alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jesse R. Smith, Appellee, v. C. W. Stilley, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Franklin county; the Hon. Jacob R. Creighton, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 1, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Jesse R. Smith against C. W. Stilley in assumpsit to recover $221.40 which plaintiff claims defendant agreed to pay him to reimburse him for money he had paid out in perfecting the title to certain lands. The jury returned a verdict against defendant for $110.70, just one-half the amount sued for, and the court entered judgment for that amount. To reverse the judgment, defendant appeals.

*603Appellant urges as ground for reversal: (1) That the verdict was not sustained by the proofs; and (2) that the amount fixed by the jury shows that the verdict was a compromise for which there was no foundation in the facts.

Hart & Williams, R. E. Hickman, Thomas J. Layman, and Moses Pulverman, for appellant.

Mooheyham *&*Seeber, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Contracts, § *385*
      ***
      *—when evidence sufficient to prove agreement.*In an action in assumpsit to recover a sum which plaintiff claimed the defendant agreed to pay him to reimburse him for money expended in perfecting title to certain lands, where the defense was that no such promise was made, a verdict for plaintiff *held*sustained by the evidence.

2. Appeal and error, § *1258*
      ***
      *—right to complain of amount of verdict.*A defendant cannot be heard to object to a verdict because the amount allowed the plaintiff was less than the evidence showed was due him; plaintiff alone in such case is entitled to complain of the smallness of the verdict.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section numbey,

Mr. Justice Higbee

delivered the opinion of the court.
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. 04-100 August 30, 2004

NRC TO MEET WITH LOCAL RESIDENTS TUESDAY IN SIOUX FALLS

TO DISCUSS FINAL CLEANUP OF FORMER NUCLEAR REACTOR SITE

NRC officials will meet with local residents Tuesday in Sioux Falls, S.D., to discuss plans for

the final cleanup of the former Pathfinder nuclear reactor site and potential release of the site for

unrestricted use. Xcel Energy will provide an overview of its proposed decommissioning activities and

schedule for Pathfinder, and NRC will discuss how it will review those plans and oversee the cleanup,

and answer questions from the public.

“NRC takes very seriously its responsibility to protect the health and safety of those who live

near or work at nuclear facilities,” said Chad J. Glenn, NRC Project Manager. “This is the final stage

in our process of overseeing Pathfinder, and we will make sure the site meets our decommissioning

criteria and is safe before we terminate the license.” 

The meeting will be held at the County Commission Meeting Room, 2nd floor of the County

Administration Building, 415 N. Dakota Avenue, from 7 to 9 p.m. NRC staff, as well as

representatives of Xcel Energy, will be available to discuss the project and answer questions.

Northern States Power (now Xcel Energy), obtained an operating license from the Atomic

Energy Commission (predecessor to the NRC) for the 66 megawatt facility in 1964. It conducted lowpower testing from March 1964 to September 1967, after which the company shut it down for

economic and other reasons. The nuclear fuel was transferred offsite, and the operating license was

terminated. The plant then went into long-term storage, and a license for possession of nuclear

material, which is still in effect, was issued in August 1972. In 1992, the license was amended to

allow for decommissioning of the reactor building and fuel handling building. Xcel Energy now plans

to complete decommissioning of the site so that, if NRC approves, it can be released for unrestricted

use.

NRC actions to ensure protection of the public will include inspections and confirmatory

radiation surveys to provide confidence that the site meets NRC’s strict decommissioning criteria.

###
### §625. Repealed. Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(58), 65 Stat. 703

Section, acts Sept. 19, 1890, ch. 907, §2, 26 Stat. 452; July 25, 1912, ch. 253, §8, 37 Stat. 233, related to combining several projects in one contract.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-06-0080 - FINAL RULE:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48)

Accession Number: ML053140062

Date Released: Thursday, April 20, 2006

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.
    - ML060690228 - SECY-06-0080 -  "Final Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources" (RIN 3150-AH48) (11 page(s), 4/6/2006)
    - ML060730248 - SECY-06-0080 - Enclosure 1 - Basis Change Rationale for the National Source Tracking Rule (5 page(s), 4/6/2006)
    - ML060690381 - SECY-06-0080 - Attachment 2 - Federal Register Notice for Final Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48)  (Public Health and Safety) (91 page(s), 4/6/2006)
    - ML060720124 - SECY-06-0080 - Attachment 3 - Regulatory Analysis for the Final Rule on National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (Public Health & Safety) (25 page(s), 4/6/2006)
    - ML060730287 - SECY-06-0080 - Attachment 4 - Federal Register Notice for Proposed Rule re:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources FRN Basis Change (5 page(s), 4/6/2006)
    - ML060730442 - SECY-06-0080 - Attachment 5 - Federal Register Notice re:  Final Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48) (Common Defense & Security) (101 page(s), 4/6/2006)
    - ML060730515 - SECY-06-0080 - Attachment 6 - Regulatory Analysis re:  Final Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48) (Common Defense and Security) (21 page(s), 3/10/2006)
    - ML060690280 - SECY-06-0080 - Attachment 7 - Congressional Review Act Forms re:  Final Rule:  National Source Tracking of Sealed Sources (RIN 3150-AH48) (6 page(s), 4/6/2006)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### §1025. Federal reservation of certain mineral rights

The United States reserves the ownership of and the right to extract under such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe oil, hydrocarbon gas, and helium from all geothermal resources produced from lands leased under this chapter in accordance with presently applicable laws: Provided, That whenever the right to extract oil, hydrocarbon gas, and helium from geothermal resources produced from such lands is exercised pursuant to this section, it shall be exercised so as to cause no substantial interference with the production of geothermal resources from such lands.

(Pub. L. 91–581, §27, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1574; Pub. L. 109–58, title II, §236(1), (25), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 671, 673.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–58 inserted section catchline and substituted "geothermal resources" for "geothermal steam and associated geothermal resources" wherever appearing in text.
### §§360, 360a. Repealed. Pub. L. 96–591, §8(a), Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3435

Section 360, acts Dec. 3, 1945, ch. 511, §1, 59 Stat. 590; Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, §6(b)(1), 80 Stat. 938, provided that vessels of special construction be exempted from requirements with regard to number and position of lights.

Section 360a, acts Dec. 3, 1945, ch. 511, §2, 59 Stat. 591; Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, §6(b)(1), 80 Stat. 938, related to publication of notice when the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard was operating made findings or certifications described in section 360 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Dec. 24, 1981, see section 7 of Pub. L. 96–591, set out as an Effective Date of 1980 Amendment note under section 1604 of this title.
§ 191.156 Bill of lading. ( a ) *Filing.* In order to complete the claim for drawback under this subpart, a bill of lading covering the merchandise described in the drawback entry (Customs Form 7551) shall be filed within 2 years after the merchandise is exported.
( b ) *Contents.* The bill of lading shall either show that the merchandise was shipped by the person making the claim or bear an endorsement of the person in whose name the merchandise was shipped showing that the person making the claim is authorized to do so.
( c ) *Limitation of the bill of lading.* The terms of the bill of lading may limit and define its use by stating that it is for Customs purposes only and not negotiable.
( d ) *Inability to produce bill of lading.* When a required bill of lading cannot be produced, the person making the drawback entry may request the drawback office, within the time required for the filing of the bill of lading, to accept a statement setting forth the cause of failure to produce the bill of lading and such evidence of exportation and of his right to make the drawback entry as may be available. The request shall be granted if the drawback office is satisfied by the evidence submitted that the failure to produce the bill of lading is justified, that the merchandise has been exported, and that the person making the drawback entry has the right to do so. If the drawback office is not so satisfied, such office shall transmit the request and its accompanying evidence to the Office of International Trade, CBP Headquarters, for final determination.
( e ) *Extracts of bills of lading.* Drawback offices may issue extracts of bills of lading filed with drawback claims.
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1579

To authorize the vessel STAD AMSTERDAM to carry certain persons who 

are not directly and substantially connected with the operation, navigation, ownership, or business of the vessel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2003

Mr. ISAKSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To authorize the vessel STAD AMSTERDAM to carry certain persons who are not directly and substantially connected with the operation, navigation, ownership, or business of the vessel.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. OPERATION OF THE VESSEL STAD AMSTER4 DAM. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 8 of the 

6 Act of June 19, 1886 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and the rul7 ing by the Acting Director of the International Trade 

8 Compliance Division of the Customs Service on May 17, 
2

•HR 1579 IH 

1 2002 (Customs Bulletins and Decisions, Vol. 36, No. 23, 

2 June 5, 2002), the vessel STAD AMSTERDAM (Inter3 national Maritime Organization number 9185554) may 

4 carry within United States waters and between ports or 

5 places in the United States individuals who are not di6 rectly and substantially connected with the operation, 

7 navigation, ownership, or business of the vessel, including 

8 the vessel owners’ friends, guests, colleagues, business cli9 ents, prospective business clients, business associates, cor10 porate officers, board members, and employees and public 

11 officials.

12 (b) LIMITATION.—This section does not authorize the 

13 vessel STAD AMSTERDAM to be used to carry individ14 uals for a fare or to be chartered on a for-hire basis in 

15 the coastwise trade.

Æ
#### § 316.915 Special provisions for Department of Defense.

This subpart does not preclude the Secretary of Defense from exercising authority to appoint a post-secondary student under Public Law 114-328, Section 1106. Additionally, this subpart does not apply to the Department of Defense during the period that Public Law 114-328, Section 1106, is effective.
§ 1315.12 Payments to governmentwide commercial purchase card issuers. Standards for payments to government wide commercial purchase card issuers follow: ( a ) *Payment date.* All individual purchase card invoices under $2,500 may be paid at any time, but not later than 30 days after the receipt of a proper invoice. Matching documents is not required before payment. The payment due date for invoices in the amount of $2,500 or more shall be determined in accordance with § 1315.8. I TFM 4-4535.10[4] permits payment of the bill in full prior to verification that goods or services were received.
( b ) *Disputed line items.* Disputed line items do not render the entire invoice an improper invoice for compliance with this proposed regulation. Any undisputed items must be paid in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
Footnotes -
1315.12
[4] See footnote 3 in § 1315.7(a).
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-374-CV

IN RE TONY CHAVEZ								   RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.2  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and WALKER, J.

DELIVERED:  November 20, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<CURRENCY>                                          US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-17-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          26,167
<SECURITIES>                                   120,090
<RECEIVABLES>                                  637,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,538)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,670
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 787,561
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              909
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           40,000
<PREFERRED>                                       1000
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     745,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   787,561
<SALES>                                         38,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,065
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   220
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,845
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  376,770
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  376,770



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6953

WILLIAM T. MCGHEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT HURLEY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-186-5-H) Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 14, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William T. McGhee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:William T. McGhee, a North Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. McGhee v. Hurley , No. CA-01-186-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 20, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



EXHIBIT 13.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Annual Report of LJ International Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Yu Chuan Yih, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that: (1)      The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 31, 2005
    
    /s/ YU CHUAN YIH

Yu Chuan Yih,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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. 05-037 February 25, 2005

 NRC ISSUES LICENSES ALLOWING WESTINGHOUSE TO EXPORT 

NUCLEAR REACTOR EQUIPMENT AND FUEL TO CHINA

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a license authorizing Westinghouse

Electric Co. to export to China the reactor systems, components and associated equipment and

engineering services to build and operate as many as two pressurized water nuclear reactors at the San

Men site and two at the Yang Jiang site. A second license was also issued, authorizing Westinghouse

to export enough low-enriched uranium fuel to be used in the initial core and in one refueling for each

reactor.

Westinghouse submitted the application for the license to export the reactors on Feb. 25, 2004,

and the application for the fuel export license on August 26, 2004. Should China accept

Westinghouse’s bid for constructing the plants, shipments of the reactor systems and components are

expected to begin around mid-2007.

After carefully reviewing the applications and associated information, the NRC concluded that

approving these exports to China will not be adverse to the common defense and security. The NRC

also agreed with the conclusions reached by interested Executive Branch agencies that approving these

exports is fully consistent with U.S. legal requirements. 

# # #
§ 1653.6 Fees. The TSP record keeper will charge a participant a $600.00 court order processing fee as follows: ( a ) Upon receipt of a complete court order document (whether draft or final) and prior to reviewing the order to determine whether it is a qualifying retirement benefits court order, the fee will be deducted from his or her TSP account balance on a pro rata basis from the participant's traditional and Roth balances. The portion of the fee deducted from the traditional balance will be further pro rated between the tax-deferred balance and tax-exempt balance. The portion of the fee deducted from the Roth balance will be further pro rated between contributions in the Roth balance and earnings in the Roth balance. In addition, the entire fee will be distributed pro rata from all TSP core funds in which the participant's account is invested. All pro rated amounts will be based on the balances in each fund or source of contributions on the day the fee is deducted;
( b ) The fee will be charged only once per court order. However, it will not be refunded in the event that the court order is never determined to be a qualifying retirement benefits court order; and
( c ) ( 1 ) If the court order: ( i ) Is determined to be a qualifying retirement benefits court order; and
( ii ) Explicitly requires the fee to be split between the participant and the payee;
( 2 ) The TSP record keeper will deduct the payee's portion of the fee from his or her payment and credit that amount back to the participant's TSP account balance.
[87 FR 31690, May 24, 2022]
### subpart 1—grants to public agencies
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20765

Conference Calendar

 

PATRICK E. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEP’T OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INST’L DIV.; DR. ROMEO YAP,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 94-CV-2648 

- - - - - - - - - -

February 20, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick E. Robinson (#350300), appeals the dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint. He has filed a motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The

motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED. 

Because the balance in Robinson’s prison trust account, at

the time he filed his notice of appeal was only $.08, no initial

partial filing fee is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). 

Robinson shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the 
No. 96-20765

- 2 -

preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Robinson is directed

to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the

district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10

until the filing fee of $105 is paid. See id.

Robinson argues that the district court erred in dismissing

his § 1983 action. We have reviewed the record and Robinson’s

brief and find no error in the reasoning of the district court. 

See Robinson v. Collins, No. H-94-2648 (S.D. Tex. July 29, 1996)

(unpublished). We decline to consider several issues raised by

Robinson for the first time on appeal. See United States v.

Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (the

plain error standard), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

Robinson’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus,

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Robinson is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. Robinson is cautioned further to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous. 

IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### §§ 2424.3-2424.9 [Reserved]