alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §322. Discharge of enlisted members

(a) An enlisted member of the National Guard shall be discharged when—

(1) he becomes 64 years of age; or

(2) his Federal recognition is withdrawn.

(b) An enlisted member who is discharged from the National Guard is entitled to a discharge certificate similar in form and classification to the corresponding certificate prescribed for members of the Regular Army or the Regular Air Force, as the case may be.

(c) In time of peace, an enlisted member of the National Guard may be discharged before his enlistment expires, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 606.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 322(a) 322(b)322(c) | 32:154 (last par., less 1st 26, and last 26, words).32:125 (less last 27 words).32:125 (last 27 words). | June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §72; restated June 4, 1920, ch. 227, subch. I, §40; restated June 15, 1933, ch. 87, §10, 48 Stat. 157; July 9, 1952, ch. 608, §806(d), 66 Stat. 507. |
| | | June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §110 (last par., less 1st 30, and last 25, words); restated Sept. 22, 1922, ch. 423, §6 (last par., less 1st 30, and last 137, words); restated May 12, 1928, ch. 529 (less 1st 30, and last 25, words), 45 Stat. 500. |

322(b)

322(c)

32:125 (less last 27 words).

32:125 (last 27 words).

Subsection (a) is substituted for 32:154 (last par., less 1st 26, and last 26, words) to reflect an opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (JAGA 1953/9033, 3 Dec. 1953).

In subsection (b), the words "is entitled to a discharge certificate similar in form and classification to the corresponding certificate" are substituted for the words "shall receive a discharge in writing in such form and with such classification as is or shall be". The words "service in" are omitted as surplusage.

In subsection (c), the words "his enlistment expires" are substituted for the words "the expiration of terms of enlistment".
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. 05-023 February 7, 2005

NRC FY 2006 BUDGET INCREASES NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY PROGRAM

As part of the President’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget to Congress, the NRC released its proposed

budget of $701.7 million that includes improvements in nuclear plant safety and security. 

“This budget will provide NRC with the necessary resources to regulate the safe and secure use

and management of radioactive materials,” said Jesse L. Funches, Chief Financial Officer. 

NRC’s FY 2006 budget request is $32 million over its FY 2005 budget. The increase includes

approximately $17.7 million to strengthen reactor inspections and to keep pace with licensing needs of

nuclear power plants. This includes improving the effectiveness of design/engineering inspections,

enhancing security oversight, reviewing applications for new reactor designs and early site permits, and

reducing the backlog of research and test reactor license renewals and power reactor licensing actions.

The budget also includes an increase of approximately $2.5 million to fund NRC’s new

responsibilities for oversight of certain Department of Energy radioactive waste incidental to

reprocessing and $11.8 million primarily to fund Federal pay raises.

Funding levels for each of the agency’s major programs and the Inspector General are provided

below. Homeland security resources of $61 million are included in these programs. 

Program Million

Nuclear Reactor Safety $ 469.2

 – Licensing ($274.9M)

 – Inspection ($194.3M)

 Nuclear Materials & Waste Safety $ 224.2

– Fuel Facilities ($36.6 M)

 – Nuclear Materials ($65.9M)

– High-Level Waste Repository ($69.1M)

 – Decommissioning and Low-Level 

 Waste ($28.1M)

– Spent Fuel Storage and 

 Transportation ($24.5M)

Inspector General $ 8.3
-2-

 

NRC’s budget reflects $567 million in fees that will be assessed to licensees, resulting in a net

appropriation of $135 million.

More detailed information on the budget (NUREG-1100, Volume 21) is available on NRC’s

web site at http://www.nrc.gov at the Plans, Budget, and Performance link in the bottom right-hand

corner of the web page or may be purchased from the Government Printing Office by calling 202-512-

1800. All media inquiries should be made to the Office of Public Affairs.

###
### §237. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 95–372, title VI, §602, Sept. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 694, which required the Secretary of the Interior to submit annual reports to Congress on delinquent royalty accounts under leases issued under any Act regulating development of oil and gas on Federal lands, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 111 of House Document No. 103–7.
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-05-010 March 31, 2005

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

 OF COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION APRIL 6

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Energy

Northwest on April 6 to discuss the results of the agency’s assessment of safety performance at

Columbia Generating Station during 2004. The plant is located near Richland, Wash.

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Energy Northwest Office Complex, Walkley

Room, 3000 George Washington Way, Richland. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff

will be available to answer questions from the public on the plant’s safety performance, as well

as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the nation’s commercial

nuclear plants,” said Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallet. “This meeting gives us a chance

to discuss our assessment with the company, local officials and residents near the plant. We

want to make this information available to the public and answer any questions people may have

about the plant.”

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas, to plant officials will

serve as the basis for the meeting. It is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/wnp_2004q4.pdf .

Overall, Columbia operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses color-coded inspection

findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with

“green” and increase to “white,” “yellow,” and “red,” according to the safety significance of the

issues involved. 

The NRC noted that deficiencies in the area of problem identification and resolution,

mentioned in its mid-cycle letter of August 30, 2004, and the March 3, 2004, annual assessment

letter, have been successfully addressed by the company.
-2-

However, the NRC staff has identified deficiencies in the area of human performance that

have resulted in inadequate responses to plant conditions from both an operational and

radiological standpoint. Although Energy Northwest has implemented an improvement

program, the NRC staff will focus attention on this area as part of routine inspections during

2005. 

Routine inspections are performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office and the agency’s headquarters in

Rockville, Md. 

Current information for Columbia is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WASH2/wash2_chart.html .

###
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 0 0 677

- C V

Style: In the Interest of D

. P

. V

., AKA D

. P

. V ., Child

Date motion filed * : September 16 , 201 3

Type of motion: U nopposed m otion for first extension of time to file appellant ’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 16 , 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: September 1 6 , 2013

Date Requested: October 16 , 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted in part

If document is to be filed, document due: October 7 , 2013

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary

circumstances

.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: September 18, 2013
Issue Date: 10/05/01 - 1 - 01-020

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL IIPB

Change Notice 01-020

DELETED: TRANSMITTED:

Number Date Number Date

1. IMC 2620 02/11/93 IMC 2620 10/05/01

TRAINING: No special training requirements have been identified for any documents

issued with this change notice.

REMARKS: IMC 2620 (On-Site Construction Reviews of Remedial Action at Inactive

Uranium Mill Tailing Sites (Title I, Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act))

has been reviewed and revised. Changes were in section 04.02 where the

Division of Low-Level Waste Management was changed to Division of Fuel

Cycle Safety and Safeguards. Section 04.03 was deleted because the

Uranium Recovery Field Office no longer exists. Ownership of this document

is now assigned to the, Fuel Cycle Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle

Safety and Safeguards, NMSS.

DISTRIBUTION: Standard

END
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LOWELL A. BAISDEN

,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND

, 1 in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the United

States

, et al.

,

Defendant s

. Civil Action No. 19

- 3105 (JMC)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED

that Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim , ECF 16 , is GRANTED

, and this

case is DISMISSED

.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this case.

This is a final appealable Order.

SO ORDERED.

_________ ___ __ ____________ JIA M. COBB

United States District Judge

D ate : November 15

, 2023

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Merrick B. Garland is automatically substituted for his

predecessor, Jeffrey A. Rosen, Acting Attorney General of the United States.
----

|   | (1) | the 10-K Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March 28, 2011 | /s/ Lonnie D. Schnell                    |   |
|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                            | Lonnie D. Schnell                        |   |
|                            | Chief Executive Officer and Chief        |   |
|                            | Financial Officer (Principal Executive   |   |
|                            | Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----
#### Leon A. Fischel, Respondent, v. Jeremiah T. Mahoney, Appellant.

Present —• Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

# Acquiescence Rulings

# Table of Contents

----

      - First Circuit Court
      - Second Circuit Court
      - Third Circuit Court
      - Fourth Circuit Court
      - Fifth Circuit Court
      - Sixth Circuit Court
      - Seventh Circuit Court
      - Eighth Circuit Court
      - Ninth Circuit Court
      - Tenth Circuit Court
      - Eleventh Circuit Court

----

Back to Rulings Table of Contents

Footer menu
#### § 2417.209 Procedure when a decision is not made before the time that a response is required.

If a response to a demand or request is required before the Chairman of the FLRA, the General Counsel, or the Chairman of the Panel can make the determination referred to in § 2417.206, the Chairman of the FLRA, the General Counsel, or the Chairman of the Panel, when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the request is being reviewed, provide an estimate as to when a decision will be made, and seek a stay of the demand or request pending a final determination.

[81 FR 63364, Sept. 15, 2016]
### §31a–2a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 31a–2a was editorially reclassified as section 6136 of this title.
§ 1501.8 Grounds for determinations of the Board. ( a ) *Standard.* The standard to be used by the Board in making any advisory determination relating to the loyalty of a United States citizen who is an employee of, or is being considered for employment in, a public international organization of which the United States is a member, shall be whether or not on all the evidence there is a reasonable doubt as to the loyalty of the person involved to the Government of the United States.
( b ) *Activities and associations.* Among the activities and associations of the employee or person being considered for employment which may be considered in connection with a determination of disloyalty may be one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Sabotage, espionage, or attempts or preparations therefor, or knowingly associating with spies or saboteurs.
( 2 ) Treason or sedition or advocacy thereof.
( 3 ) Advocacy of revolution or force or violence to alter the constitutional form of government of the United States.
( 4 ) Intentional, unauthorized disclosure to any person, under circumstances which may indicate disloyalty to the United States, of United States documents or United States information of a confidential or non-public character obtained by the person making the disclosure as a result of his previous employment by the Government of the United States or otherwise.
( 5 ) Performing or attempting to perform his duties, or otherwise acting, while an employee of the United States Government during a previous period, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
( 6 ) Membership in, or affiliation or sympathetic association with, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, or group or combination of persons, designated by the Attorney General as totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States, or as seeking to alter the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
### §1805a. Deputy Architect of the Capitol to serve as acting in case of absence, disability, or vacancy

#### (a) In general

The Deputy Architect of the Capitol (in this section referred to as the "Deputy Architect") shall act as Architect of the Capitol (in this section referred to as the "Architect") if the Architect is absent or disabled or there is no Architect.

#### (b) Absence, disability, or vacancy in Office of Deputy Architect

For purposes of subsection (a), if the Deputy Architect is also absent or disabled or there is no Deputy Architect, the congressional commission described in section 1801a(a) of this title shall designate, by a majority vote of the members of the commission, an individual to serve as acting Architect until—

(1) the end of the absence or disability of the Architect or the Deputy Architect; or

(2) in the case of vacancies in both positions, an Architect has been appointed under section 1801a(a) of this title.

#### (c) Authority

An officer serving as acting Architect under subsection (a) or (b) shall perform all the duties and exercise all the authorities of the Architect, including the authority to delegate the duties and authorities of the Architect in accordance with section 1803 of this title.

(Pub. L. 118–31, div. E, title LVII, §5704, Dec. 22, 2023, 137 Stat. 961.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of section 5704 of Pub. L. 118–31. Subsec. (d) of section 5704 of Pub. L. 118–31 repealed section 1804 of this title.
Order filed June 30, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 15

- 00840

- CR

____________ MICHAEL JEROME CLA RK , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 1366492



### ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to T exas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's exhibit # 20.

The clerk of the 177th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk o f this court the original of State's exhibit # 20, on or before July 7, 2016. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon complet ion of inspection, to return the original of State's exhibit # 20, to the clerk of the 177th District Court.

PER CURIAM
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-04-019 April 20, 2004

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO MEET WITH NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT TO DISCUSS 

 RECENT INSPECTION AT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nebraska Public

Power District on May 12, to present the NRC’s findings resulting from a recently completed

inspection of Cooper Nuclear Station, located near Brownville, Nebraska. The inspection was

associated with the Confirmatory Action Letter NRC issued on January 30, 2003.

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at

7:00 p.m. at Brownville Concert Hall, Atlantic Avenue and Second Street, Brownville. NRC

staff will discuss results of the inspection, which looked at emergency planning, human

performance, equipment reliability, corrective action programs and engineering at the plant. 

Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public.

Since April 2002, Cooper has been subject to increased NRC oversight because of plant

performance problems. The Confirmatory Action Letter describes steps Nebraska Public Power

District officials agreed to take to improve plant performance.

The letter can be found in the agency's electronic document system (ADAMS) using the

document’s access number ML030310263 as the search term. ADAMS can be accessed through

the NRC's web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html . Help in using

ADAMS is available by contacting the NRC Public Document Room at (301) 415-4737 or 1-

800-397-4209.

###
§ 191.53 Restructuring of claims. ( a ) *General.* Customs may require claimants to restructure their drawback claims in such a manner as to foster Customs administrative efficiency. In making this determination, Customs will consider the following factors: ( 1 ) The number of transactions of the claimant (imports and exports);
( 2 ) The value of the claims;
( 3 ) The frequency of claims;
( 4 ) The product or products being claimed; and
( 5 ) For 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) and 1313(b) claims, the provisions, as applicable, of the general manufacturing drawback ruling or the specific manufacturing drawback ruling.
( b ) *Exemption from restructuring; criteria.* In order to be exempt from a restructuring, a claimant must demonstrate an inability or impracticability in restructuring its claims as required by Customs and must provide a mutually acceptable alternative. Criteria used in such determination will include a demonstration by the claimant of one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Complexities caused by multiple commodities or the applicable general manufacturing drawback ruling or the specific manufacturing drawback ruling;
( 2 ) Variable and conflicting manufacturing and inventory periods (for example, financial, accounting and manufacturing records maintained are significantly different);
( 3 ) Complexities caused by multiple manufacturing locations;
( 4 ) Complexities caused by difficulty in adjusting accounting and inventory records (for example, records maintained—financial or accounting—are significantly different); and/or
( 5 ) Complexities caused by significantly different methods of operation.
#### § 171.43 Evidence required.

In addition to such other evidence as may be required under the provisions of subpart A of this part, the petition for restoration of proceeds of sale under section 613, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1613), must show the interest of the petitioner in the property. The petition must be supported by satisfactory proof that the petitioner did not know of the seizure prior to the declaration or decree of forfeiture and was in such circumstances as prevented him from knowing of it.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-MJ-03278-O=SULLIVAN

In Re: Sealed Search Warrant 

and Application for a Warrant

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP’s Notice 

Regarding Photographs Pursuant to Court’s September 18, 2020 Order (DE# 25, 

10/13/20). Having reviewed the applicable filings and the law, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before Friday, October 30, 2020, the 

non-Optima clients and former clients of Roche Cyrulnik Freedman LLP (RCF) shall file 

a sworn declaration or affidavit asserting the attorney client privilege with respect to any 

of the fourteen (14) photographs identified by RCF as privileged. If RCF’s non-Optima 

clients and former clients do not file a timely sworn declaration or affidavit, the Court will 

deem the attorney-client privilege waived as to the non-Optima clients because “[t]he 

attorney-client privilege belongs solely to the client, and the client may waive it, either 

expressly or by implication.” Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1417 

(11th Cir.), opinion modified on reh’g, 30 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). It is further 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before Friday, October 30, 2020, RCF,

the Optima Intervenors and the government shall confer and attempt to resolve RCF’s 

privilege assertions with respect to the fourteen (14) photographs RCF claims are either 

work product or subject to the attorney-client privilege. It is further

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before Wednesday, November 4, 2020,

RCF shall file a privilege log stating in detail the reasons why it is asserting a privilege

with respect to any remaining photographs which the parties have been unable to reach 

an agreement. The government may file a response to RCF’s privilege log no later than 

Friday, November 6, 2020.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 26th day of 

October, 2020.

_______________________________________

JOHN J. O=SULLIVAN

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-mj-03278-JJO Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2020 Page 2 of 2