alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2256

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota * Jaevon Darnell Giddens, also known as * Alexzander Darnell Carter, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 13, 2001 Filed: April 6, 2001

___________ Before MURPHY, LAY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jaevon Giddens challenges the decision of the district court 1 not to reduce his sentence for acceptance of responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We affirm.
In October 1999, Minneapolis police officers discovered crack cocaine and firearms in Giddens’s home while executing a search warrant. Giddens was later-2-

indictedon one count of possessing crack with intent to distribute it, and one count of possessing a firearm following a felony conviction. Giddens was released on bond, but he violated the conditions of his release by neglecting to report to Pretrial Services, and by smoking marijuana. He also failed to appear for a pre-trial motions hearing. Federal authorities eventually arrested Giddens in December 1999.
Giddens agreed to plead guilty to the firearm possession count, and to a onecount information which charged him with jumping bail, 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a). Prior to sentencing, the Probation Office recommended that Giddens receive a 2-level enhancement

for obstructing justice; the Office also recommended that Giddens not receive a 2-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Giddens objected to the latter recommendation, but the district court overruled the objection and declined to reduce Giddens’s sentence. Giddens now pursues this argument on appeal.
Adistrict court’s decision to deny an acceptance of responsibility reduction rests mainly upon factual and credibility determinations, so we review that court’s decision for clear error. See UnitedStates v. Gonzalez-Rodriguez , 239 F.3d 948, 954 (8th Cir. 2001). Because the district court enhanced Giddens’s sentence for obstructing justice, Giddens wasn’t entitled to a reduced sentence for acceptance of responsibility unless his case was extraordinary. UnitedStates v. Honken , 184 F.3d 961, 967-73 (8th Cir. 1999). This case does not present the type of extraordinary circumstances that merit a reduced sentence for acceptance of responsibility. Cf. id. at 972 (suggesting that a case is not extraordinary where defendant attempted to avoid electronic monitoring and kill a witness while on pretrial release). Giddens’s bail-jumping demonstrates a desire to avoid facing the consequences of his criminal acts — hardly an “acceptance” of responsibility.
The district court did not clearly err in refusing Giddens an acceptance of responsibility reduction, and we therefore affirm the district court’s sentence.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### William U. Halbert, Administrator, Appellee, v. Trader’s Live Stock Exchange, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Robert H. Flannigan, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 1, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by William • U. Halbert, administrator of the estate of Frank Moonan, deceased, against Trader’s Live Stock Exchange to recover the value of a certificate of membership belonging to deceased at the time of his death. From a decree finding in substance that the material allegations of the bill had been proved and that complainant was entitled to the relief prayed, defendant appeals.

*534The statement of the allegations of the bill and the sufficiency of the allegations were before the Appellate Court in 173 Ill. App. 229. The further proceedings in the cause were upon the filing of the remanding order in the court below at the November term, 1912.

Whitnel & Browning, for appellant.

E. W. Eggmann, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Boards of trade and exchanges, § *54*
      ***
      *—when decree awarding recovery for conversion of membership certificate sustained by the evidence.*On bill filed by an administrator of a deceased member of a live stock exchange against the exchange to recover the value of a membership certificate belonging to the deceased, alleging that the exchange wrongfully and without authority obtained possession of the certificate and canceled the same after the death of the deceased, *held*that a decree for the complainant was sustained by the evidence.

2. Boards of" trade and exchanges, § *54*
      ***
      *—right to maintain suit in equity for conversion of membership certificate of deceased member.*On bill by an administrator of a deceased member of a live stock exchange against the exchange to recover for the conversion of a membership certificate, *held*immaterial so far as the right to maintain the suit is concerned whether claims had been presented, filed and allowed against the estate of the deceased.

3. Appeal and error, § *389*
      ***
      *—when objection that the facts proved do not show jurisdiction in chancery is waived.*On bill to recover for the conversion of a membership certificate in a live stock exchange, held that the case did not belong to the class of cases in which the court should raise of its own motion the question whether, from the facts proved, it had jurisdiction of the subject matter, but that the case belonged to that class where such a question is waived in the absence of objection in the trial court.

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

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.
NRC ISSUES FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR VOGTLE NEW REACTORS APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has completed its Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for a limited work authorization (LWA) and the 

Combined Licenses (COL) for the proposed Vogtle Units 3 and 4 reactors. The NRC, in its 

FSEIS, concluded that there are no environmental impacts that would preclude issuing the LWA 

and COLs for construction and operation of the proposed reactors at the site, near Waynesboro, 

Ga.

The FSEIS will be available on the NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1947/. The NRC staff issued a draft SEIS for the LWA and COLs in 

September 2010 that supplemented its environmental findings from the Early Site Permit issued 

for the Vogtle site in August 2009. The staff held a public meeting in October 2010 to gather 

comments on the draft SEIS.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company submitted its new reactor application for Vogtle 

on March 23, 2008, and supplemented the application on Oct. 2, 2009. Southern is applying for

licenses to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at the Vogtle site, adjacent to the company’s 

existing reactors approximately 26 miles southeast of Augusta, Ga. Westinghouse submitted an 

application to amend the already-certified AP1000, a 1,100 megawatt electric design, on May 26, 

2007. More information on the AP1000 amendment review is available on the NRC website 

here: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html.

The NRC’s publishing of the FSEIS is only part of the overall Vogtle COL review. The 

agency staff continues to compile its final safety evaluation report (SER), which will include 

recommendations from the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent 

group of nuclear safety experts. The NRC’s final licensing decision will be based on the FSEIS 

and SER findings, along with a ruling from the five-member Commission that heads the agency.

The Vogtle FSEIS can also be viewed in the NRC’s ADAMS online documents system at

http://wba.nrc.gov:8080/ves by entering accession number ML11076A010 in the search window. 

In addition, the Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 South in Waynesboro, will have a 

hardbound copy of the FSEIS available for public inspection.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-058 March 25, 2011
###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.
### §240102. Organization

(a) Federal Charter.—Women's Army Corps Veterans' Association (in this chapter, the "corporation"), a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the District of Columbia, is a federally chartered corporation.

(b) Expiration of Charter.—If the corporation does not comply with any provision of this chapter, the charter granted by this chapter expires.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1488.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 240102(a) | 36:3101. | Oct. 30, 1984, Pub. L. 98–584, §§1, 15 (last sentence), 16, 98 Stat. 3097, 3099. |
| 240102(b) | 36:3114 (last sentence).36:3115. | |

Section

36:3115.

In subsection (a), the words "incorporated in" are substituted for "organized under the laws of", and the words "is a federally chartered corporation" are substituted for "is recognized as such and is granted a Federal charter", for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (b), the word "restrictions" is omitted as included in "any provision".
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 237

To repeal certain amendments to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2003

Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. PAUL, 

Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. KING of New York, and Mr. PLATTS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To repeal certain amendments to the National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO NA4 TIONAL VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION 

5 PROGRAM. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2133 of the Public Health 

7 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa–33) is amended to read as 

8 if sections 1714 through 1716 of Public Law 107–296 had 
2

•HR 237 IH 

1 not been enacted. Section 1717 of Public Law 107–296 

2 is repealed. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) is deemed to 

4 have taken effect immediately after the enactment of Pub5 lic Law 107–296.

Æ
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-12-06T16:40:24-0500
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
### §7112. Expiration date

This chapter expires on February 3, 1985.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1039.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7112 | 42:4251(note). | Dec. 5, 1974, Pub. L. 93–510, §13, 88 Stat. 1608; Dec. 16, 1980, Pub. L. 96–534, 94 Stat. 3164. |
### §1205. Deductions of dues

(a) When a labor organization holds exclusive recognition, or when an organization of personnel not subject to collective-bargaining agreements has consultation rights under section 1004 of this title, the Postal Service shall deduct the regular and periodic dues of the organization from the pay of all members of the organization in the unit of recognition if the Post Office Department or the Postal Service has received from each employee, on whose account such deductions are made, a written assignment which shall be irrevocable for a period of not more than one year.

(b) Any agreement in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Postal Reorganization Act between the Post Office Department and any organization of postal employees which provides for deduction by the Department of the regular and periodic dues of the organization from the pay of its members, shall continue in full force and effect and the obligation for such deductions shall be assumed by the Postal Service. No such deduction shall be made from the pay of any employee except on his written assignment, which shall be irrevocable for a period of not more than one year.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 735.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of the Postal Reorganization Act, referred to in subsec. (b), means the date of enactment of Pub. L. 91–375, which was approved Aug. 12, 1970.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE>                                                           5
 <MULTIPLIER>                                                     1000
 
        
 <S>                                              <C>
 
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                           9-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-95
 <PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-95
 <PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-95
 
 <CASH>                                                 76,842
 <SECURITIES>                                           29,917
 <RECEIVABLES>                                         155,369
 <ALLOWANCES>                                            2,025
 <INVENTORY>                                           301,350
 <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      577,304
 <PP&E>                                                659,375
 <DEPRECIATION>                                        140,313
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,138,679
 <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 378,155
 <BONDS>                                               400,615
 <COMMON>                                                    0
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
 <PREFERRED>                                                 0
 <OTHER-SE>                                                  0
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,138,679
 <SALES>                                             2,160,152
 <TOTAL-REVENUE>                                     3,381,637
 <CGS>                                               3,027,788
 <TOTAL-COSTS>                                       3,339,730
 <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       30,186
 <LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     34,479
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (22,758)
 <INCOME-TAX>                                           (8,648)
 <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (14,110)
 <DISCONTINUED>                                              0
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
 <CHANGES>                                                   0
 <NET-INCOME>                                          (14,110)
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                               0
 
</TABLE>
1

July	24,	2015

Docket	Operations,	M-30

U.S. Department	of	Transportation (DOT)

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE

Room	W12-140,	West	Building	Ground	Floor

Washington,	D.C.	20590-0001

RE:	Name	change for	FAA-2015-1873

Dear	Sir or	Madam:

The	Petition	for	Exemption	in	the	Federal	Register	FAA-2015-1873	was	filed	under	

FP	AeroSolutions,	LLC. At	the	time	of	filing the	Petition	for	Exemption,	the	Articles	of	

Organization	for	FP	AeroSolutions,	LLC	with	the	state	of	North	Dakota	was	pending.	

To	avoid	filing	a	“deceptively	similar” trade	name,	the	company	filed	the	Articles	of	

Organization	as	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC. StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC	has	been	

incorporated	in	the	state	of	North	Dakota.

The	correct	name	of	the	petitioner	is,	in	fact,	“StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC.” Accordingly,	

petitioner	respectfully	requests	that	the	Petition	for	Exemption	be	amended,	and	

that	all	references	to	“FP	AeroSolutions,	LLC” be	replaced	with	“StraightEdge	Aero,	

LLC.”

If	you	have	any	questions	or	require	any	additional	information,	please	do	not	

hesitate	to	contact	me.

Sincerely,	

/s/	Nicholas	Flom

____________________________________

Nicholas	Flom Managing	Partner,	StraightEdge	Aero,	LLC
No. IV-08-042 

Contact: Victor Dricks 

Phone: (817) 860-8128 

 

 December 10, 2008 

 E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $3,250 FINE FOR SECURITY VIOLATIONS 

AT GLAXOSMITHKLINE BIOLOGICALS 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,250 fine against 

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, in Hamilton, Mont., for failing to institute certain security 

measures. 

 The company holds an NRC license authorizing it to possess and use radioactive 

materials for pharmaceutical research. 

 In November 2005, the NRC issued an Order to GlaxoSmithKline and similar firms, 

imposing new additional security requirements for the storage and protection of radioactive 

materials. An inspection conducted by the NRC staff in August identified two violations of NRC 

security requirements associated with that Order. 

 “The $3,250 fine is being proposed because the company failed to take the necessary 

security precautions intended to properly safeguard radioactive materials in their possession and 

for failing to immediately correct the violations identified by the NRC inspector,” said NRC 

Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins. “Ultimately, the company transferred its radioactive 

material to another authorized user and is no longer required to follow those NRC security 

requirements.” 

 The company has 30 days to pay the fine or protest it. If the fine is protested and 

subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing. 

 Because the violations involved security measures at the facility, the details of the 

requirements and the violations are not being publicly disclosed.

 ### 

 

 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.

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
U.S. Agency Spotlight

----
## PART III—MODERNIZATION AND FISCAL ADMINISTRATION

Chap.
Sec.
20.
Finance
2001
22.
Convict Labor
2201
24.
Appropriations and Annual Report
2401
26.
Debts and Collection
2601
28.
Strategic Planning and Performance Management
2801
29.
Property Management
2901

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2016**—Pub. L. 114–318, §4(b), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1614, added item for chapter 29.

**2006**—Pub. L. 109–435, title X, §1010(g)(2), Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3262, substituted "Strategic Planning and Performance Management" for "Strategic planning and performance management" in item for chapter 28.

**1993**—Pub. L. 103–62, §11(c), Aug. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 296, added item for chapter 28.
### §8523. Disbursements from the Fund

Disbursements from the Fund shall be made by the Division of Disbursements, Treasury Department, upon the order and within the discretion of the Secretary for the benefit of members and patients while being supplied care or treatment by the Department in any facility or hospital. The authority contained in the preceding sentence is not limited to facilities or hospitals under direct administrative control of the Department. There shall be paid out of the assets of the decedent so far as may be the valid claims of creditors against the decedent's estate that would be legally payable therefrom in the absence of this subchapter and without the benefit of any exemption statute, and which may be presented to the Department within one year from the date of death, or within the time, to the person, and in the manner required or permitted by the law of the State wherein administration, if any, is had upon the estate of the deceased veteran; and also the proper expenses and costs of administration, if any. If the decedent's estate is insolvent the distribution to creditors shall be in accordance with the laws of the decedent's domicile, and the preferences and priorities prescribed thereby shall govern, subject to any applicable law of the United States.

(Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1260, §5223; Pub. L. 99–576, title VII, §701(102), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3300; renumbered §8523, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 102–83, §4(a)(3), (4), (b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404, 405.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 5223 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 102–83 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" and "Department" for "Veterans' Administration" wherever appearing.

1986—Pub. L. 99–576 substituted "the decedent's" for "his" in two places.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Division of Disbursements of Treasury Department consolidated into Fiscal Service of Treasury Department by section 1(a)(1) of Reorg. Plan No. III of 1940, eff. June 30, 1940, 5 F.R. 2107, 54 Stat. 1231, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. See section 306 of Title 31, Money and Finance.
472 P.2d 984

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Candelario BACA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 9093.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

July 20, 1970.

Ordered that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 410, 81 N.M. 686, 472 P.2d 651, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.