alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §21101. Definitions

In this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

#### (1) Child exploitation

The term "child exploitation" means any conduct, attempted conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct involving a minor that violates section 1591, chapter 109A, chapter 110, and chapter 117 of title 18 or any sexual activity involving a minor for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.

#### (2) Child obscenity

The term "child obscenity" means any visual depiction proscribed by section 1466A of title 18.

#### (3) Minor

The term "minor" means any person under the age of 18 years.

#### (4) Sexually explicit conduct

The term "sexually explicit conduct" has the meaning given such term in section 2256 of title 18.

(Pub. L. 110–401, §2, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4229.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 110–401, Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4229, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2008 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 17601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
**EXHIBIT        32.2**

| (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 of the Company as of March 31, 2008 and results of operations                  of                  the                  Company for the three months ended March 31,                  2008. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                      |                                                                      |                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      | NF                  Energy                  Saving Corporation of America |
|                                                 |                                                                 |                                               |
| Date: May                  15,                  2008 | By:                                                             | /s/ Li                  Hua,                  Wang |
|                                                      | Chief                  Financial Officer                                  |
|                                                      |                                                                      |

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 9, 2022

NO. 03-21-00607-CV

Jon Thomas, Appellant

v.

GenMega, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 26TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, TRIANA

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 22, 2021. Jon Thomas

has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that 

the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. 

Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and in the 

court below.
#### Isidore Bitterman, Appellant, v. 2007 Davidson Ave., Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Present— Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ.; Shientag, J. dissents and votes to reverse and grant the motion. [Order denied second motion for preference.] [See *post,*p. 1065.]
### **CHAPTER 31—INTER PARTES REVIEW**

Sec.
311.
Inter partes review.
312.
Petitions.
313.
Preliminary response to petition.
314.
Institution of inter partes review.
315.
Relation to other proceedings or actions.
316.
Conduct of inter partes review.
317.
Settlement.
318.
Decision of the Board.
319.
Appeal.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2011**—Pub. L. 112–29, §6(a), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 299, substituted "INTER PARTES REVIEW" for "OPTIONAL INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION PROCEDURES" in chapter heading and amended analysis generally, adding items 311 to 319, and striking out former items 311 "Request for inter partes reexamination", 312 "Determination of issue by Director", 313 "Inter partes reexamination order by Director", 314 "Conduct of inter partes reexamination proceedings", 315 "Appeal", 316 "Certificate of patentability, unpatentability, and claim cancellation", 317 "Inter partes reexamination prohibited", and 318 "Stay of litigation".

**2002**—Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13202(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1902, made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4604(a)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–567, which enacted this chapter.
No: II-08-002 January 24, 2008 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov 

 Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

NRC PROPOSES $32,500 FINE AGAINST BWXT IN LYNCHBURG, VA 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday proposed a $32,500 fine against BWX 

Technologies for a violation of NRC safety requirements involving failure to analyze a potential 

nuclear criticality safety event at the company’s plant near Lynchburg, Va. 

 NRC officials said that no criticality occurred, but that on July 26, 2007, a specially 

designed vacuum cleaner carrying high enriched uranium solution spilled its contents into an 

attached plastic bag being used for contamination control, a configuration which had not been 

analyzed for nuclear criticality safety, Officials said that, in this case, actual consequences of the 

spill were minimal because of the amount and low concentration of high enriched uranium 

solution. However, they said the potential consequences were significant because, under different 

circumstances in which a sufficient concentration of available high enriched uranium solution 

had been present, a criticality accident would have been possible. 

 A “criticality” can occur when high enriched uranium comes together in sufficient 

quantity or in a container of correct shape to initiate a chain reaction resulting in either a “burst” 

or a sustained release of radiation. The NRC said such an event would not be expected to have a 

health effect upon people or the environment outside the facility but could be catastrophic to 

individuals in the immediate area inside the plant. 

 The NRC concluded that BWXT, in this case, had insufficient controls to ensure that high 

enriched uranium solution in vacuum cleaners would be maintained below acceptable quantities 

and concentrations. 

 NRC officials said the reason for the violation, actions taken and planned to correct the 

violation and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance will be achieved, as 

reflected in BWXT’s November 16, 2007 response letter, have been adequately addressed. 

 The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the fine or 

to protest its imposition, in whole or in part. 

 A copy of the letter and its enclosures, sent by the NRC to the company on January 24, 

will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov 
the NRC’s document system (ADAMS), accessible from the NRC web site at 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/pdr.html and at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv 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.
### §826. Limitation on certain liability for rescue operations

#### (a) In general

No person shall bring an action against any covered individual or his or her regular employer for property damage or an injury (or death) sustained as a result of carrying out activities relating to mine accident rescue or recovery operations. This subsection shall not apply where the action that is alleged to result in the property damages or injury (or death) was the result of gross negligence, reckless conduct, or illegal conduct or, where the regular employer (as such term is used in this chapter) is the operator of the mine at which the rescue activity takes place. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt State workers' compensation laws.

#### (b) Covered individual

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "covered individual" means an individual—

(1) who is a member of a mine rescue team or who is otherwise a volunteer with respect to a mine accident; and

(2) who is carrying out activities relating to mine accident rescue or recovery operations.

#### (c) Regular employer

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "regular employer" means the entity that is the covered employee's legal or statutory employer pursuant to applicable State law.

(Pub. L. 91–173, title I, §116, as added Pub. L. 109–236, §3, June 15, 2006, 120 Stat. 496.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 91–173, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 742, known as the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 801 of this title and Tables.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MI KHAIL KOKORICH, §

§

Plaintiff Below, Appellant, § No. 207, 20 23

§

v. § Court Below: Court of Chancery

§ of the State of Delaware

MOMENTUS, INC ., a Delaware §

Corporation, § C.A. 2022

- 0722

§

Defendant Bel ow, Appellee. §

Submitted: November 1 5 , 2023

Decided: November 30 , 2023

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA

, and GRIFFITHS , Justices

.

O R D E R

Now this 30th day of Novembe r 2023, the Court having considered this matter on

the briefs and oral arguments of the parties and the record below and having concluded that

the same should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Court of

Chancery in its Memorand um Opinion and Ord er decided on May 15 , 2023;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery be and the same hereby is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7632

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGGIE LAMAR KELLEY, a/k/a Lil Red,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior

District Judge. (3:04-cr-00998-CMC-1; 3:13-cv-02494-CMC)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reggie Lamar Kelley, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reggie Lamar Kelley seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as 

successive and unauthorized, and he has filed a motion for a 

certificate of appealability. The district court’s order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Kelley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### J. D. Stires v. First National Bank of Columbus, appellant; Columbus State Bank, appellee and cross-appellant.

Filed February 28, 1911.

No. 16,792.

Appeal from the district court for Platte county: Conrad Hollenbeck, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Albert & Wagner,*for appellant.

*A. M. Post*and *J. D. Stires, contra.*

Per Curiam.

The two controlling facts in this case will be found fully stated in our two opinions on the former appeal, 83 Neb. 193; 85 Neb. 800. Upon the latter hearing the case was remanded with specific directions as to the distribution of the funds in controversy. This left nothing for the district court to do but to enter a decree in accordance with the mandate of this court. *Kerr v. McCreary,*86 Neb. 786; *Farmers & Merchants Bank v. German Nat. Bank,*59 Neb. 229. An examination of the record shows that the district court by its decree has distributed the funds in obedience to our mandate.

*530The judgment of the district court should therefore be affirmed, the appellant First National Bank of Columbus and cross-appellant Columbus State Bank each to pay its own costs on this appeal; and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.
U.S.Department ofTransport ation Federal Aviation Administration 

# AUG 11 201 4 Mr. Rickie Traeger Rockford Scanner 608 Loves Park Drive Loves Park, IL 61 111 Dear Mr. Traeger: 800 Independence Ave.. Sw. Washinglon . D. C. 20591

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. Why We Can Not Process Your Request We are unable to process your request on behalfofRockford Scanner any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of§ 11.81 ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all ofthe following: • The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent ofthe reliefyou seek, and the reason you seek relief. • The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level ofsafety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an

**~xemption.** • A summary we can publish in the Federal Register, stating: • The rule from which you seek the exemption; and • A briefdescription ofthe nature ofthe exemption you seek. • Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

### 2 

### What You Should Do Ifyou want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that§ 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date ofthe exemption. If

### We Do Not Hear From You Ifwe do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. Ifyou have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. Sincerely, Michelle Ferritto Acting Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division Enclosure
#### § 575.511 What happens when an employee is involuntarily separated or involuntarily reassigned prior to completion of the service period?

An employee who is involuntarily separated or is involuntarily reassigned to a position outside the particular territory, possession, or commonwealth involved is not indebted to the Federal Government for any extended assignment incentive payments he or she has received. The employee is entitled to keep all incentive payments received and, if applicable, is entitled to receive any additional amount representing the difference between the amount received and the prorated share of the total incentive attributable to completed service. The employee may receive a portion or all of the incentive payment attributable to uncompleted service only to the extent provided in the service agreement.

[68 FR 53669, Sept. 12, 2003; 68 FR 56665, Oct. 1, 2003]
# L_2017008EN.01002301.xml

| 12.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 8/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 8/23

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 190/2015

of 10 July 2015

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2017/30]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 of 26 February 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 441/2014 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 of 26 February 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 29/2009 laying down requirements on data link services for the single European sky and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 441/2014 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 repeals Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 441/2014 (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 repeals Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 441/2014 (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Point 66wg (Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2009) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement shall be amended as follows:

| (1) | the indent (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 441/2014) is deleted; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

the indent (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 441/2014) is deleted;

| (2) | the following indent is added:






  ‘— | 32015 R 0310: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 of 26 February 2015 (OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 30).’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

(2)

the following indent is added:

‘—

32015 R 0310: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 of 26 February 2015 (OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 30).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/310 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 11 July 2015, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 10 July 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Atle LEIKVOLL

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, p. 30.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 37.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-047 August 25, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE OF

INSPECTION FINDING AT OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Duke Energy on

Monday, September 13, in Atlanta to discuss the safety significance of NRC concerns with staffing in

the event of a fire at the Oconee nuclear power plant. The plant is located near Seneca, S. C. 

An NRC inspection in February found that Oconee fire response procedures were not

consistent with the plant’s licensing basis for manning of the Standby Shutdown Facility. That facility

can provide alternative controls for some of the plant’s systems should those functions be lost in the

main control room. The NRC found that in some scenarios there may be a delay in the transfer of

control to the alternate facility and resulting problems meeting NRC fire protection regulations.

The NRC staff’s preliminary assessment concluded that the finding has "greater than very low

safety significance" because it could affect fire protection defense in depth. However, it does not

represent a current safety concern because Duke has modified plant procedures to address the issue.

The September 13th meeting, called a regulatory conference, allows Duke Energy to provide the

NRC with any new information and to present its view of the issue’s safety significance. The meeting

will begin at 10:00 a.m. in the NRC’s Region II office in Atlanta, located on the 24th floor in the

Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street. The public can observe the meeting, and NRC officials

will be available before its conclusion to answer any questions. 

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a colorcoded process which classifies inspection findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in order of

increasing safety significance. The NRC preliminary evaluation found the safety significance of this

issue to be “greater than green.”

No final decision on the safety significance, any apparent violation or any enforcement action

will be made during the regulatory conference. Information presented at the conference will be used

by the NRC staff, along with the inspection findings, to determine the final safety significance of the

problem. Those results will be posted on the NRC’s web site at www.nrc.gov/what-wedo/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#reactor.

###