alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Isbrandtsen Company, Inc., Appellant, v. A. P. Pattison & Company, Federal Inc., U. S. A., Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Botein, JJ.
#### Clifford Kanner, Respondent, v. Frederick F. Grotz, Appellant.

Present — *Crosby,*P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
#### § 930.92 Applicant agency.

The term “applicant agency” means any unit of State or local government, or any related public entity such as a special purpose district, which, following management program approval, submits an application for federal assistance.
§ 917.20 General. ( a ) 33 U.S.C. 1125 requires the Secretary to identify specific national needs and problems relative to ocean and coastal resources. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator. The designation is intended to focus public attention on needs and problems of the marine environment that are considered to be of particular national importance at a given point in time.
( b ) 33 U.S.C. 1125 provides for the funding of national projects in marine research, marine education and training, and marine advisory services that are designed to deal with the national needs and problems concerning ocean and coastal resources identified by the Administrator.
( c ) The Administrator will identify the national needs and problems apart from considerations of Office of Sea Grant funding for “National Projects” responsive to national needs and problems that are identified.
### SUBCHAPTER I—OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
§ 960.101 Definitions. For purposes of this part: ( a ) The term *Director* means the Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management.
( b ) The term *Executive agency* means a department, agency, or independent establishment in the Executive Branch.
( c ) The term *metropolitan area* means a geographic zone surrounding a major city, as defined and delimited from time to time by the Director.
( d ) The term *principal area officer* means, with respect to an Executive agency, the senior official of the Executive agency who is located in a metropolitan area and who has no superior official within that metropolitan area other than in the Regional Office of the Executive agency. Where an Executive agency maintains facilities of more than one bureau or other subdivision within the metropolitan area, and where the heads of those facilities are in separate chains of command within the Executive agency, then the Executive agency may have more than one principal area officer.
( e ) The term *principal regional officer* means, with respect to an Executive agency, the senior official in a Regional Office of the Executive agency.
( f ) The term *special representative* means, with respect to an Executive agency, an official who is not subject to the supervision of a principal regional officer or a principal area officer and who is specifically designated by the head of the Executive agency to serve as the personal representative of the head of the Executive agency.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25766]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2530

[WO-350-1430-PF-24 1A]
RIN 1004-AB10


Indian Allotments

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is withdrawing the 
proposed rule that would have revised the regulations for Indian 
allotments to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on the public, to 
streamline and clarify the existing regulations and to remove redundant 
and unnecessary requirements. The proposal was published in the Federal 
Register on October 16, 1996. We reopened the comment period in the 
Federal Register on July 15, 1999 for 60 days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: You may contact Jeff Holdren, Lands 
and Realty Group, on (202) 452-7779 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, except holidays, to contact Mr. Holdren.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM published the proposed rule in the 
Federal Register on October 16, 1996 (61 FR 53887). We reopened the 
comment period in the Federal Register on July 15, 1999 (64 FR 38172) 
for 60-days because we inadvertently omitted the information collection 
requirements. We received three comments. The BLM decided to withdraw 
the proposed rule and will take no further action on this proposal 
regarding Indian allotments.

    Dated: September 24, 2004.
Chad Calvert,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 04-25766 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
#### § 701.1 Purpose.

The Defense Production Act Amendments of 1992 require the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate regulations for U.S. firms entering into contracts for the sale of defense articles or defense services to foreign countries or foreign firms that are subject to offset agreements exceeding $5,000,000 in value to furnish information regarding such agreements. The Secretary of Commerce has designated the Bureau of Industry and Security as the organization responsible for implementing this provision. The information provided by U.S. firms will be aggregated and used to determine the impact of offset transactions on the defense preparedness, industrial competitiveness, employment, and trade of the United States. Summary reports are submitted annually to Congress pursuant to Section 309 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended.

[59 FR 61796, Dec. 2, 1994, as amended at 74 FR 68140, Dec. 23, 2009]
NRC ASSIGNS NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR TO VERMONT YANKEE

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., 

have selected Scott Rutenkroger as the new Senior Resident Inspector at 

the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. He joins Resident Inspector 

Sarah Rich at the Vernon, Vt., site. 

“Scott Rutenkroger has the experience, training and commitment 

to safety that will help the NRC ensure that Vermont Yankee conducts 

operations with the highest safety standards to protect public health and 

safety," said NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean.

Rutenkroger joined the NRC’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, in June 2004 as a

reactor inspector in the Division of Reactor Safety. He earned a doctorate in electrical 

engineering, as well as master’s and bachelor’s degrees in nuclear engineering, from the 

University of Missouri-Rolla. Rutenkroger is a graduate of the NRC’s Nuclear Safety 

Professional Development Program, a two-year training program that provides a broad and a 

specialized perspective of NRC activities. He also completed a rigorous NRC inspector 

qualification program. Most recently he was a Resident Inspector at the James A. FitzPatrick 

nuclear power plant in Scriba, N.Y.

Each of the nation’s commercial nuclear plants has Resident Inspectors who serve as the

agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring significant 

work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public.

The Vermont Yankee Resident Inspectors can be reached at 802-257-4319.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No. I-11-038

Contact: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan (610) 337-5331

September 30, 2011

Email: opa1.resource@nrc.gov
Attachment 2: Missouri SO2 Monitoring Summary (As of 4/4/16) 

http://dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/docs/so2monitoringdata.pdf
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6103** 

GREGORY WARDELL DRIVER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

– Appellee , and

BILL WATSON; PORTSMOUTH CIRCUIT COURT , Respondents

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 00590

- RAJ

- LRL )

Submitted : May 18 , 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD , DIAZ , and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Gregory Wardell Driver , Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin , Senior Assistant Attorney General , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpubli shed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Gregory Wardell Driver seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A)
(2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)

. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
deb atable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S.
at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Driver has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny4 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as moot

. * We dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* We note that Driver’s supervised probation ended in November 2015.
Exhibit 10.16

Mortgage Assistance Agreement

Effective February 12, 2002, Sal Jamil and Corio, Inc. hereby agree as
follows:

Subject to Mr. Jamil's continuing employment with Corio, Inc. (which remains
terminable by Corio at will), Corio intends to pay Sal Jamil up to Forty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($45,000) per year for up to the next five (5) years, payable
in monthly installments according to Corio' s payment policies as determined by
Corio, for assistance with Mr. Jamil' s mortgage associated with his primary
residence. Any such payment is further subject to Mr. Jamil providing Corio
evidence of such obligations related to his mortgage associated with his primary
residence prior to any such payment. Any such payment shall be subject to income
tax be borne by Mr. Jamil.  In the event Mr. Jamil' s employment terminates
for any reason whatsoever, any such payments shall cease, and, in the event Mr.
Jamil terminates his employment with Corio within the next two (2) years, Mr.
Jamil shall immediately be required to repay Corio any and all such payments
paid by Corio to Mr. Jamil from the effective date hereof up to the date of
termination.

In the event of default hereunder by Mr. Jamil, Corio shall have full
recourse against him. If any action is instituted by Corio for the collection of
amounts due under this Agreement, the reasonable costs of Corio, including
attorneys' fees and expenses among any other reasonable costs, shall be paid by
Mr. Jamil. Any such action shall be held in a court or arbitration tribunal, at
Corio's discretion, in San Jose or San Francisco, California, and the
undersigned consents to all jurisdictional requirements to enable any such
action to be held in such location and at such tribunal. This Agreement shall be
governed by the laws of the State of California, without regard to the conflicts
of law provision thereof.  Mr. Jamil agrees to keep confidential the terms of
this Agreement.

|                      | Corio Inc.                      
|--------------------- | --------------------------------
|/s/ Sal Jamil	2/19/02 |                                 
|Sal Jamil             | By:                             
|                      | George Kadifa, President and CEO

---
-----"Hetherington, Amy M" <Amy.Hetheri ngton@constellation.com> wrote: ----- To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Hetherington, Amy M" <Amy.Hetherington@constellation.com> Date: 07/08/2010 02:08PM cc: "Butler, William J" <William.J.Butl er@constellation.com>, "Logan, Carla" <Carla.Logan@constellation.com> Subject: Ms. Alicea, Constellation Energy is submitting an extension letter C.P. Crane Generating Station for submitting the Effluent Guideline ICR. Please co nfirm with a return emai l that you received the email and attachment.

Thank you,

Amy Hetherington Constellation Energy Environmental Services
1005 Brandon Shores Road Baltimore, MD 21226
410-787-9093 410-787-6637 (fax) 443-677-9191 (cell)

>>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP1 

### Pa g e 1 of 1

8/12/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C3718F3DO

...-----"Hetherington, Amy M" <Amy.Hetheri ngton@constellation.com> wrote: ----- To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Hetherington, Amy M" <Amy.Hetherington@constellation.com> Date: 07/08/2010 01:58PM cc: "Logan, Carla" <Carla.Logan@co nstellation.com>, "Perry, Jim" <Jim.Perry@const ellation.com> Subject: Wagner ICR extension Ms. Alicea, Constellation Energy is submitting an extension letter for the H.A. Wagner Generating Station for the Effluent Guideline ICR. Pl ease confirm with a return emai l that you received the email and attachment.

Thank you,

Amy Hetherington Constellation Energy Environmental Services
1005 Brandon Shores Road Baltimore, MD 21226
410-787-9093 410-787-6637 (fax) 443-677-9191 (cell)

>>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP2 

### Pa g e 1 of 1

8/12/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C3718F4DO

...From: "Hetherington, Amy M" <Amy.Hetherington@constellation.com> To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Logan, Carla" <Carla.L ogan@constellation.com>, "Kusterer, John N" <John.N.Kusterer@constellation.com> Date: 07/08/2010 01:15 PM Subject: ICR extension letter

Ms. Alicea, Constellation Energy is submitting an extension letter for submitting the Effluent Guideline ICR. Please confirm with a return email that you received the email and attachment. Thank you, Amy Hetherington Constellation Energy Environmental Services 1005 Brandon Shores Road Baltimore, MD 21226 410-787-9093 410-787-6637 (fax) 443-677-9191 (cell)
#### § 265.51 Penalties—other laws.

Except with respect to the laws of the State of Maryland and the State of Colorado assimilated by § 265.5 or otherwise, whoever shall be found guilty of violating these regulations is subject to a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both (40 U.S.C. 318c). Except as expressly provided in this part, nothing contained in these regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations, or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to the area in which the site is situated.
NEVADA HOME BUILDER IN RUSSIA

----

**June 1997**
by Deborah S. Adler
Las Vegas, Nevada home builder John Murtagh didn't know what to expect when he stepped offthe train for a month-long stint as a volunteer technical advisor in Nizhny Novgorod.  What hefound was a commercial environment brimming with opportunities for construction-relatedbusinesses, but also full of challenges to be met before the possibilities can be realized.  Low percapita income and the lack of a well-established mortgage-finance system will require U.S. homebuilders, construction management companies, and building materials exporters to developcoherent strategies for tapping the Russian housing market.
Murtagh--who went to Russia under the auspices of the Building Technology InformationCenter of Russia (see box below)--discovered a housing market quite different from the one hewas familiar with in the United States.  Despite Russia's abundance of land, the typical resident ofa Russian city does not live in a single-family detached home, but in an apartment inside a10-to-14 story building constructed of precast concrete panels.  Since these complexes typicallyhave ten units on each floor, the average density is more than 100 units per building.  Often thereis no consideration for parking, so most residents have to park their cars in sheds located as far asten blocks from their housing complexes.  A relatively few very wealthy "new Russians" arebuilding single-family detached homes, but for now the lack of affordable credit effectively putshome ownership beyond the reach of most consumers.
Legal and administrative requirements regarding the use of land also pose problems for thehousing industry.  Murtagh found that in Nizhny Novgorod, "they have no conception of thingslike property lines, first trust deeds, mortgages, and other aspects of real estate that we take forgranted.  The personal property laws are still in the infancy stage, so there is no sense of securityfor buyers and sellers."  Indeed, the right to own and use land in Russian cities is held by themunicipal government, not by private owners.  City governments frequently grant the right to useland for an indefinite period, but only for specific purposes.  Rarely, if ever, do land users have theright to sell land.  As a result, "real estate" as it is understood in America--the right to own, use,and dispose of land by private owners--hardly exists in Russia. 
**Opportunities Exist**
### Part D—State Flexibility To Establish Alternative Programs
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edwin Hilt, Appellant.

Present — Poster, P. J., Heffernan, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
### subpart 5—protection and advocacy systems
No. II-12-017 April 11, 2012

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES REGULATORY CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS 

APPARENT VIOLATION AT SURRY NUCLEAR STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a regulatory conference with 

officials of Dominion on Thursday, April 19 to discuss an apparent violation of plant technical 

specifications related to Surry Unit 2 reactor coolant system level indications. 

NRC and Dominion officials will discuss the significance of the inspection finding, 

which involved the failure of the company to provide appropriate maintenance procedures for a 

standpipe that indicates coolant levels during maintenance activities when the amount of water is 

reduced. The finding did not represent an immediate safety concern but an NRC analysis of the 

issue did find an increase in risk during some operations. 

The regulatory conference is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. EDT in the NRC’s Region II office, 

located at 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE., Suite 1200, in Atlanta. The public is invited to 

observe and NRC officials will be available to answer questions. 

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a 

color-coded system which classifies findings as green, white, yellow or red, in increasing order

of safety significance. The NRC’s preliminary evaluation determined that the violation at Surry 

was “white,” which means it has a low to moderate safety significance. 

No decisions on the final safety significance or other NRC actions will be made at the

conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. 

The NRC inspection report in which the apparent violation is documented is publicly 

available online at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The number to access the report is 

ML120730510. 

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
Source id FLAGFac1Fac2Fac3Fac4Fac5Fac6Fac7 D10001A1 HROFDY 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D10001A1 HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D10001A1 HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 D10001A2HROFDY 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D10001A2HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D10001A2HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 D10001B1 HROFDY 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D10001B1 HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D10001B1 HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 D10001B2HROFDY 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D10001B2HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D10001B2HROFDY 1 1 1 1 1 1 0Fac81

1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
### **CHAPTER 138—ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION**

Sec.
14401.
Findings and purpose.
14402.
Restriction on use of Federal funds under health care programs.
14403.
Restriction on use of Federal funds under certain grant programs.
14404.
Restriction on use of Federal funds by advocacy programs.
14405.
Restriction on use of other Federal funds.
14406.
Clarification with respect to advance directives.
14407.
Application to District of Columbia.
14408.
Relation to other laws.
Waubay NationalWildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 S-3

Map 1 - Waubay NWR Complex Vicinity Map
Waubay NationalWildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 3

Map 2 - Waubay NWR Historic Water Levels Map, Pre-1995
Map 3 - Waubay NWR Base Map - Current Water Levels, 1998

Waubay NationalWildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 5
Map 4 - South Dakota Major Physiographic Regions

Waubay NationalWildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 15
Waubay NationalWildlife Refuge Complex Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan - June 2002 19

Map 5 - USFWS Region 6 Ecosystems