alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §558b–1. Application to authorized works of flood control

Section 558b of this title is made applicable to authorized works of flood control.

(Aug. 11, 1939, ch. 699, §3, 53 Stat. 1414.)
### §59ee–1. Declaration of nonnavigability for portion of Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel

All waters within such portion of the project are declared to be nonnavigable waters of the United States solely for the purposes of the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525 et seq.) and section 401 of this title.

(Pub. L. 106–541, title III, §347(a)(2), Dec. 11, 2000, 114 Stat. 2618.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

"Such portion of the project", referred to in text, means "The portion of the project for navigation, Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel, California, authorized by section 202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4092), beginning from the confluence of the Sacramento River and the Barge Canal to a point 3,300 feet west of the William G. Stone Lock western gate (including the William G. Stone Lock and the Bascule Bridge and Barge Canal)." See first sentence of section 347(a)(2) of Pub. L. 106–541, Dec. 11, 2000, 114 Stat. 2618.

The General Bridge Act of 1946, referred to in text, is title V of act Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, 60 Stat. 847, which is classified generally to subchapter III (§525 et seq.) of chapter 11 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 525 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the last sentence of section 347(a)(2) of Pub. L. 106–541.
#### § 302.107 Suitability inquiries regarding criminal history.

Agency inquiries regarding criminal history must be done in accordance with the requirements under chapter 92 of title 5, U.S. Code and part 920 of this chapter.

[88 FR 60329, Sept. 1, 2023]
# L_2014228EN.01000103.xml

| 31.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 228/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 228/1

---

Information on the date of entry into force of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles

Following signature on 18 December 2013, the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles notified on 14 May and 25 June 2014 respectively, that they had finalised their internal procedures to conclude the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (1).

1

The Protocol accordingly entered into force on 25 June 2014 pursuant to Article 16 thereof.

---

(1)  The Protocol was published in OJ L 4, 9.1.2014, p. 3.

1

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

BRANDON LEMAR MCINTYRE

,

Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee.

No. 2D 20 2 2

- 2376

May 8, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Kimberly K. Fernandez, Judge.

Paul Domenic Petruzzi and Beatriz D. Vazquez of Law Offices of Paul Petruzzi, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alicia M. Winterkorn, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA

, LaROSE

, and SMITH

, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
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-04-035 August 20, 2004

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS

AT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will begin a special inspection to evaluate problems

related to a system that may be used to supply water for emergency cooling in the unlikely event

of an accident at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. The plant, located near

Wintersburg, Ariz., is operated by Arizona Public Service Co. 

On July 29, operators at Palo Verde discovered air trapped in a section of piping that

could interfere with the performance of pumps needed to supply water for emergency core

cooling and containment spray during some accident conditions. 

“Although the licensee took actions which address the immediate safety concern it is

important for the NRC to independently assess that these actions are acceptable for the long-term

and that there are no potential generic issues for other nuclear plants,” said NRC Region IV

Administrator Bruce S. Mallett.

The NRC staff has decided to conduct a special inspection to evaluate the adequacy of the

licensee’s response to the situation, including its extent, its root cause and corrective actions.

The NRC’s Special Inspection Team, consisting of the resident inspector from the Grand

Gulf nuclear plant and the senior resident inspector at Waterford 3, as well as a headquarters

specialist, will begin its review Monday.

The team will issue an inspection report about 30 days after their inspection is completed. 

The report will be available on the agency’s web site and through its Electronic Reading Room

at: http://www.nrc.gov as an Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS)

document. Help in using ADAMS is available through the NRC Public Document Room at 301-

415-4737, or 1-800-397-4209.
-2-

Concurrently, the NRC also is conducting a follow-up to its augmented inspection of the

shutdown of all three reactors at the site on June 14, following an electrical grid disturbance.

An NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) determined that the licensee’s response to

the event was generally acceptable, although complicated by a number of equipment failures,

procedure issues, and human performance issues. A number of issues were identified as

requiring corrective actions and assessment, which an AIT follow-up team will review. A report

on the first team’s findings is available through ADAMS.

The AIT follow-up team will report to the site no later than Sept 7. and issue a report 

within 45 days of the completion of work. It will be made available through ADAMS.

###
### §862a. Repealed. Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, §53, 70A Stat. 641

Section, acts Mar. 2, 1923, ch. 178, title I, 42 Stat. 1385; Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, §11, 63 Stat. 559, prohibited the issuance of heat or light in kind to any person in the Coast and Geodetic Survey while such person is receiving an allowance for rental of quarters.
#### § 531.408 [Reserved]
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

No. 07-004 January 11, 2007

NRC RELEASES MOST OF BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR PLANT SITEFOR UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC USE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved Consumers Energy’s request to release amajority of the Big Rock Point nuclear power plant site near Charlevoix, Mich., for unrestricted publicuse.

The land, approximately 435 acres, is below NRC regulatory requirements that allow amaximum radiation dose of 25 millirem per year from residual contamination. (The average person inthe United States receives about 300 millirem from background radiation each year.) Release of thisland for unrestricted use poses no threat to public health and safety.

Big Rock Point’s licenses will still apply to the site’s dry cask storage facility, where the spentnuclear fuel from the plant’s 35 years of operation is stored, plus a parcel of land surrounding thisfacility. The total land remaining under the licenses is approximately 107 acres. Consumer’s Energyremains responsible for the security and protection of this land and the dry cask storage facility, and isrequired to maintain $44.4 million in nuclear liability insurance coverage for the facility.

Big Rock Point began commercial operations March 29, 1963, and ceased production Aug. 29,1997. Consumers Energy initiated decommissioning shortly thereafter. Dismantlement anddecommissioning were completed in August 2006. NRC surveys verified that cleanup met the 25millirem per year requirement.

The NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report of Big Rock Point’s amendment request will be availablein the agency’s online documents database, ADAMS, at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html , using accession number ML063410368 in the search field.

### 

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7707

NATHANIEL SCOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

C. E. THOMPSON, Warden; FAYE NEWTON, Correctional Officer; CAPTAIN SPEED; LIEUTENANT

RICE; SERGEANT HICKS; SERGEANT LINDSEY;

SERGEANT BOYD; D. GEORGE; L. SMITH, Sergeant;

TERRY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-94-595)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 25, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Elizabeth Shea, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Scott v. Thompson, No. CA-94-595 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Control Measure:

School Bus Replacement

Description:

All model year 2002 and older buses will be replaced with model year 2007 diesel buses.

Documentation:

 Environmental Protection Agency, Clean School Bus USA: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/index.htm

 School Bus Transportation News, K-12 Enrollment / Transportation Data, 2002-03 

School Year: http://www.stnonline.com/stn/data_statistics/2002-03_schoolyear.htm

Methodology:

All model year 2002 and older buses will be replaced with model year 2007 diesel buses. Both 

daily and annual benefits were calculated. Annual emissions were calculated using a two-season 

approach. It is assumed that school buses operate 180 days per year and cost $60,000 to replace.

Inputs/Assumptions:

 58.10% of all school bus VMT (both daily and annual) can be attributed to model year 

1992-2002 buses.

 5.22% of all school bus VMT (both daily and annual) can be attributed to model year 

1991 and older buses.

 MOBILE6.2 was used to generate emission factors and VMT.

 The expected life of a school bus is 10 years.

 School buses operate 180 days per year.

 It costs $60,000 to purchase one new school bus.

 There are 21,228 school buses in the state of New Jersey. Twenty percent (4,246) of 

those buses will be replaced.

Results:

Total Affected VMT:

Daily

Model Years 1992-2002 = 15,332 miles/day

Model Years 1991 & Older = 1,372 miles/day

Annual

Model Years 1992-2002 = 5,140,062 miles/year

Model Years 1991 & Older = 461,809 miles/year

Statewide Benefits (Emission Reductions):

Pollutant

Type

Analysis Year 2009

tons/day tons/year

VOC 0.01 NA

NOx 0.27 67.29

PM2.5 NA 3.25

SO2 NA NA

*Statewide emission benefits include counties not included below
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT, STATEWIDE

RACM Analysis

Ozone Analysis – Daily Benefits (tpd) in New Jersey:

Benefits 

(Reductions)

Ozone Non-Attainment Area

NY-NJ-CT PA-NJ-MD-DE

VMT 8,156 8,547

VOC (Tons/Day) 0.004 0.004

NOx (Tons/Day) 0.13 0.14

PM2.5 Analysis – Annual Benefits (tpy) in New Jersey:

Benefits 

(Reductions)

PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area

NY-NJ-CT PA-NJ-DE

VMT 3,190,968 2,410,904

NOx (Tons/Year) 38.33 28.96

PM2.5 (Tons/Year) 1.85 1.40

SO2 (Tons/Year) NA NA

Cost Benefit Results:

Nonattainment Area

Ozone ($/tpd)

VOC NOx

NY-NJ-CT $ 16,460,350 $ 519,715 

PA-NJ-MD-DE $ 16,460,350 $ 519,715 

Statewide $ 16,460,350 $ 519,715 

Nonattainment Area

PM2.5 ($/tpy)

NOx PM2.5 SO2

NY-NJ-CT $ 378,573 $ 7,844,405 NA 

PA-NJ-DE $ 378,573 $ 7,844,405 NA 

Statewide $ 378,573 $ 7,844,405 NA
§ 353.207 Position to which restored. ( a ) *Timing.* An employee returning from the uniformed services following an absence of more than 30 days is entitled to be restored as soon as possible after making application, but in no event later than 30 days after receipt of the application by the agency.
( b ) *Nondisabled.* If the employee's uniformed service was for less than 91 days, he or she must be employed in the position for which qualified that he or she would have attained if continuously employed. If not qualified for this position after reasonable efforts by the agency to qualify the employee, he or she is entitled to be placed in the position he or she left. For service of 91 days or more, the agency has the option of placing the employee in a position of like seniority, status, and pay. (Note: Upon reemployment, a term employee completes the unexpired portion of his or her original appointment.) If unqualified (for any reason other than disability incurred in or aggravated during service in the uniformed services) after reasonable efforts by the agency to qualify the employee for such position or the position the employee left, he or she must be restored to any other position of lesser status and pay for which qualified, with full seniority.
( c ) *Disabled.* An employee with a disability incurred in or aggravated during uniformed service and who, after reasonable efforts by the agency to accommodate the disability, is entitled to be placed in another position for which qualified that will provide the employee with the same seniority, status, and pay, or the nearest approximation consistent with the circumstances in each case. The agency is not required to reemploy a disabled employee if, after making due efforts to accommodate the disability, such reemployment would impose an undue hardship on the agency.
( d ) *Two or more persons entitled to restoration in the same position.* If two or more persons are entitled to restoration in the same position, the one who left the position first has the prior right to restoration in that position. The other employee(s) is entitled to be placed in a position as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( e ) *Relationship to an entitlement based on veterans' preference.* An employee's right to restoration under this part does not entitle the person to retention, preference, or displacement rights over any person with a superior claim based on veterans' preference.
#### Brooks Transportation Co., Inc., Appellant, v. Hillcrea Export *&*Import Corporation, Respondent.

One engaged in interstate commerce is not obligated to file a certificate of doing business with the Secretary of State. *(International Text Book Co.*v. *Tone,*220 N. Y. 313.) Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.
•• 

... 

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS :; 20 ,_ __, ; 

June 15, 2012 

Mr. Ray LaHood 

Secretary of Transportation 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

stCAOIX stJOHN stTHOMAS ~ - ~ '-

The United States Virgin Islands Department of Tourism is in full support of the request for a grant 

under the current Small Community Air Service Development program. We are partnering with the 

Virgin Islands Port Authority and other groups in the public/private consortium backing this effort. 

As do many Caribbean islands, St. Croix relies on tourism as its primary economic engine. Good air 

service Is essential to our growth and the creation of new job opportunities. The Department of 

Tourism's goal is to increase the number of visitors to the u.s. Virgin Islands and strengthen the 

product provided to tourists. Ease of access to St. Croix by air is a key to meeting this goal and to 

the enhancement of our product. 

The U.S. Virgin Islands Department ofTourism has continually made substantial investments in 

advertising and promotions to support the virtues of vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. We 

pledge to continue our assistance to make any air service improvements successful. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, . - . 

(.J~_/L~t L f.f--71 U: lt( c:.: . ..__ I . 

Chantal Figueroa f .• 

Deputy Commissioner 

U.S Virgin Islands Department of Tourism 

PO Box 6400 St. Thomas. VI 00804 T 340.774.8784 F 340.774.43110 W www.vialtusVl.com 

A 

D
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7909

DARRIN DEWAYNE BRUMMETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

SCOTT WILKINSON; MICHAEL A. COSENTINO; RONNIE

B. SHARPE; DON R. SMITH; DARRLY A. DIXON;

LAMAR DESHAWN MULLINS; DANIEL ID-DEEN; LONNIE

THOMPSON; MICHAEL PETERSON, a/k/a Larry G.

Arrington,

Plaintiffs,

versus

JAMES MCCAULEY,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 95-8586

LAMAR DESHAWN MULLINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

DARRIN DEWAYNE BRUMMETT; SCOTT WILKINSON;

MICHAEL A. COSENTINO; RONNIE B. SHARPE; DON R.

SMITH; DARRLY A. DIXON; DANIEL ID-DEEN; LONNIE

THOMPSON; MICHAEL PETERSON, a/k/a Larry G.

Arrington,
2

Plaintiffs,
3

versus

JAMES MCCAULEY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-95-3262-3-20BC)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrin DeWayne Brummett, Lamar Deshawn Mullins, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
4

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying

relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Brummett v. McCauley, No. CA-95-3262-3-20BC (D.S.C. Nov. 8,

1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
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-05-027 July 6, 2005

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO MEET WITH NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT

TO DISCUSS MARCH 14 FIRE AT COOPER NUCLEAR STATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Nebraska

Public Power District (NPPD) on July 13, to discuss the company’s response to a fire that

occurred at the Cooper Nuclear Station on March 14.

The meeting will begin at noon in the NRC’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. The

public is invited to observe the meeting and will have one or more opportunities to communicate

with the NRC after the business portion, but before the meeting is adjourned. Persons interested

in participating in the meeting via telephone can do so by calling (800) 952-9677 and asking to

be transferred to the meeting.

NPPD asked the NRC for an opportunity to provide its perspective on a non-cited

violation regarding failure to properly implement its emergency response plan during a March 14

fire that occurred in part of the radiologically controlled area used as a storage and machine shop.

The NRC determined that NPPD failed to declare the fire an Unusual Event, as called for

in its emergency plan, because it took more than 10 minutes to extinguish. 

 “It is important that licensees appropriately classify emergencies as well as respond to

them effectively,” said Bruce S. Mallet, NRC Region IV Administrator. “NPPD disagreed with

the NRC’s conclusions and requested a meeting to discuss the issues.”

###
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUN 4 1999

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DAVID L. BUIST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KATHY CARTWRIGHT; KEN

BINGHAM; DUANE JOHNSON;

JANET SORENSON; STEVEN

YATES; DAVID OKIE; and 

TAMARA ROBINETTE,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-4007

(D. C. No. 98-CV-29-C)

(D. Utah)

_______________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

______________________________

Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY,Circuit Judges.

_______________________________

After examining Plaintiff-Appellant’s brief and appellate record, this panel

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 
-2-

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brought an action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for six alleged claims of constitutional

violations. Read liberally, they are:

1. Denial of access to the courts by prevention of phone calls and mail

for forty-eight days.

2. Ninth Amendment claim incorporating the conduct described in the

access to courts claims.

3. Cruel and unusual punishment by requiring him to participate in a

“confrontation group” and denial of phone access and a tape recorder

rather than hand-written lesson notes.

4. Denial of due process incorporating the behavior alleged in the claim

for cruel and unusual punishment.

5. A Miranda claim in connection with his arrest.

6. A claim that he was denied an opportunity to file grievances

apparently about the matters included in his other claims.

The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who filed a detailed Report

and Recommendation stating that each claim should be dismissed as legally

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court reviewed the

report, Plaintiff’s objections, and the complaint de novo. It adopted the Report
-3-

and Recommendation and dismissed the complaint. We have made the same

review and conclude that the Report and Recommendation is correct. 

On appeal, Plaintiff also complains that the district court should have

permitted him to amend his complaint rather than dismiss it. We find no merit to

this claim.

For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation, we dismiss the appeal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(I). The district court’s dismissal of the complaint and our

dismissal of the appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. Med. Facility, F.3d , 1999 WL

248634, at *4 (10th Cir. 1999).

DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-12-0000561 27-SEP-2013 01:40 PM