alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-06-011 May 11, 2006

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

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC TO DISCUSS 2005 PERFORMANCE AT RIVER BEND NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Entergy Operations officials on May

17, to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the River Bend Station

nuclear plant during 2005.

The 6:00 p.m. meeting at the River Bend Station Training Center Auditorium, 5485 U.S.

Hwy. 61N, St. Francisville, La., is open to public observation. Before the session ends, NRC

staff will be available to answer questions on the plant’s safety performance, as well as the

agency’s role in ensuring safe plant operation.

“Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the nation’s commercial nuclear

power plants,” said Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. “The meeting gives us an

opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local officials and members of the public.

We look forward to meeting with members of the community and answering any questions they

may have about our oversight.”

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

of the plant during 2005 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on

the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/rbs_2005q4.pdf .

Overall, River Bend operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded

inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The

colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the

safety significance of the issues involved. Because all of the inspection findings and performance

indicators for the plant during the last quarter of 2005 were determined to be “green,” River Bend 

will receive a baseline (or routine) level of inspections during the upcoming assessment period. 
Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of

plant operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC specialists are emergency

preparedness and radiological safety.

Current performance information for River Bend is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/RBS1/rbs1_chart.html .

###
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-130561) and on Form SB-2 (No. 333-147325) of Kodiak Energy, Inc. of
our report dated March 19, 2009, with respect to our audit of the consolidated
financial statements of Kodiak Energy, Inc. which is included in the annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.








/s/ MEYERS NORRIS PENNY  
LLP








Calgary,
Canada





March 31,
2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Rufus WOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6390.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

*369James Rufus Woods, Appellant Pro Se. David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James Rufus Woods seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. We decline to address Woods’ claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp.2001), because the Government failed to prove that the cocaine base seized from him was in fact crack cocaine. *See First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil Inc.,*206 F.3d 404, 407 n. 1 (4th Cir.2000) (declining to consider issues raised for first time on appeal); *Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Woods,*Nos. CR-98-117; CA-01-526-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Feb. 7, 2002; entered Feb. 8, 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.*
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2457

_____________________________
V ICTOR J EROME B LANEY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. W. Joel Boles , Judge

. August 1, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R OBERTS , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Justin Foster Karpf
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney Gene ral, Kaitlin Weiss
, Assistant Attorney General, and Benjamin Louis Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
§ 847.411 Election requirements. ( a ) An employee who completed a qualifying move under § 847.402(a) may elect to be covered by CSRS, if the qualifying move was from a CSRS-covered position, or FERS, if the qualifying move was from a FERS-covered position, for all Federal service following the qualifying move. Employees who elect to be covered by CSRS will be prospectively covered by the CSRS Offset provisions set out in subpart J of part 831 of this chapter.
( b ) A survivor eligible for benefits under the NAFI retirement system which covered an employee at the time of death may make an election under this section if the employee was otherwise eligible to make an election, but died before expiration of the time limit under § 847.304.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 18, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00698-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF K.W., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 468th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 468-55854-2017 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Pedersen, III, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated June 20, 2023 we 

informed appellant his brief was overdue and directed him to file his brief within ten 

days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of 

this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed his brief or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

We dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c). 

220698F.P04 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF K.W., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-22-00698-CV 

 On Appeal from the 468th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 468-55854-

2017. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Goldstein participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered August 18, 2023
### §20107. Principal office

The principal office of the corporation shall be in Kansas City, Kansas, or another place decided by the board of governors. However, the activities of the corporation are not confined to the place where the principal office is located but may be conducted throughout the States, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1285.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 20107 | 36:975(a). | Aug. 31, 1960, Pub. L. 86–680, §5(a), 74 Stat. 574. |

Section

The word "various" is omitted as unnecessary.
### **CHAPTER 301—BIG BROTHERS—BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA**

Sec.
30101.
Organization.
30102.
Purposes.
30103.
Membership.
30104.
Governing body.
30105.
Powers.
30106.
Exclusive right to names, seals, emblems, and badges.
30107.
Restrictions.
30108.
Principal office.
30109.
Records and inspection.
30110.
Service of process.
30111.
Liability for acts of officers and agents.
30112.
Distribution of assets on dissolution or final liquidation.
#### § 848.501 Computation of phased retirement annuity.

A phased retiree's phased retirement annuity equals the product obtained by multiplying (1) the amount of annuity computed under 5 U.S.C. 8415, excluding reduction for survivor annuity, that would have been payable to the phased retiree if, on the date on which the phased retiree enters phased retirement, the phased retiree had separated from service and retired under 5 U.S.C. 8412(a) or (b), by (2) the phased retirement percentage for the phased retiree.
### 1

**Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	Light******

**Duty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier -**  **2	Standards Analysis**  **of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3 (EPAct/V2/E**  **- 89)**  

## Appendix **I.3f Final	Model	Fitting**  **Non -**  **methane	Hydrocarbons (** **NMHC )	(**  **Bag	3 )** 

No. Observations: 8 37 No. Vehicles: 15 No. censored measurements: 119 No. missing measurements: 0 No. measurements removed: 0 Model Ty pe: Tobit regression

### 2

**I.3f .1		Model**  **Fitting	based	on	the	11 -**  **term	design	model.** Model fitting for the 11

-term design model gives results identical to those for the 16

-term extended model, as presented below.

### 3

**I.3f .2	Model	Fitting	based	on	the	16**  **- term	extended	model.** 

**Models fit for NMHC**  **( Ba** **g 3 ): (Grand Intercept not fit by**  **Tobit models).** Model Term Notation Model Full FM6 1 

### FM8 FM9 FM10 FM11 etOH Z

e ● ● ● ● ● ● 

### Arom Z

a ● ● ● ● ● 

### × RVP Z

r ● ● ● ● ● ● 

### T50 Z

5 ● ● ● ● ● ● 

### T90 Z

9 ● ● ● ● ● ● 

### etOH × etOH ZZ ee ● 

### × T50 × T50 ZZ 55 ● 

### × etOH × Arom ZZ ea ● 

### × etOH × RVP ZZ er ● ● ● ● ● ● 

### etOH × T50 ZZ e5 ● ● 

### × etOH × T90 ZZ e9 ● 

### × Arom × RVP ZZ ar ● ● 

### × Arom × T50 ZZ a5 ● 

### × Arom × T90 ZZ a9 ● ● ● 

### × T50 × T90 ZZ 59 ● 

### × RVP × T90 ZZ r9 ● ● ● ● 

### × 1 Indicates “Full minus 6,” etc.


### NMHC **( Bag 3**  **): Model fitting history, starting with the 1**  **7 -** **t erm**  **extended model.** 



### Fit Parameters Test with respect to Previous Model 

### Model p- 1 1



### -2 ln L Dev. d Pr>χ 2 

### Full Model 16 2447.661 FM6 10 2448.148 0.487 6 0.998 FM8 8 2449.275 1.127 2 0.569 FM8 7 2449.727 0.452 1 0.501 FM10 6 2450.108 0.381 1 0.537 FM11 2 

### 5 2450.114 0.006 1 0.938

1 Total number of terms excludes the intercept, as the Tobit Models do not fit intercepts

. 2 Best fit with respect to the 1 6
-term extended model.

### 4

**NMHC (** **Bag 3 ):**  **Co efficients and Tests of Effect for the**  **Full and Reduced Models, with respect to**  **the 1 6** **- term**  **extended model** **.** 

### Effe ct Fu ll Model Reduced Model (FM11) Es ti mate Std.E

rr. d. f. t -v al

ue Pr>t Es ti

mate Std.E

rr. d. f. t -v al

ue Pr>t Intercept -5.9827 Z e -0.1038 0. 0561 1 3. 42 0. 064 -0.0581 0.0405 1 2. 06 0. 15 Z a 0.0007 0. 0352 1 0.00000 0.98 Z r -0.0565 0. 0474 1 1. 42 0.23 -0.0313 0.0355 1 0. 78 0. 38 Z 5 0.0779 0. 0626 1 1. 55 0.21 0. 1356 0.0427 1 10.09 0.0015 Z 9 0.1517 0. 0364 1 17.35 <0.0001 0. 1546 0.0321 1 23.23 <0.0001 ZZ ee -0.0391 0. 0652 1 0. 36 0.55 ZZ 55 -0.0250 0. 0533 1 0. 22 0.64 ZZ ea -0.0228 0. 0529 1 0. 19 0.67 ZZ er 0.0769 0. 0359 1 4. 58 0. 032 0. 0773 0.0313 1 6. 09 0. 014 ZZ e5 -0.0505 0. 0689 1 0. 54 0.46 ZZ e9 0.0056 0. 0423 1 0. 02 0.90 ZZ ar -0.0430 0. 0573 1 0. 56 0.45 ZZ a5 -0.0231 0. 0642 1 0. 13 0.72 ZZ a9 -0.0258 0. 0359 1 0. 52 0.47 ZZ 59 0.0099 0. 0478 1 0.040 0.84 ZZ r9 0.0329 0. 0405 1 0. 66 0.42 4. 4045

0.9347 0. 9358 2 veh 

###  2  

### 
No. IV-08-019 

Contact: Victor Dricks 

Phone: (817) 860-8128 

 

 May 16, 2008 

 E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS 2007 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 

 FOR CALLAWAY NUCLEAR PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Fulton, Mo., on May 29, with 

representatives of AmerenUE, to discuss the agency=s assessment of safety performance for last 

year at the Callaway nuclear plant. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the 

Burton Business Building, Classroom 6, William Woods University, One University Ave., in 

Fulton. 

In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions from the public on the safety performance of Callaway, as well as the NRC=s role in 

ensuring safe plant operation. 

 AThe NRC continually reviews the performance of Callaway and the nation=s other 

commercial nuclear power facilities,@ NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins said. AThis 

meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety 

performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant.@

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV 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: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/call_2007q4.pdf . 

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

nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with "green" and then increase to "white," 

"yellow" or "red," commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400 

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125 

Telephone: (817) 860-8128 
The NRC said Callaway operated safely during 2007 and will receive regular, or baseline 

inspections during 2008. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. 

Current performance information for Callaway is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CALL/call_chart.html . 

 ### 

 

 NRC 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.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway Company

AUG 0 8 2003

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning

the continuing status of the Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway

Company (ADNR) (B.A. No. 2803) as an employer under the Railroad

Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231, et seq.) (RRA) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351, et seq.) (RUIA). ADNR

has been an employer under the RRA and RUIA with service creditable

from August 23, 1912.

ADNR filed a petition with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

on August 25, 1995 requesting permission for the abandonment of all

track owned by ADNR, as set forth in ICC Finance Docket No. AB455X.

The ICC granted that petition August 31, 1995. Pursuant to the labor

protective conditions accepted therein by ADNR, labor agreements

between ADNR and the unions1 provided for payments to former ADNR

employees from the date of cessation and abandonment of operations

on August 31, 1995 through July 1, 2002. This latter date was

confirmed by Mr. Tim Covington, attorney for Georgia-Pacific

Corporation. The last day on which former employees of ADNR were

compensated was July 1, 2002.

Based on the information set forth above, it is the determination of the

Railroad Retirement Board that the Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway

Company ceased being an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act

and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act on July 1, 2002, the date on

which it last compensated its employees. Cf. Rev. Ruling 82-99, 1982-1

C.B. 154, wherein the IRS held that a railroad ceases to be an employer

1 ADNR employees were represented by the United Transportation Union, the Brotherhood ofMaintenance of Way

Employees, and the Transportation Communications Union.

BA#2803
-2-

Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway Company

subject to taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act when the

railroad s employees stop performing services in connection with the

railroad’s carrier activities and not on the effective date of the ICC’s

approval of the railroad s abandonment of its operations.
§ 837.304 Agency liability for payments. ( a ) The agency will remit funds properly withheld from the pay of a reemployed annuitant in accordance with this subpart to OPM in the manner prescribed for the transmission of withholdings and contributions as soon as possible, but not later than provided by standards established by OPM.
( b ) When the employing agency fails to withhold from the pay of the reemployed annuitant some or all of the amounts required to be withheld from that pay by this subpart, the employee has received an overpayment of pay. The employing agency must collect the overpayment of pay (unless it is waived under 5 U.S.C. 5584 or some other applicable statute) and remit the proper funds to OPM in the manner prescribed for the transmission of withholdings and contributions as soon as possible, but not later than provided by standards established by OPM.
( c ) If the employing agency waives the annuitant's repayment of the salary overpayment, it must submit—on behalf of the reemployed annuitant—an amount equal to the correct deduction from pay (or the balance due in the case of a partial deduction) to OPM in the manner prescribed for the transmission of withholdings and contributions as soon as possible, but not later than provided by standards established by OPM.
[58 FR 48266, Sept. 15, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 66711, Dec. 27, 2001]
### §40726. DNA identification of missing persons

#### (a) In general

The Attorney General shall make grants to promote the use of forensic DNA technology to identify missing persons and unidentified human remains.

#### (b) Requirement

Each State or unit of local government that receives funding under this section shall be required to submit the DNA profiles of such missing persons and unidentified human remains to the National Missing Persons DNA Database of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2021 to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 108–405, title III, §308, Oct. 30, 2004, 118 Stat. 2275; Pub. L. 114–324, §8(c), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1954.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14136d of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2016—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–324 substituted "fiscal years 2017 through 2021" for "fiscal years 2005 through 2009".
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 13-1858

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

ALBERTO OMAR DEL VALLE-RODRÍGUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on August 4, 2014 is

corrected as follows:

On p.5, ll.21-22, the citation should read as follows:

United States v. Replogle
#### The People of the State of Illinois for use of Ernest Dalton, Appellant, v. Chicago & Alton Railway Company, Appellee.

Gen. No. 5,883.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. G. W. Patton, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action "by the People of the State of Illinois for the nse of Ernest Dalton against Chicago & Alton Railway Company to recover penalties for the obstruction of highways in the city of Pontiac by defendant under paragraph 77, ch. 114 of the Illinois statutes, J. *&*A. ¶ 8826. The suit was originally brought before a justice of the peace. A judgment was rendered in the justice court and an appeal taken to the Circuit Court, where the jury found four violations of the statute and fined the Company ten dollars for each violation. From a judgment entered on the verdict, plaintiff appeals.

A. C. Norton and Lyle M. Shelly, for appellant.

C. C. & L. F. Strawn, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Railroads, § *468*
      ***
      *—when instruction on right of railroad to obstruct public highway erroneous.*In an action against a railroad company to recover penalties for obstructing public highways in violation of paragraph 77, ch. 114, R. S., J. & A. Ü 8826, an instruction modified by the court so as to announce as the law that the railroad company could occupy a highway crossing with its cars or trains for ten minutes for any purpose, *held*not to state the law.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.

*2422. Railboads, § *468*
      ***
      *—when instruction on preponderance of evidence in suit for obstructing highway not erroneous.*In an action against a railroad company to recover a penalty for obstructing a public highway with its cars, the giving of an instruction to find the defendant guilty on a clear preponderance of the evidence *held*not error, for the reason that the instruction included the word “clear” before preponderance.

3. Railboads, § *468*
      ***
      *—when instruction as to amount of penalty for obstructing public highway erroneous.*In an action against a railroad company for obstructing a public highway with its cars, an instruction telling the jury that it was their duty to fix the same penalty for each violation of the statute that they found from the evidence existed, *held*erroneous.

4. Appeal and error, § *1535*
      ***
      *—when instruction to consider certain evidence harmless.*The giving of an instruction telling the jury that it was their duty to consider certain evidence pointed out in the instruction, *held*not reversible error, although it would have been better to have said in the instruction, “You have the right and it is your duty to consider such evidence in connection with all other evidence in the case.”