alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REPLACEMENT PROMISSORY NOTE

$15,000
                                                          COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
                                                               February 27, 2004

FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,  the  undersigned,  Rapidtron,  Inc., a Nevada Corporation
(herein  called  Maker), hereby promises to pay to the order of Steve Meineke, a
resident  of  California  (herein  called Holder), in lawful money of the United
States of America, the principal sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND Dollars ($15,000), with
interest  thereon  at  the rate as established monthly by Wells Fargo for Equity
loans  with  a  floating rate.  This Replacement Promissory Note is made in full
replacement  of  that  certain  Promissory  Note  dated October 3, 2002, made by
Rapidtron,  Inc.,  a  Delaware  corporation,  Maker's  wholly-owned  subsidiary,
payable  to  Holder,  for  the  principal  amount  of  $15,000.

The term of this Note is that it is to be paid upon demand.  The Holder will pay
the  monthly-accrued  interest  charged  by Wells Fargo on the fifteenth of each
month.

This  Note  and the rights and duties of the parties hereunder shall be governed
for  all  purposes  by  the  laws of the State of California and the laws of the
United  States  applicable  to  transactions  within  such  State.

Holder  may,  at  its  option,  at  any  time, convert all or any portion of the
outstanding  amount  of  this  Note  (including  principal,  accrued  and unpaid
interest  and  all other sums due hereunder) into that number of shares (each, a
"Share")  of  common stock of Maker at a conversion rate of $1.25 per share.  To
convert  this  Note, Holder must present a written notice of conversion to Maker
specifying  the amount of the outstanding balance that Holder elects to convert.
As  a  condition  precedent to the effectiveness of the conversion of this Note,
upon  such  conversion, Holder shall execute and deliver to Maker an instrument,
in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Maker, representing that Holder
is  an  "accredited  investor"  within  the meaning of the rules and regulations
promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act");
and  that  the Shares issued upon conversion of this Note are being acquired for
such Holder's own account, for investment and not with a view to sale, transfer,
assignment or distribution within the meaning of the Securities Act.   Following
the  conversion  of  the  entire  outstanding  amount under this Note (including
principal,  accrued  and unpaid interest and all other sums due hereunder), this
Note  shall  be deemed no longer outstanding and all rights with respect to this
Note  shall  immediately cease and terminate, except only the right of Holder to
receive  the  Shares  in  exchange  therefor.

"Maker"

Rapidtron,  Inc.,
a  Nevada  corporation


By:  /s/  John  Creel
     --------------------------------
     John  Creel,  President
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1908 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1908

To name the health care facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
located at 820 South Damen Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Jesse 
         Brown Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2003

Mr. Davis of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mr. Rush, Mr. Jackson of 
   Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Hyde, Mr. 
   Crane, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Costello, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. 
    Hastert, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. LaHood, Mr. 
    Shimkus, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Moran of 
     Virginia, Mr. Filner, Mr. Frost, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. 
Faleomavaega, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Weller) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To name the health care facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
located at 820 South Damen Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Jesse 
         Brown Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS HEALTH CARE FACILITY, 
              CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.

     The Department of Veterans Affairs health care facility located at 
820 South Damen Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, shall after the date of 
the enactment of this Act be known and designated as the ``Jesse Brown 
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. Any reference to such 
facility in any law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record 
of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Jesse 
Brown Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
                                 <all>
```
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-07-0167 -  Revision of Policy Statement on Regulation of Advanced Reactors

Accession Number: ML072070352

Date Released: Thursday, October 11, 2007

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.
    - ML072060539 - SECY-07-0167 - Revision of Policy Statement on Regulation of Advanced Reactors (4 page(s), 9/25/2007)
    - ML072070160 - SECY-07-0167 Enclosure:  Draft Federal Register Notice (7 page(s), 9/25/2007)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1745

To express the sense of the Congress that funding should be made available 

from the Highway Trust Fund to encourage States to require law enforcement officers to impound motor vehicles of those charged with 

driving while intoxicated, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 10, 2003

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To express the sense of the Congress that funding should 

be made available from the Highway Trust Fund to 

encourage States to require law enforcement officers to 

impound motor vehicles of those charged with driving 

while intoxicated, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

4 It is the sense of Congress that funding should be 

5 made available from the Highway Trust Fund to encour6 age States to require law enforcement officers to impound 

7 motor vehicles of individuals charged with operating a 
2

•HR 1745 IH 

1 motor vehicle while intoxicated and to issue responsibility 

2 warnings to individuals who take custody of suspects of 

3 driving while intoxicated. 

4 SEC. 2. NTSB STUDY AND REPORT. 

5 (a) STUDY.—The National Transportation Safety 

6 Board shall conduct a study on—

7 (1) the number of States that have adopted 

8 laws to impound the motor vehicles of individuals 

9 charged with driving while intoxicated; and 

10 (2) the number and severity of traffic accidents 

11 caused by individuals who were released by State 

12 and local police hours after being charged with driv13 ing while intoxicated. 

14 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date 

15 of enactment of this Act, the Board shall transmit to Con16 gress a report on the results of the study, together with 

17 recommendations on the need for States to enact vehicle 

18 impoundment laws for those charged with driving while 

19 intoxicated and the effectiveness of such laws in States 

20 which have already enacted such laws.

Æ
Rockingham,

June, 1899.

#### Wells *v.*Anderson & *a.*

A bequest of *“*one dollar and no moré” to an heir-at-law of the testator will not prevent him from taking his distributive share in property undisposed of by the will.

Petition for partition of the Jack lot, so called. Pacts agreed. Josiah I. Hall, late of Chester, died testate, owning a homestead worth about $2,300, the Jack lot worth about $1,200, and a small quantity of personal property. His heirs were a son, John G., a daughter, Margaret A., and the plaintiff, the son of a deceased daughter. By his will, he devised the homestead to John G. and his children, but made no specific devise of the Jack lot, and no reference whatever to either of his daughters or the plaintiff. By a codicil, he gave the plaintiff “ one dollar and no more.” Neither the will nor the codicil contains any residuary clause. The defendant Anderson claims title to the Jack lot under a quitclaim deed from John G. and Margaret A., and the plaintiff claims title to one undivided third part of it by descent from Josiah I.

*David Cross,*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown Warren,*for the defendants.

Chase, J.

The defendants’ claim of title to the whole lot is based upon the inference, drawn from the form of the bequest to the plaintiff, that the testator intended the plaintiff should have only one dollar from the entire estate. It is certain that the testator did not intend to give the plaintiff more than one dollar by will, but it does not appear that he intended the plaintiff should not share with the other heirs in the undevised portion of his estate. A bequest of *“*one dollar and no more ” is consistent with an intention to give that sum only by will, and to allow the legatee to take whatever other portion of the estate the law would give him. To prevent the plaintiff from having more than one dollar, it was necessary for the testator to make disposition of his entire estate ; he could not entrust the disposition of a portion of it to the provisions of the statutes, for they would give one third of such portion to the plaintiff, and one third to each of the two surviving children. If the testator understood that his use of the words, “ and no more,” would prevent the plaintiff from taking a third of the undevised portion, he must have understood also that this third would be left undis*562posed of either by the will or the statute. He certainly could not have understood that those words would devise it to the two surviving children. They are words of limitation and not of devise. See *Denn*v. *Gaskin,*Cowp. 657; *Haxtun*v. *Corse, 2*Barb. Ch. 506, 521; *Gallagher*v. *Crooks,*132 N. Y. *338; Nickerson*v. *Bowly,*8 Met. 424, 431, 432.

Considering that the testator’s language was used in the act of making a will, and giving the words their ordinary effect, it appears that he intended to bequeath only one dollar to the plaintiff, and to leave the Jack lot and other portions of his estate to be distributed among his heirs by operation of law. In this way the plaintiff acquired title to one third part of the Jack lot. P. S., *c.*196, *s.*1.

*Case discharged.*

All concurred.
§ 575.104 Ineligible categories of employees. An agency may not pay a recruitment incentive to an employee in— ( a ) A position to which an individual is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate;
( b ) A position in the Senior Executive Service as a noncareer appointee (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(7));
( c ) A position excepted from the competitive service by reason of its confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character; or
( d ) A position not otherwise covered by the exclusions in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section— ( 1 ) To which an individual is appointed by the President without the advice and consent of the Senate, except a Senior Executive Service position in which the individual serves as a career appointee (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(4));
( 2 ) Designated as the head of an agency, including an agency headed by a collegial body composed of two or more individual members;
( 3 ) In which the employee is expected to receive an appointment as the head of an agency; or
( 4 ) To which an individual is appointed as a Senior Executive Service limited term appointee or limited emergency appointee (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 3132(a)(5) and (a)(6), respectively) when the appointment must be cleared through the White House Office of Presidential Personnel.
[70 FR 25740, May 13, 2005, as amended at 78 FR 49363, Aug. 14, 2013]
### §2338. Reburial and conveyance authority

#### (a) Definition of Indian tribe

In this section, the term "Indian tribe" has the meaning given the term in section 5304 of title 25.

#### (b) Reburial

#### (1) Reburial areas

In consultation with affected Indian tribes, the Secretary may identify and set aside areas at civil works projects of the Department of the Army that may be used to rebury Native American remains that—

(A) have been discovered on project land; and

(B) have been rightfully claimed by a lineal descendant or Indian tribe in accordance with applicable Federal law.

#### (2) Reburial

In consultation with and with the consent of the lineal descendant or the affected Indian tribe, the Secretary may recover and rebury, at Federal expense, the remains at the areas identified and set aside under subsection (b)(1).

#### (c) Conveyance authority

#### (1) In general

Subject to paragraph (2), notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may convey to an Indian tribe for use as a cemetery an area at a civil works project that is identified and set aside by the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).

#### (2) Retention of necessary property interests

In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall retain any necessary right-of-way, easement, or other property interest that the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the authorized purposes of the project.

(Pub. L. 106–541, title II, §208, Dec. 11, 2000, 114 Stat. 2590.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, 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 2 of Pub. L. 106–541, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER III—DNA ARRESTEE COLLECTION PROCESSES
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-11119 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO ISMAEL CORONA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:02-CR-6-ALL-C

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Ismael Corona-Martinez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Corona-Martinez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Corona-Martinez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictmentNo. 02-11119 -2- which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Corona-Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need not file an appellee’s brief.
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

A&R Line, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board regarding the status of

A&R Line, Inc. (A&R) as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C.

§231 et seq.HRRA) and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351 et

sea.HRUIA).

Information about A&R was furnished by Mr. Daniel R. Frick, owner and CEO of

A&R. According to ICC Finance Docket No. 32693, dated April 20, 1995, and its

two supplements, dated May 5, 1995 and June 5, 1995, A&R is a class III line

haul carrier which purchased a 27.4 mile stretch of rail line from the Winamac

Southern Railway Company (WSRC), BA. No. 3383. The line extends from

milepost 25.7 at Winamac, IN, to milepost 5.0 at Kenneth, IN, and then eastwardly

to milepost 74.5 at Logansport, IN. A&R has agreed to allow WSRC trackage

rights over a portion of that line. A&R commenced operations on September 1,

1995. A&R reports that it currently has no employees. It leases a locomotive from

J. K. Line (JK), BA No. 3371, and a crew of employees from JK conducts the A&R

operations. A&R states that the JK employees are full-time paid employees of JK

and that A&R compensates JK for their services.

Section 1(a)(1) of the RRA defines the term "employer" to include:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the

Surface Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV of title 49,

United Stated Code;

(ii) any company which is directly or indirectly owned or

controlled by, or under common control with one or more employers

as defined in paragraph (i) of this subdivision, and which operates any

equipment or facility or performs any service (except trucking service,

casual service, and the casual operation of equipment or facilities) in 

connection with the transportation of passengers or property by

railroad, or the receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit,

refrigeration or icing, storage, or handling of property transported by

railroad * * *. [45 U.S.C. §231 (a)(1)(i) and (iii)].

Section 1 (a) of the RUIA (45 U.S.C. §351 (a)) contains essentially the same

definition.

The evidence establishes that A&R is a class III rail carrier. Accordingly, it is

determined that A&R at least nominally comes under the definition of employer

stated above. A&R has no employees and utilizes the employees of another

railroad carrier which is an employer under the Acts. That employer reports the

employee service rendered to A&R to the Board. A majority of the Board finds that

BCD 1996-63
-2-

A&R, Inc. is not an employer subject to the Railroad Retirement and Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Acts. This determination would be reevaluated if A&R

hires its own employees or if it begins utilizing a non-employer under the Acts to

perform the railroad service A&R is obligate^ to provide.

Glen L. Bower

V. M.tSpeakman, jK (Dissenting)
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. 07-171 December 21, 2007 

NRC PROPOSES $19,200 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST CALIFORNIA FIRM 

FOR FALSIFIED INSPECTION REPORT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a civil penalty of $19,200 

against Alpha Omega Services, Inc., (AOS) of Bellflower, Calif., and barred the company 

president from NRC-licensed activity for deliberately falsifying an inspection report on a 

package used for transporting radioactive materials. 

 A notice of violation issued Dec. 19 charges AOS with two counts of deliberate 

misconduct for providing false information to an NRC licensee and its contractor in 

January 2003 by stating in a report of an inspection that the transportation package met 

NRC requirements even though the company knew the package had been modified and 

no longer met the specifications in its Certificate of Compliance from the NRC. 

 

 As a result of the falsified information, an NRC licensee made at least three 

exports of radioactive material outside of the country in violation of NRC and U.S. 

Department of Transportation regulations. While the NRC is not aware of actual safety 

consequences associated with the shipments, the potential safety consequences were 

significant, considering the potential adverse impact of shipping radioactive materials in 

the modified and unapproved package design that no longer met transportation package 

approval standards for both normal and hypothetical accident conditions. 

 An order accompanying the notice of violation bars Cary W. Hedger, AOS 

president and radiation safety officer, from NRC-licensed activities for three years. 

Hedger was the company’s operations officer in 2003 when he filled out the false 

inspection report. 

 The modified package was identified during an NRC inspection of the AOS 

facility in November 2004. An investigation by NRC’s Office of Investigations led to the 
recent NRC enforcement actions in coordination with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation and the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 The NRC has determined this to be a Severity Level II violation, the second-most 

serious of four levels of safety significance. The company has 20 days to accept the civil 

penalty or challenge the agency’s determination. 

 The enforcement actions against AOS are posted on the NRC Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#materials. 

### 

 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.