alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7626** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. MATTHEW YATES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia
. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. ( 3:11

- cr - 00374

- CMC

- 1 )

Submitted : December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLO YD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Matthew Yates, Appellant Pro Se. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Matthew Yates seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satis fies 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 (2 003). 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 Yates 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### §653a. Extension of jurisdiction of Mississippi River Commission

The jurisdiction of the Mississippi River Commission, established by section 641 of this title, is extended to include—

(1) all of the area between the eastern side of the Bayou Lafourche Ridge from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico and the west guide levee of the Mississippi River from Donaldsonville, Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico;

(2) Alexander County, Illinois; and

(3) the area in the State of Illinois from the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers northward to the vicinity of Mississippi River mile 39.5, including the Len Small Drainage and Levee District, insofar as such area is affected by the flood waters of the Mississippi River.

(Pub. L. 104–303, title V, §517, Oct. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 3764.)
469 P.2d 729

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie APODACA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 477.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

May 15, 1970.

Stanley F. Frost, Norman E. Runyan, Tucumcari, for defendant-appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Ray Shollenbarger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

WOOD, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. Section 40A-3-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Rep.Vol. 6). Appealing, defendant asserts the trial court improperly refused to allow defense counsel to cross-examine the complaining witness about his prior drinking. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the cross-examination and deprived defendant of a meaningful confrontation and a fair trial.

The witness testified on both direct and cross-examination that on the day of the assault he had been drinking wine and beer since shortly after noon. The assault occurred sometime between 9:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. Over the State’s objection, defendant was permitted to cross-examine the witness as to his drinking “[a] few days” prior to the day of the assault. Defense counsel then asked the witness whether he drank quite a bit in mid-day; that is, "nipping along.” At that point the trial court said: “That’s enough on that line.”

The permissible extent of this cross-examination was within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Sanchez, 79 N.M. 701, 448 P.2d 807 (Ct.App.1968). Nothing in the record indicates the trial court abused its discretion in cutting off an inquiry into the witness’s drinking times and style “[a] few days” prior to the crime.

Further, defendant made no objection to the trial court’s ruling; he never asserted, to the trial court, that his cross-examination was being improperly limited. Not having alerted the trial court to the error now alleged, the contention will not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Paul, 80 N.M. 521, 458 P.2d 596 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Duran, 80 N.M. 406, 456 P.2d 880 (Ct.App.1969).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and HENDLEY, JJ., concur.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-07-0216 - NRC Implementation Plan for the Radioactive Protection and Security Task Force Report

Accession Number: ML072970050

Date Released: Wednesday, December 26, 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.
    - ML072970058 - SECY-07-0216 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Implementation Plan for the Radioactive Protection and Security Task Force Report (4 page(s), 12/10/2007)
    - ML072970078 - SECY-07-0216 - Enclosure: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Implementation Plan for the Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report (56 page(s), 12/10/2007)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
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-03-021 May 5, 2003

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO CONDUCT SPECIAL INSPECTION

 AT SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT UNIT 1

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a Special Inspection into potential

leakage in the bottom of the reactor vessel at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant, Unit

1. The facility, which has two operating reactors, is located near Bay City, Texas. 

STP Nuclear Operating Company officials notified the NRC on April 13 that they

identified potential leak indications at the bottom of Unit 1’s reactor vessel during a visual

inspection. Small deposits of boron crystals were identified at two bottom mounted

instrumentation penetrations, indicating a possible leak of reactor coolant. The water that

circulates through a pressurized water reactor to cool the nuclear fuel contains a low

concentration of boric acid. This borated water can potentially leak through flanges, pump and

valve seals, and other parts of the reactor cooling system and cause corrosion. STP Unit 1 has

been shut down since March 25 for a refueling outage.

The NRC’s Special Inspection team, comprised of metallurgical and engineering

specialists, will monitor the utility’s investigation and evaluation of the potential leaks. The

inspection is being conducted to better understand the circumstances surrounding the boron

crystal deposits and to evaluate the licensee’s corrective action plans.

Following completion of the inspection, the NRC will hold a meeting in the plant vicinity

to discuss the inspection findings. The meeting will be open to public observation.

The inspection report, issued about four weeks after the inspection, 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

800/397-4209.

###
**Exhibit 24.1****POWER OF ATTORNEY**Each of the undersigned directors and officers of eFUNDS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,hereby constitutes and appoints Paul F. Walsh, George W. Gresham and Steven F. Coleman, and each ofthem, as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power to act without the other, tosign the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, and any and allamendments to such report, and to file the same and any such amendments, together with anyexhibits, and any other documents required in connection with such filing, with the Securities andExchange Commission under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.       Date/s/ Paul F. Walsh         Paul F. Walsh, Chairman
### §40508. Report to Congress

#### (a) In general

Not later than 1 year after December 27, 2022, and biennially thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a report describing the status of the NCIC database and NamUs databases.

#### (b) Contents

The report required by subsection (a) shall describe, to the extent available, information on the process of information sharing between the NCIC database and NamUs databases.

(Pub. L. 117–327, §5, Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4457.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of Billy's Law, also known as the Help Find the Missing Act, and not as part of Jennifer's Law which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of "NCIC database" and "NamUs databases" as used in this section, see section 6 of Pub. L. 117–327, set out as a note under section 40506 of this title.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0202. ANNA SINCLAIR-JAMISON v. DEMETRISE PINKERTON.

Anna Sinclair-Jamison and Demetrise Pinkerton are the parents of minor child

J. S.-P. In a prior action, the trial court awarded custody of J. S.-P. to Sinclair-Jamison

and granted visitation to Pinkerton. Pinkerton filed this petition seeking to hold

Sinclair-Jamison in contempt for willfully interfering with his visitation. The trial

court entered a final order denying Pinkerton’s petition, and he filed a “Motion to Set

Aside, for Reconsideration, and/or Clarification” of that order. The trial court granted

Pinkerton’s motion without explanation, set aside its prior order, and scheduled a

hearing. Sinclair-Jamison appeals, claiming that this Court has jurisdiction under

OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11).

A party seeking review of an order entered in a domestic relations case

generally must file an application for discretionary appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(2). When the case remains pending in the trial court, the party generally must satisfy

the additional requirements for an interlocutory application, including obtaining a

certificate of immediate review from the trial court and complying with the time

limitations of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). 

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), however, a direct appeal is permitted from

“[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or

modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such

child custody judgments or orders.” It is well established that visitation privileges are

part of custody,see Moore v. Moore-McKinney, 297 Ga. App. 703, 705 (1) (678 SE2d

152) (2009), and that interlocutory custody orders may be appealed directly. See Lacy

v. Lacy, 320 Ga. App. 739, 742 (3) (740 SE2d 695) (2013). Nevertheless, the order

September 02, 2021
on appeal here does not fall within the scope of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) because it

is not a custody order. It does not award, refuse to change, or modify custody; nor

does it hold or decline to hold a person in contempt of such an order. It simply

vacates a prior order declining to hold a person in contempt, and it schedules further

proceedings.

Because the interlocutory domestic relations order that Sinclair-Jamison wishes

to appeal does not come within the ambit of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), she was

required to file an interlocutory application to obtain appellate review at thisjuncture.

Her failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby

DISMISSED. See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d 213) (1996); Scruggs

v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 589 (1) (408 SE2d 103) (1991).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

09/02/2021
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07136

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

x 07136\07136_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07136\07136_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 07136\07136_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07136\07136_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07136\07136_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07136\07136_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07136\07136_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

07136\Certification Statement Plant ID 07136.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07136\Supplemental Documents\07136_Map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07136\Supplemental Documents\07136_NPDES.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07136\Supplemental Documents\07136_Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
### §6636. Senate Computer Center

#### (a) Senate Computer Center Revolving Fund

(1) There is hereby established in the Treasury of the United States a revolving fund within the contingent fund of the Senate to be known as the Senate Computer Center Revolving Fund (hereafter in this section referred to as the "revolving fund").

(2) The revolving fund shall be available only for paying the salaries of personnel employed under subsection (c), and agency contributions attributable thereto, and for paying refunds under contracts entered into under subsection (b).

(3) Within 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Senate shall withdraw all amounts in the revolving fund in excess of $100,000, other than amounts required to make refunds under subsection (b)(2)(B), and shall deposit the amounts withdrawn in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts.

#### (b) Contracts for use of Senate computer; approval; terms

(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (2), the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is authorized to enter into contracts with any agency or instrumentality of the legislative branch for the use of any available time on the Senate computer.

(2) No contract may be entered into under paragraph (1) unless it has been approved by the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, and no such contract may extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which it is entered into. Each contract entered into under paragraph (1) shall contain—

(A) a provision requiring full advance payment for the amount of time contracted for, and

(B) a provision requiring refund of a proportionate amount of such advance payment if the total amount of time contracted for is not used.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any agency or instrumentality of the legislative branch is authorized to make advance payments under a contract entered into under paragraph (1).

#### (c) Additional personnel

To the extent that the personnel of the Senate Computer Center are unable to carry out the contracts entered into under subsection (b) according to their terms and conditions, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is authorized to employ such additional personnel for the Senate Computer Center as may be necessary to carry out such contracts, and to pay the salaries of such additional personnel, and agency contributions attributable thereto, from the revolving fund. Such additional personnel may temporarily be assigned to perform the regular functions of the Senate Computer Center when their services are not needed to carry out such contracts.

#### (d) Disbursements

Disbursements from the revolving fund under subsections (b) and (c) shall be made upon vouchers signed by the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, except that vouchers shall not be required for the disbursement of salaries of employees paid at an annual rate.

(Pub. L. 94–303, title I, §116, June 1, 1976, 90 Stat. 614.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 123d of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
# L_2015189EN.01000101.xml

| 17.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/1

---

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in Washington on 3 March 1973 (1), has entered into force on 8 July 2015, in accordance with Article XXII, paragraph 2, of that Convention.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 75, 19.3.2015, p. 4.

1

---
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50271 

Conference Calendar

__________________

DONALD RANDLE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NFN FOSTER and 

WAYNE SCOTT, Director,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. CA-P-94-58

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 19, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Donald Randle, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

(IFP), argues on appeal that Warden Terry Foster is liable to him

for the negligence and deliberate indifference of prison

personnel to his medical needs caused by gas leaks. The district

court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d).
No. 95-50271

-2-

A defendant cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

a theory of vicarious liability, including respondeat superior. 

Baskin v. Parker, 602 F.2d 1205, 1207-08 (5th Cir. 1979). 

"Personal involvement is an essential element of a civil rights

cause of action." Thompson v. Steele, 709 F.2d 381, 382 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897 (1983). Accordingly, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing as

frivolous Randle's complaint against Foster and Wayne Scott, the

Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Randle alleges for the first time on appeal that he was

denied adequate medical treatment by unnamed prison officials. 

"[I]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable

by this court unless they involve purely legal questions and

failure to consider them would result in manifest injustice." 

Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Although Randle has not been warned about frivolous appeals,

this is Randle's third plainly frivolous appeal. See Randle v.

Mennen Co., No. 95-20198 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 1995). We caution

Randle that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on

his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Randle is further cautioned to review all pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously decided by this

court.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
§ 6001.103 Designation of separate agency components. ( a ) Pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203(a), each of the following components of the Department of Transportation is designated as a separate agency for purpose of the regulations in subpart B of 5 CFR part 2635 governing gifts from outside sources and § 2635.807 of this title governing teaching, speaking, or writing: ( 1 ) Federal Aviation Administration;
( 2 ) Federal Highway Administration;
( 3 ) Federal Railroad Administration;
( 4 ) Federal Transit Administration;
( 5 ) Maritime Administration;
( 6 ) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
( 7 ) Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; and
( 8 ) United States Coast Guard.
( b ) Employees of Department of Transportation components not designated as separate agencies, including employees of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration, and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, will be treated as employees of DOT which shall be treated as a single agency that is separate from the above listed agencies for purposes of determining whether the donor of a gift is a prohibited source under 5 CFR 2635.203(d) and for identifying the DOT employee's agency under 5 CFR 2635.807 governing teaching, speaking, and writing.
L-98* 1**»

JAN 041996

TO John L . Thoresdale

Director of Unemployment and Sickness Insurance

FROM Catherine C . Cook

General Counsel

SUBJECT Recovery of Debts by Administrative Offset

This is in response to your memorandum of December 20, 1995, in

in which you inquire as to whether the Board may recover a debt

owed to it by a carrier by offset against credits due that carrier

under section 3221(c) of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act

(supplemental annuity tax credits).

Under section 3221(c) a carrier receives a tax credit equal to the

amount by which supplemental annuities paid its former employees

were reduced during the year by payments from a pension plan

4 maintained by the carrier pursuant to section 2(h)(2) of the

Railroad Retirement A c t . This credit may only be used to reduce

the carrier's supplemental annuity hour tax obligation under

section 3221(c). To the extent the credit exceeds the tax

obligation, the excess is carried forward to future years until

exhausted. In some cases the credit may never be used and thus is

lost. Thus, the credit never results in a money refund which could

be used as a means of administrative offset.

Please be advised, however, that under recent amendments to Part

366 of the Board's regulations, debts owed to the Board by

businesses, which would include railroad carriers, may be recovered

by offset against any tax refund due the taxpayer under the

Internal Revenue Code. This offset is accomplished by the Chief

Financial Officer under procedures agreed to with the Internal

Revenue Service.

TWSadler:cmw

SUPPCRED.LOP

m