alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 536.303 Geographic conversion. ( a ) *Geographic conversion at time of action that may provide initial entitlement to pay retention.* If, in conjunction with a pay action that may entitle the employee to pay retention under §§ 536.301 or 536.302, an employee's official worksite is changed to a new location where different pay schedules apply, the agency must convert the employee's rate(s) of basic pay to the applicable pay schedule(s) in the new location before applying the pay retention rules in this subpart or any other simultaneous pay action (other than a general pay adjustment). The agency must identify the highest applicable rate range that would apply to the employee's position of record before the pay action as if that position were stationed at the new official worksite and determine the employee's converted payable rate of basic pay based on the step (or relative position in range for a GM employee) in that range that corresponds to the employee's step (or relative position in range for a GM employee) before the pay action. A reduction in an employee's payable rate of basic pay resulting from this geographic conversion is not a basis for entitlement to pay retention. The pay retention rules in this subpart must be applied as if the employee's payable rate of basic pay after geographic conversion is the employee's existing payable rate of basic pay in effect immediately before the action.
( b ) *Geographic conversion when a retained rate employee's official worksite is changed.* When an employee is receiving a retained rate and the employee's official worksite is changed to a new location where different pay schedules apply, the agency must apply the following rules (after applying any simultaneous general pay adjustment under § 536.305) to derive the converted retained rate that will be used as the existing retained rate in determining the employee's pay retention entitlement in the new position of record and at the new official worksite: ( 1 ) Identify the maximum rate for the highest applicable rate range that applies to the employee's former position of record based on the former official worksite;
( 2 ) Identify the maximum rate for the highest applicable rate range that would apply to the employee's former position of record if the employee were stationed at the official worksite for the new position of record;
( 3 ) Divide the maximum rate identified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section by the maximum rate identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and round the result to the fourth decimal place; and
( 4 ) Multiply the factor resulting from paragraph (b)(3) of this section by the employee's former retained rate and round to the nearest whole dollar (for an annual rate) or the nearest whole cent (for an hourly rate) to derive the employee's converted retained rate at the new official worksite.
[70 FR 31310, May 31, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 66155, Nov. 7, 2008]
§ 630.804 Granting of funeral leave. ( a ) An agency shall grant an employee such funeral leave as is needed and requested by him, not to exceed 3 workdays, without loss of or reduction in pay, leave to which he is otherwise entitled, or credit for time or service, and without adversely affecting his performance or efficiency rating. Funeral leave is granted to allow an employee to make arrangements for, or to attend, the funeral or memorial service for an immediate relative who died as the result of a wound, disease, or injury incurred while serving as a member of the armed forces in a combat zone. The 3 days need not be consecutive but if not, the employee shall furnish the approving authority satisfactory reasons justifying a grant of funeral leave for nonconsecutive days.
( b ) An agency may grant funeral leave only from a prescribed tour of duty, including regularly scheduled overtime, or, in the case of a substitute employee in the postal field service, from a period during which, except for absence on funeral leave, the employee would have worked.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—DRUG CONTROL
# L_2016093EN.01003901.xml

| 7.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 93/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 93/39

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 25/2015

of 25 February 2015

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2016/513]

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 Directive 2014/58/EU of 16 April 2014 setting up, pursuant to Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a system for the traceability of pyrotechnic articles (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU of 16 April 2014 setting up, pursuant to Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a system for the traceability of pyrotechnic articles (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 4 (Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘4a. | 32014 L 0058: Commission Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU of 16 April 2014 setting up, pursuant to Directive 2007/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a system for the traceability of pyrotechnic articles (OJ L 115, 17.4.2014, p. 28).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘4a.

Article 2

The text of Implementing Directive 2014/58/EU 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 26 February 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, 25 February 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 115, 17.4.2014, p. 28.

1

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
#### § 591.405 Responsibilities of agencies.

Agencies with employees stationed at Johnston Island may require reasonable verification of relationship and dependency.

[61 FR 27244, May 31, 1996]
[Cite as State ex rel. Dominguez v. State, 129 Ohio St.3d 203, 2011-Ohio-3091.] 

[THE STATE EX REL.] DOMINGUEZ, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF OHIO,

APPELLEE. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Dominguez v. State, 129 Ohio St.3d 203, 2011-Ohio-3091.] 

Appeal from dismissal of a petition for a writ of mandamus — No duty to perform 

act requested — Judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2011-0481 — Submitted June 21, 2011 — Decided June 29, 2011.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-110018. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the dismissal of the petition of appellant, Jose 

Dominguez, for a writ of mandamus to compel the Hamilton County Clerk of 

Courts to file a criminal complaint and affidavit charging Hamilton County 

Prosecuting Attorney Joseph T. Deters with perjury in violation of R.C. 

2921.11(A), a felony of the third degree. 

{¶ 2} “While R.C. 2935.09 provides that a ‘private citizen having 

knowledge of the facts’ shall file with a judge, clerk of court, or magistrate an 

affidavit charging an offense committed in order to cause the arrest or prosecution 

of the person charged, it must be read in pari materia with R.C. 2935.10, which 

prescribes the subsequent procedure to be followed.” State ex rel. Strothers v. 

Turner (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 273, 680 N.E.2d 1238. Insofar as Dominguez 

sought to file his criminal complaint, the clerk of courts had no duty to file it. 

State ex rel. Muff v. Wollenberg, Perry App. No. 08-CA-11, 2008-Ohio-4699, ¶ 

12 (“The plain language of [R.C. 2935.09(D)] does not permit the filing of a 

complaint by a private citizen,” although it does recognize the filing of an 

affidavit by the private citizen). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 3} For Dominguez’s affidavit, the clerk also had no duty to file it 

because it established that the claimed perjury charges occurred in 1995, which 

was outside the six-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2901.13(A)(1)(a) to 

commence prosecution of the claimed felony offenses. Therefore, because a writ 

of mandamus to compel the clerk to file the affidavit would not have resulted in 

the issuance of an arrest warrant or prosecution of the claimed offenses, 

“mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act.” Strothers at 274. 

{¶ 4} Finally, although Dominguez sought the writ of mandamus to 

compel the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts to file his complaint and affidavit, 

he did not name the clerk as the respondent in his petition. See State ex rel. Ross 

v. State, 102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 8. 

{¶ 5} For all the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court 

of appeals dismissing Dominguez’s mandamus petition. 

Judgment affirmed. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Jose Dominguez, pro se. 

______________________
No: II-08-014 April 1, 2008 

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

 Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

NRC TO DISCUSS 2007 PERFORMANCE OF 

CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, 

April 8, with representatives of Progress Energy to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety 

performance during 2007 at the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant. The plant, operated by 

Progress Energy, is on the west coast of Florida just northwest of the town of Crystal River. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. in the 

plant’s Training Center, 8200 West Venable Street in Crystal River. 

After the formal presentation, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the 

public on the safety performance of Crystal River, as well as the NRC’s role in ensuring safe 

plant operation. 

“The NRC continually inspects and reviews the performance of Crystal River and all 

commercial nuclear plants, issuing inspection reports throughout the year and an overall 

assessment at year’s end,” NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree said. “This meeting is 

an opportunity to discuss that annual assessment with the company, local officials and people 

near the plant, and to answer any questions they may have.” 

The NRC said the Crystal River plant operated safely during the 2007 assessment period, 

from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, with all inspection findings being of very low safety significance 

and all performance indicators indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC 

oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct routine baseline inspections at the plant during 

2008. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2007 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on 

the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cr_2007q4.pdf . 

Current performance information for the Crystal River plant is available on the NRC web 

site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CR3/cr3_chart.html . 

### 

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
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1882

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur 

‘Pappy’ Kennedy Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2003

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur ‘Pappy’ Kennedy Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo5 cated at 440 South Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, 

6 Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Arthur 

7 ‘Pappy’ Kennedy Post Office’’. 
2

•HR 1882 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

5 to the Arthur ‘‘Pappy’’ Kennedy Post Office.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of FIRST ADVANTAGE CORPORATION (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                       |  |  |  |                                  
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------
|                       |  | 
|Date: November 8, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN LONG                 
|                       |  |  |  | John Long Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### § 8301.104 Additional rules for employees of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Any employee of the Food Safety and Inspection Service not otherwise required to obtain approval for outside employment under § 8301.102, shall, before engaging in any form of outside employment, obtain written approval in accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 8301.102
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8057

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

OKANG KAREEM ROCHELLE, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00112-UA-1) 

Submitted: February 17, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009 

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Okang Kareem Rochelle, Appellant Pro Se. Anand P. Ramaswamy, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Okang Kareem Rochelle seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order granting his request for new counsel, and the 

court’s finding that he is competent to stand trial. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Rochelle seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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. 

DISMISSED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ROBERT PIPER FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS § No. 10, 2020 § § §

Submitted: January 31, 2020 Decided: February 27 , 2020

Before SEITZ
, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY

- REEVES
, Justices

.
O R D E R

After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus , the notice to show
cause, and the responses
, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The petitioner
, Robert Piper
, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of
this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the

Court of Common Pleas to correct that court’s allegedly erroneous dismissal of his
appeal from a violation of probation (“VOP”) sentence entered by the Justice of the

Peace Court. On January 9, 2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk of this Court issued a
notice directing Piper to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed under
Supreme Court Rule 43(b)(vi) because Piper did not fi rst present his petition to the
Superior Court.
(2) In response to the notice to show cause , Piper states that in March 2019
, after the Court of Common Pleas dismissed his appeal from the VOP sentence, he
filed various writs, motions, and appeals in “the lower courts.” He states that “only2

several of the filing[s] and proceedings were addressed” and that he has requested
information on the status of the filings, with no response.
(1) Rule 43(b)(vi) provides that a petitioner may not file in this Court a
complaint for a writ of mandamus directed to the Court of Common Pleas “unless a
petition for such writ shall have been first presented to and denied by the Superior

Court.” 1 T he Superior Court docket does not reflect that Piper petitioned the
Superior Court for a writ of mandamus
, nor has Piper s ubmitted any evidence of
such a petition

. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED , under Supreme Court Rules 29(b)
and 43, that the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor J ustice

1 D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 43(b)(vi). See also , e.g. , In re Paskins , 2009 WL 3842042 (Del. Nov. 17, 2009) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas because the petitioner had not demonstrated that he first sought a writ from the Superior Court); In re Dickens
, 2003 WL 1446325 (Del. Mar. 19, 20 03) (same).
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-07-015 April 11, 2007

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

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2006 PERFORMANCE AT CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with Progress Energy officials

on Wednesday, April 18, to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance for 2006 at the

Crystal River nuclear power plant, located on the west coast of Florida near Crystal River.

The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. in the Crystal River

Nuclear Operations Training Facility, 8200 West Venable Street in Crystal River. The NRC staff will

present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the

public before the close of the meeting. 

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Crystal River plant and the nation’s

other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This

meeting is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the company, with local officials and

with people living near the plant.”

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

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

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cr_2006q4.pdf .

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear

plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,”

depending on the safety significance of the issues involved. 

The NRC said the Crystal River plant operated safely during 2006. Plant performance for the

first two quarters of the assessment period required increased NRC inspection effort due to a White

finding of low to moderate safety significance involving unprotected safe shutdown cables intended for

use after a fire and related manual operator actions during such a circumstance found not to be feasible. 

The company took corrective action, and a subsequent NRC inspection identified no findings of

significance. 

Plant performance for the fourth quarter of 2006 was classified as Green (of very low safety

significance) and, as a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant

during 2007 and will perform a non-routine inspection of a generic concern at pressurized water

reactors related to possible blockage of containment building sumps. 
Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by

specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

Current information for the Crystal River plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CR3/cr3_chart.html .

###
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1822 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1822

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 21, 2004

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 3751 West 6th Street in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Dosan Ahn 
                        Chang Ho Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3751 
West 6th Street in Los Angeles, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Dosan Ahn Chang Ho Post 
Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 20, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```