §102(a), 84 Stat. 2085; Jan. 3, 1975, Pub. L. 93–618, §175(a)(2), 88 Stat. 2011. |
| 1514(b) | 31:665(g)(last sentence). | R.S. §3679(g)(last sentence); added Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 814, §3, 70 Stat. 783. |

In the section, the words "(except the Commission)" are added because the International Trade Commission is covered specifically by the source provisions restated in this section.

In subsection (a), the word "official" is substituted for "officer" for consistency in the revised title. The words "judicial branch" are substituted for "judiciary", and the words "District of Columbia government" are substituted for "District of Columbia", for consistency. The word "President" is substituted for "Director of the Office of Management and Budget" because sections 101 and 102(a) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970 (eff. July 1, 1970, 84 Stat. 2085) designated the Bureau of the Budget as the Office of Management and Budget and transferred all functions of the Bureau to the President.

In subsection (b), the words "dividing" and "division" are substituted for "subdivision" for consistency in the revised section. The word "appropriations" is substituted for "appropriations or funds" because of the definition of "appropriation" in section 1511 of the revised title.
### §3006. Obligated service requirement

#### (a) In general

#### (1) Regulations

The Secretary shall prescribe the obligated service requirements for appointments, training, promotions, separations, continuations, and retirements of officers not otherwise covered by law.

#### (2) Written agreements

The Secretary and officers shall enter into written agreements that describe the officers' obligated service requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) in return for such appointments, training, promotions, separations, continuations, and retirements as the Secretary considers appropriate.

#### (b) Repayment for failure to satisfy requirements

#### (1) In general

The Secretary may require an officer who fails to meet the service requirements prescribed under subsection (a)(1) to reimburse the Secretary in an amount that bears the same ratio to the total costs of the training provided to that officer by the Secretary as the unserved portion of active duty bears to the total period of active duty the officer agreed to serve.

#### (2) Obligation as debt to United States

An obligation to reimburse the Secretary under paragraph (1) is, for all purposes, a debt owed to the United States.

#### (3) Discharge in bankruptcy

A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less than five years after the termination of a written agreement entered into under subsection (a)(2) does not discharge the individual signing the agreement from a debt arising under such agreement.

#### (c) Waiver or suspension of compliance

The Secretary may waive the service obligation of an officer who—

(1) becomes unqualified to serve on active duty in the commissioned officer corps of the Administration because of a circumstance not within the control of that officer; or

(2) is—

(A) not physically qualified for appointment; and

(B) determined to be unqualified for service in the commissioned officer corps of the Administration because of a physical or medical condition that was not the result of the officer's own misconduct or grossly negligent conduct.

(Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §216, as added Pub. L. 116–259, title I, §103(a), Dec. 23, 2020, 134 Stat. 1155.)
§ 1631.13 Prepayment of fees over $250. ( a ) When the Board estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250.00, the Board may require a requester to make an advance payment of the entire fee before continuing to process the request.
( b ) When a requester has previously failed to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion (*i.e.,* within 30 calendar days of the date of the billing), the Board may require the requester to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest as provided in § 1631.14(d), and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the agency begins to process a new request or a pending request from that requester.
( c ) When the Board acts under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, the administrative time limits prescribed in subsection (a)(6) of the FOIA (*i.e.,* 20 working days from the receipt of initial requests and 20 working days from receipt of appeals from initial denial, plus permissible extensions of these time limits) will begin only after the Board has received fee payments under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
[55 FR 41052, Oct. 9, 1990, as amended at 63 FR 41709, Aug. 5, 1998]