alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Max Fishberg, Respondent, against Maspeth Wetwash Laundry et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by an employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award made to claimant by the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The questioned award is for a partial disability and reduced earning capacity resulting from injuries accidentally sustained by claimant on December 10, 1946, in and incident to his employment by the employer-appellant. At the time of such accident claimant was and since 1940 has been, permanently partially disabled as the result of a prior industrial accident in another’s employment, and was the recipient of an award for reduced earning capacity on account thereof. Claimant’s accident of December 10, 1946, and its consequence was as to its cause and effects wholly unrelated to his disability which was occasioned by his former accident. At the time of his second accident, his average weekly earnings were $10.59. The minimum award of $8 per week here in issue is not in excess of the compensation allowable for claimant’s “ later injury * * * when considered by itself and not is. conjunction with the previous disability”, and was lawfully made. (Workmen's Compensation Law, § 15, subd. 7; *Matter of Earl*v. *Davis Box Toe Co.,*261 App. Div. 862; *Matter of Berner*v. *Caruso & Wolpert,*233 H. T. 614.) Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present— Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Poster and Deyo, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 831.]
#### Barbara Kuhlman, appellee, v. William J. Lemp Brewing Company, appellant.

Filed November 26, 1910.

No. 16,069.

Opinion on motion for rehearing of case reported in 87 Neb. 72.

*Former opinion corrected. Motion for rehearing overruled.*

Per Curiam.

On the motion for a rehearing in this case it is strenuously contended that our decision is contrary to, and in effect overrules, *Steen v. Scheel,*46 Neb. 252. If the statement in our opinion that “in April,” before the lease expired, the tenant “informed the plaintiff that if a license to sell intoxicating liquors could not be procured it would not exercise its option to again lease the premises,” was correct, then we think the decision would have that effect.

We have again examined the record, and find no evidence therein to sustain that statement. On the other hand, it would seem that the landlord was not notified of any such intention. The lease expired May 1, 1907, and the key was not delivered to the plaintiff until June 29 of that year, and the defendant held possession of the premises from the date of the expiration of the lease until that time. According to *Delashman v. Berry,*20 Mich. *2292, such holding over amounted to a renewal of the lease for another term of one year. See, also, *Montgomery v. Board of Commissioners,*76 Ind. 362, 40 Am. Rep. 250; 2 Tiffany, Landlord and Tenant, pp. 1484, 1486; 24 Cyc. 1018.

Our opinion is hereby corrected to conform to the facts as shown by the record, and the motion for a rehearing is

Overruled.
### §3079b. Shore leave for professional mariners

#### (a) In general

The Under Secretary may prescribe regulations relating to shore leave for professional mariners without regard to the requirements of section 6305 of title 5.

#### (b) Requirements

The regulations prescribed under subsection (a) shall—

(1) require that a professional mariner serving aboard an ocean-going vessel be granted a leave of absence of 4 days per pay period; and

(2) provide that a professional mariner serving in a temporary promotion position aboard a vessel may be paid the difference between such mariner's temporary and permanent rates of pay for leave accrued while serving in the temporary promotion position.

#### (c) Professional mariner defined

In this section, the term "professional mariner" means an individual employed on a vessel of the Administration who has the necessary expertise to serve in the engineering, deck, steward, electronic technician, or survey department.

(Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §269B, as added Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXVII, §11706(a), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4157.)
#### In the Matter of the Final Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Arthur T. Hills, as Executor, etc., of Margaret Isabella Williams, Deceased. Abraham Lincoln Underwood, Appellant; William Gaul, Respondent.

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
### §845. Dust standards in presence of quartz

In coal mining operations where the concentration of respirable dust in the mine atmosphere of any working place contains more than 5 per centum quartz, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prescribe an appropriate formula for determining the applicable respirable dust standard under this subchapter for such working place and the Secretary shall apply such formula in carrying out his duties under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 91–173, title II, §205, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 765; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88 which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

#### Effective Date

Section operative six months after Dec. 30, 1969, except to the extent an earlier date is specifically provided for in Pub. L. 91–173, see section 509 of Pub. L. 91–173, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
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-05-010 March 9, 2005

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

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

FOR SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of FPL Energy

Seabrook, LLC, on Wednesday, March 16, to discuss the agency’s annual assessment of safety

performance at the Seabrook nuclear power plant. The period of performance to be discussed is Jan. 1

to Dec. 31, 2004..

 FPL Energy operates the plant, which is located in Seabrook, N.H.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m.

at the plant’s Emergency Operations Facility, 165 Gosling Road in Newington, N.H. 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.

 “Every year the NRC rates the performance of Seabrook and the nation’s other commercial

nuclear power plants,” NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. “This meeting will

provide an opportunity for a discussion of our assessment with the company and with local officials

and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to make as much information as possible available to

the public regarding our oversight of these facilities.”

 A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/seab_2004q4.pdf .

 Overall, the Seabrook plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded

inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors

start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety

significance of the issues involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance indicators

for the plant during 2004 were determined to be “green,” Seabrook will receive a baseline level of

inspections during the upcoming assessment period.
-2-

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

by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the agency’s

headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC

specialists are fire protection, emergency preparedness and radiological safety.

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

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SEAB1/seab1_chart.html .

 ###
### §773. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 19, 1950, ch. 761, §3, 64 Stat. 466, which related to application for benefits for surviving spouses of Lighthouse Service employees and employee death benefits, was transferred to former section 2534(a) of Title 14, Coast Guard. Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXVIII, §11808(a)(18), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4166, repealed section 2534 of Title 14.
### §558b. Exchange of land or property

In any case in which it may be necessary or advisable in the execution of an authorized work of river and harbor improvement to exchange land or other property of the Government for private lands or property required for such project, the Secretary of the Army may, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, authorize such exchange upon terms and conditions deemed appropriate by him, and any conveyance of Government land or interests therein necessary to effect such exchange may be executed by the Secretary of the Army: Provided further, That the authority granted to the Secretary of the Army shall not extend to or include lands held or acquired by the Tennessee Valley Authority pursuant to the terms of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act [16 U.S.C. 831 et seq.]. This section shall apply to any exchanges heretofore deemed advisable in connection with the construction of the Bonneville Dam in the Columbia River.

(June 20, 1938, ch. 535, §2, 52 Stat. 804; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Tennessee Valley Authority Act, referred to in text, is act May 18, 1933, ch. 32, 48 Stat. 58, known as the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, which is classified generally to chapter 12A (§831 et seq.) of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 831 of Title 16 and Tables.

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.
#### § 351.204 Responsibility of agency.

Each agency covered by this part is responsible for following and applying the regulations in this part when the agency determines that a reduction force is necessary.
§ 2427.3 Content of request. ( a ) A request for a general statement of policy or guidance shall be in writing and must contain: ( 1 ) A concise statement of the question with respect to which a general statement of policy or guidance is requested together with background information necessary to an understanding of the question;
( 2 ) A statement of the standards under § 2427.5 upon which the request is based;
( 3 ) A full and detailed statement of the position or positions of the requesting party or parties;
( 4 ) Identification of any cases or other proceedings known to bear on the question which are pending under chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code; and
( 5 ) Identification of other known interested parties.
( b ) A copy of each document also shall be served on all known interested parties, including the General Counsel, the Panel, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and the Assistant Secretary, where appropriate.
### §2606. Subpena authority

#### (a) General authority

In an investigation under this chapter, the attendance and testimony of witnesses, including parties in interest, and the production of any evidence may be compelled by subpena. The subpena authority granted by this section is coextensive with that of a district court of the United States, in civil matters, for the district in which the investigation is conducted.

#### (b) Subpena authority

An official designated by the Secretary of Transportation or Administrator to conduct an investigation under this chapter may issue subpenas as provided in this section and administer oaths to witnesses.

#### (c) Failure to comply

When a person fails to obey a subpena issued under this section, the district court of the United States for the district in which the investigation is conducted or in which the person failing to obey is found, shall on proper application issue an order directing that person to comply with the subpena. The court may punish as contempt any disobedience of its order.

#### (d) Witness fees

A witness complying with a subpena issued under this section may be paid for actual travel and attendance at the rate provided for witnesses in the district courts of the United States.

(Pub. L. 100–688, title IV, §4106, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4157.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this part" and was translated as reading "this title" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
### §2708. Recovery by responsible party

#### (a) In general

The responsible party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, may assert a claim for removal costs and damages under section 2713 of this title only if the responsible party demonstrates that—

(1) the responsible party is entitled to a defense to liability under section 2703 of this title; or

(2) the responsible party is entitled to a limitation of liability under section 2704 of this title.

#### (b) Extent of recovery

A responsible party who is entitled to a limitation of liability may assert a claim under section 2713 of this title only to the extent that the sum of the removal costs and damages incurred by the responsible party plus the amounts paid by the responsible party, or by the guarantor on behalf of the responsible party, for claims asserted under section 2713 of this title exceeds the amount to which the total of the liability under section 2702 of this title and removal costs and damages incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible party is limited under section 2704 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–380, title I, §1008, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 497.)
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned  hereby certifies in her capacity as Chief Financial  Officer of
Belmar Capital Fund LLC (the "Fund"), that:

     (a)  the Annual Report of the Fund on Form 10-K for the year ended December
          31,  2002 (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
          Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (b)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  the  results  of
          operations of the Fund for such period.


Dated:  March 26, 2003



                                       /s/ Michelle A. Alexander
                                       -------------------------
                                       Michelle A. Alexander
                                       Chief Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ROBERT NICHOLAS ROSS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr - 00019

- JPB

- RWT

- 1 ; 3:16

- cv - 00078

- JPB

- RWT )

Submitted : October 11, 2017 Decided: November 2, 2017

Before TRAXLER , KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Barry Philip Beck , POWER, BECK & MATZUREFF , Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpu blished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Robert Nicholas Ross appeals the district court’ s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Ross was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 180 months ’ imprisonment for h is felon in possession of a firearm offense, 18 U.S.C. § § 922(g), 924(e) (2012)

. In his § 2255 motion , Ross challenged the 180

- month sentence, r elying on
Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 , 2556

- 58 (2015) (holding that residual clause
of Armed Caree r Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague). Although Ross clearly stated a challenge to his ACCA sentence, both Ross and the district court at various points seemed to conflate Ross’ ACCA sentence with a career offender sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. As a result of this confusion, the di strict court denied Ross relief on the ground that the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause , citing the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in
Beckles v. United States , 137 S. Ct. 886, 89 5 (2017)

. On appe al , Ross , now with the assistance of counsel, continues to challenge his
ACC A sentence , asserting that his prior Maryland burglary convictions do not qualify as proper predicate offenses supporting an ACC A enhancement in light of Johnson

. Because the dist rict court appears to have misconstrue d Ross’ claim, we conclude that a certificate of appealability is warranted

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B), (2) (2012);
Miller

- el v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003) . Therefore, we grant a certificate of appeala bility, vacate the decision of the district court, and remand the case to the district

court to allow the court to consider the § 2255 motion as a challenge to Ross’s ACCA3 sentence rather than as a challenge to a career offender sentence. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
### §2351a. Operation and maintenance of existing infrastructure

The Secretary shall improve the reliability, and operation and maintenance of, existing infrastructure of the Corps of Engineers, and, as necessary, improve its resilience to cyber-related threats.

(Pub. L. 115–270, title I, §1113, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3775.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, and also as part of the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, and not as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 102 of Pub. L. 115–270, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
### §326. Availability of appropriations for certain expenses

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, an appropriation for the Department of the Treasury available to pay travel expenses also is available to pay expenses to attend meetings of organizations related to the function or activity for which the appropriation is made.

(b) The Secretary may approve reimbursement to agents on protective missions for subsistence expenses authorized by law without regard to rates and amounts established under section 5702 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 883; Pub. L. 99–234, title I, §107(e), Jan. 2, 1986, 99 Stat. 1759.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 326(a) | 31:1031. | June 1, 1955, ch. 113, §102, 69 Stat. 76. |
| 326(b) | 31:1032. | Sept. 29, 1969, Pub. L. 91–74, §102(1st par.), 83 Stat. 118. |

In subsection (a), the words "On and after June 1, 1955," are omitted as executed.

In subsection (b), the words "On and after September 29, 1969," are omitted as executed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–234 substituted "rates and amounts" for "rates".

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–234 effective (1) on the effective date of regulations to be promulgated not later than 150 days after Jan. 2, 1986, or (2) 180 days after Jan. 2, 1986, whichever occurs first, see section 301(a) of Pub. L. 99–234, set out as a note under section 5701 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
NRC NEWS                 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                                     2443 Warrenville Road                                                             Lisle IL 60532                             Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov  E-mail:  opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-05-038                                    September 8, 2005CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662  

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $3,250 FINE AGAINST COLUMBIA, MO., HOSPITALFOR INADVERTENT LOSS OF MEDICAL RADIATION SOURCES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed, and the Boone Hospital Center ofColumbia, Mo., has paid a $3,250 fine for the inadvertent loss of radioactive iodine seeds used in thetreatment of prostate cancer.

An NRC inspection determined that the seeds, about the size of a grain of rice and containingradioactive iodine-125, were inadvertently washed down a sink during cleaning activities on May 18. The seeds were lost during a cleaning process normally used for empty containers.  The cleaning wasperformed by an untrained and unauthorized employee.

The seeds were washed into the sanitary sewer system where they would not represent a healthand safety hazard because of the relatively short lifetime of the radioactive materials and because theradioactive iodine was contained in the metal seeds.

The hospital was cited for failing to maintain control and constant surveillance over the seeds. Following the incident, the hospital took extensive corrective action, providing additional training forthe hospital staff and strengthening procedures.

“This fine was proposed to emphasize the importance of maintaining the security and controlof NRC-licensed radioactive material,” said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator.

The hospital paid the fine upon being told by the NRC that a civil penalty may be proposed forthe violation.

The letter and Notice of Violation issued to the hospital are available from the NRC’s RegionIII Office of Public Affairs and will be posted on the NRC’s web site at:http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#materials .

###