alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWSUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-07-032                                             May 15, 2007CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416      E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC AUTHORIZES RESTART OF BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II office in Atlanta notified TennesseeValley Authority officials today that the agency is authorizing the restart of Unit 1 at the Browns Ferrynuclear power plant in Alabama.  

“TVA has completed an extensive refurbishment of Unit 1 and the NRC staff has closelymonitored their progress throughout the project,” Region II Deputy Regional Administrator forOperations Victor McCree said.

All three units of the Browns Ferry plant were shut down in 1985 to address performance andmanagement issues, but the reactors retained NRC operating licenses.  TVA agreed at the time that itwould complete corrective actions and not restart any of the units without NRC concurrence.  AfterTVA completed all the work involved with those corrective actions with NRC inspection and approval,Unit 2 was restarted in 1991 and Unit 3 was restarted in 1995.  

NRC inspectors have reviewed the activities on Unit 1 during the past several years andrecently completed a comprehensive operational readiness inspection prior to determining that TVAhad met NRC standards and could restart the final unit. 

### 

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

designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-30618

_____________________

In The Matter Of: ROBERT LEO HACKETT

Debtor

-------------------------

ROBERT LEO HACKETT

Appellant

 v.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, INC.; DAVID OESTREICHER;

JANICE CHENIER TAYLOR

Appellees

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(98-CV-3819)

_________________________________________________________________

August 31, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and PARKER, Circuit Judge, and KAZEN*,

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:**

Robert L. Hackett appeals the district court’s judgment

affirming the order of the bankruptcy court dismissing his Chapter
11 case.

The record reflects that Hackett filed a Chapter 13 case in

October 1997. Two motions for relief from stay were filed, one of

which was granted. The second creditor, Schwegmann Bank & Trust

Company, filed a § 362 motion for relief from the automatic stay in

January 1998, but resolution of the matter was delayed due to

uncertainty whether Hackett’s case would proceed. Schwegmann

renewed its motion in April 1998. Faced with an attempt by the

United States Trustee to dismiss his case for ongoing nonobservance

of Chapter 13 deadlines, Hackett voluntarily dismissed that case -

on the morning of the hearing date set for Schwegmann’s motion.

The dismissal mooted Schwegmann’s § 362 proceeding.

Three days later, Hackett sought relief under Chapter 11 of

the Bankruptcy Code in a new case. The United States Trustee

successfully moved to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2).

Hackett appealed the dismissal to the district court which affirmed

and filed a thoughtful opinion in support of its judgment.

On appeal, Hackett has favored us with a four-paragraph brief,

which asserts that he “followed the advice of counsel” in

voluntarily dismissing his Chapter 13 case and refiling in Chapter

ll. He provides no record cites and no argument in support of that

assertion. As appellee United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company

correctly points out, that is insufficient to preserve the issue

and it is waived. Hackett also attempts to raise the issue whether

§ 109(g)(2) should be strictly enforced or whether, instead, it
should read in appropriate circumstances to include a good faith

exception. See In re Ulmer, 19 F.3d 234 (5th Cir. 1994). Whatever

may be the answer to that question, it is clear that Hackett would

not qualify for such an exception however it might be configured.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Costs shall

be borne by Hackett.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11


                                January 12, 2004



Mr. Edward A. Brennan
400 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60611

Dear Ed:

         You've elected to defer your retainer and meeting fees for calendar
year 2004.

         In June 1998, you and the Company entered into an agreement governing
the fees you had deferred through that date. That agreement is attached.

         I'm assuming you want to continue to defer your fees in accordance with
the June 1998 letter. If so, please sign below and return to me. If you want
another agreement, please let me know the details and we'll see what we can do.

         Thank you for your cooperation and if there are questions, please let
me know.


                                                   Very truly yours,



                                                   Charles D. MarLett
                                                   Corporate Secretary


Deferral of 2004 fees to be in accordance with June 2, 1998 letter:



AGREED: /s/ Edward A. Brennan         DATE: 1/19/2004
        --------------------------          ---------------------
        Edward A. Brennan


P.S. I'm enclosing two originals - one to be returned to me and the other for
your files.

Attachment
### §857–20. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–221, §10, Dec. 18, 2020, 134 Stat. 1061

Section, Pub. L. 107–299, §9, Nov. 26, 2002, 116 Stat. 2348, provided for coordination between the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the Director of the National Science Foundation to jointly submit a report on the oceans and coastal research activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and of the National Science Foundation.
---

Bonanza Oil & Gas, Inc.3417 Mercer, Suite EHouston, Texas 77027

May 13, 2010

Eric Dale

Re:           Bonanza Oil
& Gas, Inc. (the Company)

Gentlemen:

The
Company hereby acknowledges that Eric Dale (Lender) loaned the Company
$200,000 on August 28, 2008 as evidenced by the Note attached hereto as Exhibit
A. As of the date hereof the principal and interest under the Note that remains
unpaid is $169,060.

The
Company and the Lender hereby agree that the Note shall be amended and restated
to incorporate the following provision:

> The Payee shall have the right on a weekly basis to convert
>         $5,000 of the outstanding and unpaid principal amount of this Note and
>         interest at the Fixed Conversion Price (a Conversion).
>         In no event shall the Payee be entitled to convert any portion of this
>         Note in excess of 4.9% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the
>         Company. For purposes of the proviso to the immediately preceding sentence,
>         beneficial ownership shall be determined in accordance with Section 13(d)
>         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Regulations 13D-G
>         thereunder. The Fixed Conversion Price shall mean $0.0025.

The
parties further acknowledge that the Lender is not an affiliate of the Company
and the Lender represents that it is not an affiliate of the Company. As a
result, the shares of common stock issued upon conversion of the Note (the
Conversion Shares) will be eligible to resold under Rule 144 as the Conversion
Shares holding period will tack to the initial date of issuance of the Note.
Accordingly, the Company, upon conversion of the Note and receipt of the
standard representation letters from the Lender, will direct the transfer agent
to issue the Conversion Shares without the standard 33 Act restrictive legend.
The Company shall reserve a sufficient number of shares of common stock for the
purpose of enabling the Company to issue the Conversion Shares. This letter
agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. We hereby request that
you execute this letter agreement below acknowledging and agreeing to the terms
set forth herein.

Sincerely,

Bonanza Oil & Gas, Inc.

By: /s/ William
Wiseman       William
Wiseman       Chief Executive Officer

AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:

/s/ Eric Dale Eric Dale

---
### §20983. Grants to combat sexual abuse of children

#### (a) In general

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is authorized to make grants under this section—

(1) to any law enforcement agency that serves a jurisdiction with 50,000 or more residents; and

(2) to any law enforcement agency that serves a jurisdiction with fewer than 50,000 residents, upon a showing of need.

#### (b) Use of grant amounts

Grants under this section may be used by the law enforcement agency to—

(1) hire additional law enforcement personnel or train existing staff to combat the sexual abuse of children through community education and outreach, investigation of complaints, enforcement of laws relating to sex offender registries, and management of released sex offenders;

(2) investigate the use of the Internet to facilitate the sexual abuse of children; and

(3) purchase computer hardware and software necessary to investigate sexual abuse of children over the Internet, access local, State, and Federal databases needed to apprehend sex offenders, and facilitate the creation and enforcement of sex offender registries.

#### (c) Criteria

The Attorney General shall give priority to law enforcement agencies making a showing of need.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 109–248, title VI, §625, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 636.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 16983 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### **CHAPTER 403—CRIMINAL JUSTICE IDENTIFICATION, INFORMATION, AND COMMUNICATION**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—CRIME IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY

Sec.
40301.
State grant program for criminal justice identification, information, and communication.
40302.
Funding for improvement of criminal records.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—EXCHANGE OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS FOR NONCRIMINAL JUSTICE PURPOSES

40311.
Findings.
40312.
Definitions.
40313.
Enactment and consent of the United States.
40314.
Effect on other laws.
40315.
Enforcement and implementation.
40316.
National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2030 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 164
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2030

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2003

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

                             June 20, 2003

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto 
                      Mink Post Office Building''.

    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 120 
Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building''.

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 ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post 
Office Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 164

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2030

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto 
                      Mink Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 11, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs
```
### §50902. Best practices and support

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) First responder

The term "first responder" has the meaning given the term "public safety officer" in section 10284 of this title.

#### (2) First responder agency

The term "first responder agency" means a Federal, State, local, or Tribal agency that employs or otherwise engages the services of a first responder.

#### (3) Peer support counseling program

The term "peer support counseling program" means a program provided by a first responder agency that provides counseling services from a peer support specialist to a first responder of the first responder agency.

#### (4) Peer support participant

The term "peer support participant" means a first responder who receives counseling services from a peer support specialist.

#### (5) Peer support specialist

The term "peer support specialist" means a first responder who—

(A) has received training in—

(i) peer support counseling; and

(ii) providing emotional and moral support to first responders who have been involved in or exposed to an emotionally traumatic experience in the course of the duties of those first responders; and

(B) is designated by a first responder agency to provide the services described in subparagraph (A).

#### (b) Report on best practices

Not later than 2 years after November 18, 2021, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall develop a report on best practices and professional standards for peer support counseling programs for first responder agencies that includes—

(1) advice on—

(A) establishing and operating peer support counseling programs; and

(B) training and certifying peer support specialists;

(2) a code of ethics for peer support specialists;

(3) recommendations for continuing education for peer support specialists;

(4) advice on disclosing to first responders any confidentiality rights of peer support participants; and

(5) information on—

(A) the different types of peer support counseling programs in use by first responder agencies;

(B) any differences in peer support counseling programs offered across categories of first responders; and

(C) the important role senior first responders play in supporting access to mental health resources.

#### (c) Implementation

The Attorney General shall support and encourage the implementation of peer support counseling programs in first responder agencies by—

(1) making the report developed under subsection (b) publicly available on the website of the Department of Justice; and

(2) providing a list of peer support specialist training programs on the website of the Department of Justice.

(Pub. L. 117–60, §3, Nov. 18, 2021, 135 Stat. 1472.)
STANDARD NICKEL-CHROMIUM PLATING COMPANY

826 E. 62nd Street

Los Angeles, CA 90001

July 5, 2006

Dr. Donna Lee Jones

Offiti Sf3A?S Environmental Protection Agency ?il US «!EPA Mailroom(D243-02) -flr Q?nJfty Planni"8 and Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

RE: Facility ID #5199

Dear Dr. Jones,

This is in response to your May 10, 2006 letter reouestin* current operating emission information. requesting

Standard Nickel-Chromium Plating Company stopped all olatins operations in 1999. This has been verified by visits of mafv governmental agencies, including an on-site inspection

rePeetaVe l^ ^^ ^V

^^^

Thank you.

Sincerely,

George Dulgarian
North Aleutian

Basin

St. George

Basin

Bowers Basin

Aleutian Arc

Shumagin

Kodiak

Gulf

of

Alaska

Aleutian Basin

Navarin

Basin

St. MatthewHall

Norton

Basin

Hope

Basin

Cook

Inlet

ALASKA

Chukchi Sea

Beaufort Sea

Department of the Interior

Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Strategy

Executed Leases

Deferral Area

Low Resource Potential and/or Low Support for Potential New Leasing

Leasing Consideration 2012-2017 Program

OCS Planning Area Boundary

GCS NAD 83

Alaska Albers Projection

May, 2013

Note:

The Maritime Boundaries and limits shown hereon,

as well as the divisions between planning areas,

are for initial planning purposes only and do not

necessarily reflect the full extent of U.S. sovereign

rights under international and domestic law.

Can

ad

a

U.S.

3

0 100 200 300 400

Miles

0 100 200 300 400

Nautical Miles
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-20611

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR ARMANDO GARCIA-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-929-ALL

--------------------

February 20, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hector Armando Garcia-Sanchez appeals his guilty plea

conviction and sentence for being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Garcia-Sanchez argues that the sentencing provisions in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in

his case. He contends that the unconstitutional portions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326 should be severed from the statute. He asks us
No. 02-20611

-2-

to vacate his conviction and sentence, reform the judgment to

reflect a conviction only under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and remand

his case for resentencing under that provision. Alternatively,

he asks us to simply vacate his sentence and remand his case for

resentencing under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

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. 

Garcia-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been called

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 489-90

(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). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED. 

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. The Government asks that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7613

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CAMILLE FORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CR-94-163, CA-98-1206)

Submitted: February 28, 2003 Decided: June 2, 2003

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Camille Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Camille Ford appeals the district court’s order denying her

motion to reopen her previous § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss for the reasons stated by

the district court. See United States v. Ford, Nos. CR-94-163; CA98-1206 (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 2002). 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