alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

DERRICK BRICKERT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL 

TRUST COMPANY, as trustee for; 

and Does 1 to 50, inclusive other 

GSAMP Trust 2007FM2, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 19-1481 

(D.C. No. 1:17-CV-03106-MEH) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This appeal stems from Mr. Derrick Brickert’s effort to avoid 

Deutsche Bank’s foreclosure of his house. He sued the bank, asserting 

several claims. Most were dismissed, but the claim for unjust enrichment 

* The parties do not request oral argument, and it would not help us to 

decide the appeal. We have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate 

briefs and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 

34.1(G). 

 This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if 

otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 8, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

remained. The district court granted summary judgment to the bank on this 

claim, reasoning that unjust enrichment did not apply because the parties’ 

respective obligations were set out in a contract. See Pulte Home Corp. v. 

Countryside Cmty. Ass’n, 382 P.3d 821, 833 (Colo. 2016) (stating that a 

claim for unjust enrichment is generally unavailable when the underlying 

payment obligation is subject to an express contract). 

In appealing, Mr. Brickert hasn’t said what’s wrong with the district 

court’s reasoning. This omission is fatal even when the appellant (like Mr. 

Brickert) is pro se. See Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 

1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (stating that the appellant must “explain what was 

wrong with the reasoning that the district court relied on in reaching its 

decision”); Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840–

41 (10th Cir. 2005) (stating that even unrepresented litigants must present 

an argument citing the record and supporting legal authority). Because Mr. 

Brickert hasn’t explained how the district court erred, we must affirm. 

But we grant Mr. Brickert’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. He qualifies for leave because he lacks the money to prepay the 

filing fee. 

Entered for the Court 

 Robert E. Bacharach 

 Circuit Judge
NRC SCHEDULES ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE 

WITH GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL FOR APRIL 4

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a pre-decisional enforcement

conference with officials of Global Nuclear Fuel of Wilmington, N.C. for Wednesday, April 4 to 

discuss an apparent violation of NRC requirements related to an issue with the company’s 

criticality warning system.

The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. EDT at the NRC Region II office in Atlanta, located at 

245 Peachtree Center Ave. The meeting will be open to the public and NRC officials will be 

available after the meeting to answer any questions. Anyone interested in attending the meeting 

or participating by telephone should contact the NRC's Marvin Sykes at 404-997-4629 or 

marvin.sykes@nrc.gov . 

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the apparent violation associated with a 

significant delay in a criticality warning system horn identified by the company last July. The

company’s own investigation determined that a component failure caused the delayed response 

and it has taken corrective actions to resolve the issue as well as address the factors that 

prevented earlier identification. 

No decision on enforcement action will be made at the meeting. NRC officials will 

review information presented by Global Nuclear Fuel at the meeting and reach a decision on 

appropriate regulatory action at a later date.

An NRC report with information on the issue is available through the NRC website at 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The number to access the document is ML12030A026.

###

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No: II-12-004

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 March 29, 2012

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
### §3500. Purpose

The Congress hereby declares that the educational program established by this chapter is for the purpose of providing opportunities for education to children whose education would otherwise be impeded or interrupted by reason of the disability or death of a parent from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the Armed Forces after the beginning of the Spanish-American War, and for the purpose of aiding such children in attaining the educational status which they might normally have aspired to and obtained but for the disability or death of such parent. The Congress further declares that the educational program extended to the surviving spouses of veterans who died of service-connected disabilities and to spouses of veterans with a service-connected total disability permanent in nature is for the purpose of assisting them in preparing to support themselves and their families at a standard of living level which the veteran, but for the veteran's death or service disability, could have expected to provide for the veteran's family.

(Added Pub. L. 90–631, §2(a)(1), Oct. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 1331, §1700; amended Pub. L. 94–502, title III, §310(1), Oct. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 2391; renumbered §3500, Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–83 renumbered section 1700 of this title as this section.

1976—Pub. L. 94–502 substituted "surviving spouses" for "widows", "spouses" for "wives", and "the veteran's" for "his" in two places.

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

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–502 effective Oct. 15, 1976, see section 703(b) of Pub. L. 94–502, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3693 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 90–631, §6(a), Oct. 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, provided that: "The amendments made by the first section and sections 2, 3, and 5 of this Act [see Tables for classification] shall take effect on the first day of the second calendar month which begins after the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 23, 1968]."
UPTI – GPI Coordination

March 30, 2011
UPTI – GPI Coordination

 GPI and UPTI have 

– Similar objectives– Significant areas of information overlap– But vastly different scope, actions, and 

responsibilities

 Coordination of efforts makes sense “Enhanced Inspection and Environmen

Monitoring Initiatives”
Coordination Guidance

 Good practices related to coordinating 

Underground Piping and Tanks IntegritGround Water Protection Initiatives

 Covers

– Description of both Initiatives– Comparison of Initiative elements– Description of interface– Recommendations for efficient impleme
Coordination Workshop

 Draft program

– Overview of NEI guidelines– Overview of EPRI guidelines– GPI and UPTI responsibilities– Overview of coordination document– Plant examples of coordination efforts– Comparison of risk ranking methodolog– Brainstorming session

 Denver, September
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Unsolicited Program Project (PO1) Application.                    

*Date:*                         December 14, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         John A. Bogdan, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-496-2550,                         *jbogdan@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 15, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-25903  Filed 11-22-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 904.3 Filing and service. ( a ) Service of a NOVA (§ 904.101), NOPS (§ 904.302), NIDP (§ 904.303), Notice of Proposed Forfeiture (§ 904.504), Notice of Seizure (§ 904.501), Notice of Summary Sale (§ 904.505), Written Warning (§ 904.402), or Initial Decision (§ 904.271) may be made by certified mail (return receipt requested), electronic transmission, or third party commercial carrier to an addressee's last known address or by personal delivery. Service of a notice under this subpart will be considered effective upon receipt.
( b ) Service of documents and papers, other than those described in paragraph (a) of this section, may be made by first class mail (postage prepaid), electronic transmission, or third party commercial carrier, to an addressee's last known address or by personal delivery. Service of documents and papers will be considered effective upon the date of postmark (or as otherwise shown for government-franked mail), delivery to third party commercial carrier, electronic transmission, or upon personal delivery.
( c ) Whenever this part requires service of a document or other paper referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, such service may effectively be made on the agent for service of process, on the attorney for the person to be served, or other representative. Refusal by the person to be served (including an agent, attorney, or representative) of service of a document or other paper will be considered effective service of the document or other paper as of the date of such refusal. In cases where a document or paper described in paragraph (a) of this section is returned unclaimed, service will be considered effective if the U.S. Postal Service provides an affidavit stating that the party was receiving mail at the same address during the period when certified service was attempted.
( d ) Any documents and other papers filed or served must be signed: ( 1 ) By the person or persons filing the same;
( 2 ) By an officer thereof if a corporation;
( 3 ) By an officer or authorized employee if a government instrumentality; or
( 4 ) By an attorney or other person having authority to sign.
[87 FR 38936, June 30, 2022]
#### Matthew F. Walsh, Appellant, v. Manhattan Fire Proofing Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
### §303. Definitions

As used in this chapter, the term "function" embraces any duty, power, responsibility, authority, or discretion vested in the President or other officer concerned, and the terms "perform" and "performance" may be construed to mean "exercise".

(Added Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §10, 65 Stat. 712.)

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

#### Similar Provisions; Repeal; Saving Clause

For similar provisions contained in prior law, and saving clause in connection therewith, see note preceding section 301 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7235

CHARLES ALONZO TUNSTALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAPTAIN ALLEN DAVIS; SERGEANT LOCKLEAR; MR. TUBBS; MR. LOWRY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James J. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03214-D)

Submitted: March 30, 2023 Decided: June 29, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Alonzo Tunstall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7235 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Alonzo Tunstall appeals the district court’s order and judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Tunstall v. Davis, 

No. 5:22-ct-03214-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7235 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7147
IN RE: WILLIAM A. ROSS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-97-184-3-23-V) Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 3, 2004 Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Ross, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: William A. Ross petitions for writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motions to amend the criminal judgment and for reconsideration. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. The district court has already ruled on both motions. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal c ontentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determine d that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50619 No. 95-50659 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT JESSE SMALLWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas (SA-95-CA-0167 & SA-89-CR-301)

September 25,1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:
Robert Jesse Smallwood a p peals from the district court’s
denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Smallwood argues that the district

court followed improper procedure in denying his motion by shifting to him the burden of proof on the prejudice prong of his2

ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was entitled

to an evident iary hearing on the issue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district court properly analyzed Smallwood’s claim. Accordingly, we affirm essentially for

the reasons adopted by the district court. See United States v.

Smallwood , No. SA-95-CA-01 67 (W.D. Tex. July 27, 1995); s ee also
United Sta tes v. Smallwood , No. SA-95-CV-0166 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 7,
1995). Smallwood was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. S ee
United States v. Acklen , 47 F.3d 739, 743 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Aute n , 632 F.2d 478, 480 (5th Cir. 1980). Smallwood

abandons on appeal, by failing to brief the issue, his substantive
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Brinkmann v. Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6).

AFFIRMED
## Breadcrumb

-  Center For States 
-  Resource Library 
- 											Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers									

# Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers

This manual examines the roles and responsibilities of child protective services (CPS) workers. It describes the purposes, key decisions, and issues of each stage of the CPS process and strategies for casework supervision, training, and support.

Publication year:

## Description

Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers covers numerous topics essential to good CPS casework practice, including:
                - Philosophical tenets, legal context, and national goals of child protection
                - Core components of the helping relationship, including cultural sensitivity and competency and family engagement
                - Purposes, key decisions, and practice issues for the stages of the CPS process:	                   - Reporting and intake
                  - Initial assessment/investigation
                  - Comprehensive family assessment
                  - Development of the family plan
                  - Change strategies and interventions
                  - Evaluation of change and family progress
                  - Closure and ending of CPS involvement 
                - Effective documentation of actions in case records and information systems
                - Strategies for casework supervision, training, consultation, and support
                - Caseworker wellness and safety

Share:Copied to clipboard

Download (2.61 MB)

## Suggested Citation

Capacity Building Center for States. (2018). *Child Protective Services: A Guide for Caseworkers. *Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

*This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Capacity Building Center for States.*

## Related Content

External Link
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence (2nd ed.)

Research shows that children exposed to domestic violence are at increased risk of being abused or neglected. This manual discusses the intersection of child maltreatment and domestic violence with a focus on child protection practice.

**Publication Year**

Explore related resources

### Connect With Us

Sign Up for News and Updates

Learn how we can help your agency build the capacity to thrive.

**Email**: info@childwelfare.gov **Phone**: 1.800.394.3366

Visit the Center for States' Contact Us webpage for more information.

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn
### **CHAPTER 24—APPROPRIATIONS AND ANNUAL REPORT**

Sec.
2401.
Appropriations.
2402.
Annual report.
No. III-08-039 

Contacts: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662 

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663 

 September 24, 2008 

 E-Mail: opa3@nrc.gov 

Web site: www.nrc.gov

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION 

AT THE DC COOK NUCLEAR PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting a special inspection at the DC Cook 

Nuclear Power Station to review circumstances around a turbine generator fire and degradation 

of the fire suppression system. The two-unit plant is operated by American Electric Power and is 

located in Stevensville, Mich. 

 On Sept. 20, 2008, a malfunction in the Unit 1 turbine generator resulted in a fire and 

caused the operators to manually shut down the reactor. The turbine generator transforms steam 

into electricity. All nuclear safety systems functioned as expected and were not affected by the 

fire which occurred in a building separate from the nuclear reactor. 

The utility declared an unusual event, the lowest of NRC’s four emergency 

classifications, when the fire could not be extinguished within 15 minutes. The fire was 

extinguished 25 minutes after it started. There were no injuries and no hazard to the public. 

After the fire was extinguished, operators received a signal indicating a problem with the 

fire suppression system. The cause of the problem was a rupture in the pipe which is a source of 

water for the plant’s fire protection systems. Alternate sources of water were available for fire 

suppression in case they were needed. 

The four-person special inspection team will review the causes for the turbine generator 

malfunction, the fire, and the problems with the fire suppression system. The special inspection 

team will also review the utility’s corrective actions. 

“Plant operators took quick action to safely shut down the reactor and activate the fire 

suppression system,” said Regional Administrator James Caldwell. “However, we seek to gain a 

more thorough understanding of what caused the turbine problems and the fire, as well as the 

causes of the degradation of the plant’s fire suppression system.” 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III 

2443 Warrenville Road 

Lisle IL 60532 
The duration of a special inspection cannot be determined in advance. The average 

duration of a special inspection is seven days. The inspection report will be issued about 45 days 

after the inspection is complete. It will be available through the NRC RIII Office of Public 

Affairs and at the NRC web site: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.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.