alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 10400.9 Extension of time. ( a ) In unusual circumstances, IPEC may extend the time limits prescribed in §§ 10400.7 and 10400.8 by written notice to the FOIA requester. The notice will state the reasons for the extension.
( b ) The phrase “unusual circumstances” means: ( 1 ) The requested records are located in establishments that are separated from the office processing the request;
( 2 ) A single request seeks a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records; or
( 3 ) Another agency has a substantial interest in the determination of the request.
( c ) Whenever IPEC cannot meet the 20 working-day time limit under § 10400.7 for processing a request because of “unusual circumstances,” and IPEC extends the time limit on that basis, IPEC shall promptly notify the requester (before the expiration of the 20 working-day period) in writing of the unusual circumstances involved, that an extension of 10 working days has been made, and of the date by which IPEC estimates that it will complete the processing of the request (if completion is not estimated to occur within the 10 working-day extension period). For those requests for which the extension exceeds 10 working days, IPEC will provide the requester an opportunity to modify the request (so that it may be processed within an extension of 10 working days) or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request. IPEC will make available its designated FOIA contact or its FOIA Public Liaison for this purpose. IPEC will also alert requesters to the availability of the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to provide dispute resolution services.
July 9 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GARY WAYNE BRYAN , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 0042 4

- CR V. NO. 14

- 12

- 00425

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________

Th ese cause s w ere heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment s

. The C ourt orders the judgment s AFFIRMED , and that this decision be certified below for observance.
### §117d–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117d–1 was editorially reclassified as section 6627 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 241 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27192]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES:  Date of required notice: December 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 11, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service 
Contract 91 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2019-46, CP2019-49.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-27192 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 10.3


                            U.S. WIRELESS DATA, Inc.
                             NOTE PAYABLE EXTENTION


This  agreement  is entered  into and agreed upon as of January 1, 1999  between
U.S. Wireless Data, Inc. ("USWD"), and Chuck Burtzloff.

WHEREAS,  Chuck Burtzloff has provided  provide bridge financing to USWD under a
Notes Payable for $500,000 dated October 28, 1998.

THEREFORE, Chuck Burtzloff agrees to:

1)       Extend the due date of the Note Payable to March 1, 1999.


2)       All other terms of the Note  Payable  remain in effect as  specified in
         the Note Payable agreement.



U.S. Wireless Data, Inc.

/s/ Robert E. Robichaud                     /s/ Chuck Burtzloff
-------------------------                   ---------------------
By Robert E. Robichaud                      By Chuck Burtzloff
Chief Financial Officer
(May 16, 1949.)

#### Charles A. Brewer et al., v. Bendix Aviation Corporation et al.

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 802.]
#### § 2429.13 Official time for witnesses.

If the participation of any employee in any phase of any proceeding before the Authority, including the investigation of unfair labor practice charges and representation petitions and the participation in hearings and representation elections, is deemed necessary by the Authority, the General Counsel, any Administrative Law Judge, Regional Director, Hearing Officer, or other agent of the Authority designated by the Authority, the employee shall be granted official time for such participation, including necessary travel time, as occurs during the employee's regular work hours and when the employee would otherwise be in a work or paid leave status.

[62 FR 40923, July 31, 1997]
### §1513. Public access to information

#### (a) Inspection of copies; reproduction costs; protected information

Copies of any communication, document, report, or information transmitted between any official of the Federal Government and any person concerning a deepwater port (other than contracts referred to in section 1504(c)(2)(B) of this title) shall be made available to the public for inspection, and shall be available for the purpose of reproduction at a reasonable cost, to the public upon identifiable request, unless such information may not be publicly released under the terms of subsection (b) of this section. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, nothing contained in this section shall be construed to require the release of any information of the kind described in subsection (b) of section 552 of title 5 or which is otherwise protected by law from disclosure to the public.

#### (b) Information disclosure prohibition; confidentiality of certain disclosures

The Secretary shall not disclose information obtained by him under this chapter that concerns or relates to a trade secret, referred to in section 1905 of title 18, or to a contract referred to in section 1504(c)(2)(B) of this title, except that such information may be disclosed, in a manner which is designed to maintain confidentiality—

(1) to other Federal and adjacent coastal State government departments and agencies for official use, upon request;

(2) to any committee of Congress having jurisdiction over the subject matter to which the information relates, upon request;

(3) to any person in any judicial proceeding, under a court order formulated to preserve such confidentiality without impairing the proceedings; and

(4) to the public in order to protect health and safety, after notice and opportunity for comment in writing or for discussion in closed session within fifteen days by the party to which the information pertains (if the delay resulting from such notice and opportunity for comment would not be detrimental to the public health and safety).

(Pub. L. 93–627, §14, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2139.)
#### Illinois Cent. R. Co., Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee.

Nov. 13, 1945.

Wheeler & Shelbourne for appellant.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and Emmet V. Mittlebeeler, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

Reversing.

Appellant was indicted, convicted, and fined $100 and costs, for violating the provisions of KRS 118.340. With the exception of the names of the employer and employee, and the amount of wages deducted, the indictment and facts are identical with those in the case of International Shoe Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 300 Ky. 806, 190 S. W. 2d 553. Consonant with the reasoning contained in that opinion, the judgment is reversed for proceedings not inconsistent therewith. All questions not discussed in the opinion above cited are specifically reserved.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (30,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    231,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,000
<PP&E>                                         1,348,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 644,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,518,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,196,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    789,000
<COMMON>                                       17,331,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (20,741,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,518,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               261,000
<CGS>                                          240,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,134,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             448,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,321,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,321,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,321,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7364** 

HERBERT ALONZO ROBINSON, formerly SCDC #211603, #143203, #27925 , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. GINA JARRELL, Nurse, all in their individual capacities; ROSITA R. THOMAS, Nurse, all in their individual capacities; PAMELA C. DERRICK, Nurse, all in their individual capacities; MR. ROWE, Commissary Personnel, all in their individual capacities; JOHN AND JANE DOES, all in their individual capacitie s , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 8:13

- cv
- 02321

- RBH )

Submitted : January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Herbert Alonzo Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Trey M. Nicolette, Michael Charles Tanner, MICHAEL C. TANNER LAW OFFICE, Bamberg, South Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 P ER CURIAM:
Herbert Alonzo Robinson appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Robinson v. Jarrell , No. 8:13

- cv
- 02321

- RBH (D.S.C.
Aug. 20, 2014) . We dispen se with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

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

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

No. 04-103 September 1, 2004

NRC STAFF ISSUES GENERIC LETTER ON NUCLEAR

POWER PLANT STEAM GENERATOR INSPECTIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has asked all operators of pressurized-water reactors

(PWR) for information on how they conduct inspections of the tubes inside the reactors’ steam

generators.

Steam generators are the portion of a PWR where water heated by the reactor core travels

through thousands of small tubes to transfer heat to a separate water system, creating the steam that

drives turbines to generate electricity. Operating experience has shown steam generator tubes can

degrade over time, and an NRC review of prior inspections raises the question of whether the

inspections have properly examined the tubes.

“Steam generator tubes are an important part of the barrier systems that isolate radioactive

contamination from the environment,” said Bruce Boger, Director of the Division of Inspection

Program Management in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “The responses to this

request will allow us to determine whether the plants’ inspections are adequately detecting any flaws

developing in the tubes.”

The request is being made in a Generic Letter, which is one of several methods the NRC has for

communicating with the nuclear industry, and has four main objectives:

1) Alert addressees that the NRC’s interpretation of tube inspection requirements raises

questions as to whether all current inspection methods ensure the requirements are met;

2) Request a description of current inspections and an assessment of whether they meet current

requirements;

3) Request that licensees propose plans for coming into compliance if they conclude their plans

are not currently in compliance, and;

4) Request a tube structural and leakage integrity safety assessment that addresses differences

between a plant’s practices and the NRC’s position.

Licensees have 60 days to respond to the request. A draft letter was published for comment in

the Federal Register on May 14, 2003, and responses were incorporated into the final document. The

NRC’s Committee for the Review of Generic Requirements reviewed the Generic Letter in June 2004.
The Generic Letter will be available electronically on the NRC’s web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/gen-letters/ .

(Note to Editors: This issue is entirely unrelated to the recent accident at the Mihama nuclear power

plant in western Japan.)

###
#### Blanche B. Bice, as Administratrix of the Estate of Frank H. Bice, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent. Gerald M. Bogardus, as Administrator of the Estate of Donald H. Bogardus, Deceased, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 30813.)

(Claim No. 30814.)

Appeals by the claimants from judgments of the Court of Claims, entered November 26, 1951, dismissing the claims in two death eases. The two decedents were last seen alive shortly before they started upon an automobile ride on a State highway paralleling the Oswegatehie River. Several weeks later, the automobile and the bodies of two decedents were found in the river. No one knows the circumstances under which the automobile left the highway. The only claim of negligence is that there was no guardrail between the highway and the bank of the river. The road was level and straight in the vicinity of the apparent accident; there was no showing of any special danger which required the erection of a guardrail. Furthermore, the claimants’ theory was entirely speculative; there was no evidence that the absence of a guardrail was one of the proximate causes of the accident. Judgments unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
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. 05-087 June 2, 2005

NRC REVISES REGULATIONS ON ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is changing its regulations to expand the categories of

persons who may seek access to classified information associated with NRC-regulated activities, as

well as the categories of facilities that may be authorized to store such information. The effective date

will be July 5, 2005. 

An initial version of the revised regulations was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 15,

2004, with an effective date of Feb. 28, 2005. The NRC indicated that if significant adverse comments

were received, the revisions would be withdrawn. Since at least one significant comment was received,

the agency withdrew the rule on Feb. 24 to consider the comments, which were contained in a letter

from a group of seven national environmental and public interest organizations.

The comments dealt primarily with concerns over how the rule would affect members of the

public, including environmental and public interest organizations, that plan to seek to intervene in the

expected Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding. As explained in a Federal Register notice published

today, the rulemaking will broaden the scope of the regulations so that potential intervenors, such as

the environmental and public interest organizations that commented, can seek access authorizations

and facility security clearances. The revisions to the regulations do not affect how information is

classified and do not expand the scope of information that can only be obtained by those with access

authorizations.

The revisions will allow the agency to process any requests for security clearances from

(1) potential intervenors in a hearing for a potential high-level radioactive waste repository and

(2) advanced reactor design vendors. 

Before access authorization to classified information is granted, a satisfactory background

investigation must be completed, and the individual will be informed that unauthorized disclosure of

classified information could result in civil or criminal penalties. A person seeking access to classified

information must, in addition to having a security clearance, have a need to know the particular

information being sought. 

The amendments also extend the regulations on facility security clearances. Current regulations

permit persons and companies associated with NRC-regulated reactors, fuel cycle facilities and

independent spent fuel storage installations to seek a facility security clearance to use, store, reproduce,

transmit, transport or handle NRC classified information. The changes allow persons associated with
other activities designated by the Commission (such as advanced reactor design vendors) to apply for a

facility security clearance. 

After considering the public comments, the NRC decided to adopt, without change, the initial

version of the revised regulations that was published in the Federal Register on Dec. 15, 2004. 

###
§ 206.67 Time for determination and report. ( a ) In an investigation under section 422(b) of the Trade Act, the Commission will transmit its determination under that section of the Act to the President and the Trade Representative at the earliest practical time, but not later than 45 days after the date on which the petition is filed, the request or resolution is received, or the motion is adopted, as the case may be. The Commission shall issue and transmit its report on the determination not later than 10 days after the determination is issued.
( b ) In a review under section 422(j) of the Trade Act, the Commission will report its determination to the President not later than 60 days after the notification described in that section of the Act.
#### In the Matter of Greystone Hotel Corporation, Appellant, against Charles G. Coster et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, Respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

By order dated August 20,1948, the temporary city housing rent commission fixed certain rents of appellant, Greystone Hotel Corporation, at rates set forth in a schedule effective as of August 1, 1948. By an order entered December 14, 1948, Special Term denied a motion to annul the commission’s determination *(Matter of Zarnes*V. *Finkelstein,*N. Y. L. J., Dec. 14, 1948, p. 1521, col. 7). An appeal from that order to this court has been taken and is pending. Thereafter, on December 30, 1948, the commission by another order, stated to be made on the application of the commission’s counsel, directed the parties to show cause why the prior order of August 20th should not be set aside, rescinded or otherwise modified retroactively as of August 1, 1948.

On this record in the light of all the facts and circumstances disclosed, including the ruling of Special Term and the appeal pending therefrom in which the rights of all parties could have been adequately protected, we hold the commission should not have determined to reconsider its former determination (see *Matter of Lettieri*v. *Finkelstein,*274 App. Div. 904; *Matter of Rakowitz*v. *Coster,*N. Y. L. J., April 14, 1949, p. 1348, col. 1).

This appeal is from an order of Special Term denying petitioner’s motion to restrain the commission from proceeding to reconsider its prior order in accordance with its order of December 30, 1948. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the petitioner-appellant, and the motion granted. In view of our determination of this, the decisive issue on appeal, it is unnecessary at this time to consider numerous other issues presented in the briefs.

*808Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ., concur; Shientag, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Order reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted. Settle order on notice. [194 Misc. 432.]
Order entered January 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01224-CV

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

V.

CATHERINE STOUFFER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF 

GARY LEE STOUFFER, JR. AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF SHANNON STOUFFER AND 

SHANE STOUFFER, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-15204

ORDER

Appellees’ Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for rehearing is 

GRANTED, and the deadline for filing said motion is extended to January 10, 2014.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-04-032 July 1, 2004

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO DISCUSS FINDINGS OF PALO VERDE AUGMENTED INSPECTION

Officials of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Arizona Public

Service Co. officials on July 12 to discuss the findings of an Augmented Inspection of the Palo

Verde Nuclear Generating Station. APS operates the plant located near Wintersburg, Arizona.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. and will be held at Estrella Mountain Community

College, North Community Room, 3000 North Dysart Road, Avondale, AZ. NRC officials will

be available after the meeting to answer questions from the public.

The NRC dispatched an Augmented Inspection Team from its Region IV office in

Arlington, Texas June 15 to look into the causes of, and the plant response to, the shutdown of

Palo Verde’s three reactors on June 14 following a loss of off-site power. The team will issue a

written report, which will be made publicly available, by the end of July.

###