alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8162. Ailanthus trees prohibited

Ailanthus trees shall not be purchased for, or planted in, the public grounds.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1209.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8162 | 40:102. | R.S. §1830. |

Section

The word "ailanthus" is substituted for "ailantus" to correct an error in the source provision.
### SUBCHAPTER II—RECYCLING OF RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES
NRC ISSUES PROPOSED RULE ON ADVANCE NOTIFICATION TO TRIBAL 

GOVERNMENTS OF CERTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to require 

licensees to notify federally recognized tribal governments in advance of shipments of irradiated 

reactor fuel and certain other nuclear wastes through tribal reservations.

Current NRC regulations require licensees to inform state governments of certain shipments 

of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear wastes that pass through or across state boundaries. These 

advance notification requirements were established in 1982. The agency initiated rulemaking to 

include tribal governments in this requirement, but that process was deferred following the 2001 

terrorist attacks.

Under the proposed rule, published today in the Federal Register, to receive the advance 

notifications tribal governments would need to declare that they would like to receive the 

information and certify that they will protect any safeguards information contained in the 

notifications. If a tribe opts to receive advance notifications, it would be obligated to protect the 

schedule and itineraries of the shipments to comply with NRC regulations on the protection of 

safeguards information.

The text of the proposed rule is available through the NRC website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fedreg/notices/2010.html. Public comments will be 

accepted on the proposed rule until Feb. 22, 2011. Comments may be submitted through the federal 

government’s rulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, using Docket ID NRC-1999-0005. 

They may be mailed to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 

20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Or they may be e-mailed to 

Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. Commenters are asked to include Docket ID NRC-1999-0005 in 

the subject line.

###

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.

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: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 10-216 December 6, 2010
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

March 1, 2011



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK

, Chief Judge

R ICHARD D. C UDAHY

, Circuit Judge

I LANA D IAMOND R OVNER

, Circuit Judge



### No

. 10

- 2393

J OHN W. C OMRIE

, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

IPSCO, I NCORPORATED

, et al

. , Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois

, Eastern Division.

No. 08 C 3060

John W. Darrah

, Judge

.

Order

The slip opinion of this court issued on February 18, 2011, is amended as

follows:

Page 2, first full paragraph, line 3, change “John Comrie, IPSCO’s Chief

Legal Officer,” to “John Comrie, IPSCO’s Director of Trade Policy and

Communications,” ;

Page 2, first fu ll paragraph, line 5, change, “Melanie Klebuc

- Simes” to

“Michele Klebuc

- Simes” ; and

Page 9, first full paragraph, line 5, change “A corporation’s principal

lawyer” to “As a lawyer, Comrie”.
### §154302. Purposes

The purposes of the corporation are—

(1) to encourage, promote, and maintain comradeship among individuals who are or have been in the active service of the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, or the United States Coast Guard;

(2) to revere, honor, and perpetuate the memory of individuals described in paragraph (1) of this section who have departed this life;

(3) to promote and encourage further public interest in the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Coast Guard, and the history of those organizations;

(4) to uphold the spirit and ideals of the United States Navy, the United States Marine Corps, and the United States Coast Guard;

(5) to promote the ideals of American freedom and democracy and to fit its members for the duties of citizenship and to encourage them to serve as ably as citizens as they have served the Nation under arms; and

(6) to maintain true allegiance to American institutions.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1434.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 154302 | 36:140a. | June 6, 1940, ch. 239, §2, 54 Stat. 232. |

Section

In this section, the word "individuals" is substituted for "persons" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In clause (1), the words "further" and "those" are omitted as unnecessary.

In clause (2), the words "described in clause (1) of this section" are substituted for "those . . . who have been such members" for clarity.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
* The Hon. Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 04a0178n.06 Filed: December 17, 2004
03-4212 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ZC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and ABSECON HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. WARREN L. WOLFSON; WLW TRUST; RUTH L. WOLFSON; CARE INSTITUTE GROUP, INC.; and CLEVELAND SENIOR CARE CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: DAUGHTREY, COOK, and FARRIS, * Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. This appeal results from a jury ve rdict in a diversity action filed by ZC Specialty Insurance Company and Absec on, Inc., against the defendants, Warren Wolfson, Ruth Wolfson, and the WLW Trust, for breach of contract, br each of warranty, and fraud. The dispute between the parties grewout of a business transaction in which Absecon purchased six nursing homes from Wo lfson and his associates, under a financing scheme that was guaranteed by a surety bond underwritten by ZC Specialty Insurance. The deal soured when the nursing homes produced profits far below Absecon’s hopes. As a consequence, Absecon refused to return a financial advance provided by Wolfson and03-4212

- 2 - accused Wolfson of hiding the homes’ history of poor profit margins. Wolfson filed suit against Absecon in the district court for failing to return the monetary advance, and Absecon and ZC Specialty Insurance brought c ounterclaims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and fraud. Pursuant to the verdict in Wolfson’ s favor, the plaintiffs appeal to this court, asserting that the district court erred by dismissing their fraud claims against Wolfson, by improperly admitti ng and excluding significant evi dence, and by failing to grant their motion for a new trial because the jury ve rdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Having had the benefit of or al argument, and having st udied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded t hat the district court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a newtrial. Because the reasons why judgment should be entered for the defendants have been fully articulated bythe district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplic ative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we sustain the jury verdict and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in the defendants’ favor upon the reas oning set out by that court in its memoranda of opinion and orders filed on October 30, 2002, Dece mber 12, 2002, and September 24, 2003.
Extension Agreement




 EXHIBIT 10.25 
  
 EXTENSION AGREEMENT 
  
 Reference is made to that certain Separation Agreement and Release (the “Separation Agreement”) dated as of October 23, 2003, by and
between Global Power Equipment Group Inc. (“Employer”) and the undersigned (“Employee”). Unless the context otherwise requires, capitalized terms used herein have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Separation
Agreement. 
  
 Pursuant to Section 4 of the Separation Agreement,
Employee hereby agrees as follows effective as of the Retirement Date: (a) the expiration date of the exercise period for all outstanding stock options granted to Employee under the 2000 Plan and 2001 Plan shall be extended to the first anniversary
of the Retirement Date, (b) the vesting of all unvested options under the 2001 Plan shall be accelerated, and (c) all Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement(s) with respect to all outstanding stock options granted to Employee under the 2000 Plan and
the 2001 Plan shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. 
  
 Employee hereby acknowledges that he has been advised by Employer that (a) there is a risk that the extension of the stock option exercise period pursuant hereto may have adverse federal, state and/or local income tax consequences to
Employee as of the Retirement Date, instead of only upon any exercise by him of the relevant stock options, and (b) he should seek the advice of his tax advisor or accountant prior to any execution by him of this Extension Agreement. 
  
 Employee hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Employer and
its affiliates from any liability associated with federal, state and/or local income tax withholding and employment tax withholding in respect of Employee or his transferees (including all interest, penalties and additions to tax with respect
thereto) resulting from the amendments effected by this Extension Agreement, it being understood that the foregoing indemnification does not extend to withholding obligations arising on account of the exercise of any stock option. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employee has executed this Extension Agreement as of
December 12, 2003. 
  

	
	 /s/ Michael H. Hackner


	 Michael H. Hackner
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**408 KA 12-00507**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DENNIS BROWNING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI, P.C., BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. STACHOWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered January 12, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in admitting the testimony of a police officer regarding the meaning of coded language used in a recorded conversation. Contrary to defendant’s contention, expert testimony interpreting the meaning of words is not restricted to narcotics cases ( see People v Inoa , 109 AD3d 765, 766; People v Pendelton , 90 AD3d 1234, 1235 n 2, lv denied 18 NY3d 996), and the record establishes that the police officer was qualified to interpret the language based on his experience ( see Matott v Ward , 48 NY2d 455, 459; People v Wyant , 98 AD3d 1277, 1277- 1278).

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
No: III-13-022 June 3, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Will Hold an Open House June 11

on Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant 2012 Performance 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold an open house June 11 to discuss the agency’s 

assessment of the Quad Cities nuclear plant’s safety performance for last year. The two-unit nuclear station is 

located in Cordova, Ill., approximately 20 miles northeast of Moline.

The open house is scheduled for 4-6 p.m. CDT at the Cordova Civic Center, 910 Third Avenue South, in 

Cordova. Attendees will have an opportunity to hold one-on-one discussions with NRC staff members about the 

plant’s 2012 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. NRC staff on hand will include the 

inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis, and staff from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill.

“When the NRC evaluates the performance of the Quad Cities plant for the previous year, we take a 

look at any and all issues that might be of concern,” said Region III Administrator Charles Casto. “Then we 

map out our inspection plans for that specific facility, issue inspection reports and hold public meetings near the 

plant in order to discuss our oversight and answer questions from local residents.”

The assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2012 and will serve as the basis for the discussion.

Overall, the Quad Cities plant operated safely during 2012. At the conclusion of last year, all 

performance indicators and inspection findings for the facility were green, or of very low risk. As a result, Quad 

Cities will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight during 2013.

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant 

performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow, or red, commensurate with the 

safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical measurements of plant and 

equipment performance. 

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialist

inspectors from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the 

areas of performance to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are activities associated with radiological 

safety, independent spent fuel storage, emergency preparedness and the qualification program for licensed plant 

operators.

The most current assessment for Quad Cities Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC website.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III

2443 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No. III-13-005

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil (630) 829-9663

March 4, 2013

E-Mail: OPA3 @nrc.gov 

NRC SCHEDULES REGULATORY CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS APPARENT 

VIOLATION AT KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a regulatory conference with 

officials of Dominion Energy Kewaunee Inc., on Tuesday, March 12, to discuss a preliminary 

inspection finding in the emergency preparedness area. The plant is located in Kewaunee, 

Wis., 40 miles southeast of Green Bay. 

NRC and company officials will discuss the significance of the inspection finding, which 

involved the failure to follow and maintain the effectiveness of the plant’s emergency plan. The 

finding did not represent an immediate safety concern. 

The meeting is scheduled for 12:30 p.m. in the NRC’s Region III office, located at 2443 

Warrenville Road, in Lisle, Ill. 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 

Kewaunee was white, that 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 on the NRC website at ML13024A422. 

###

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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. REYES FERNANDEZ RAMOS, a.k.a. Reyes Fermandes, a.k.a. Reyes Fernandeo, a.k.a. Reyes Fernandeo

- Ramos, a.k.a. Reyes Fernandez, a.k.a. Reyes Fernandez

- Ramos, a.k.a. Jose Rivera Hernandez, a.k.a. Jose Patinos, a.k.a. Reyes Ramos, a.k.a. Ramos Reyes, a.k.a. Jose Patino Salsedo,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 50290
D.C. No. 8:15

- cr - 00128

- PA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12 , 2018 **

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON , and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Reyes Fernandez Ramos ap peals from the district court’s judgment and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conclud es this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 14 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 50290

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 168

- month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) . Pursuant t o Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ramos ’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Ramos the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Ramos waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1 988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Ramos’s plea. We therefore affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his conviction.
Ramos also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. We
dismiss Ramos’s sentencing appeal as to those aspects of his sentence that are covered by the waiver and affirm as to all other issues except as to the three supervised release conditions, s tandard conditions five, six, and fourteen, which are unconstitutionally vague

. See United States v. Evans , 883 F.3d 1154, 1162

- 64 (9th Cir. 2018); s ee also United States v. Watson , 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutio nal challenge to a supervised release condition)

. We remand for the district court to modify these conditions consistent3 16

- 50290

with our opinion in Evans

. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part ; REMANDED with
instructions
.
From: Irma Salinas

To: Goldsmith, Jason

Cc: Scott Lutz; Glen Long

Subject: Chrome Platers info Requested from EPA

Date: Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:13:42 PM

Attachments: OS-3148.pdf

OS-2733 thru 2736.pdf

NTV-271.pdf

NTV-522.pdf

NTV-348.pdf

NTV-634.pdf

NTV-480.pdf

NTV-742.pdf

Plant 1794 NTV-708.pdf

Plant 2371 OS-2766 thru 2769.pdf

Plant 5474 NTV-644.pdf

Plant 7546 April 10 2008 NTV-511.pdf

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

Evaluation.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

COC Eval.doc

EPA List.xlsx

List of Chrome Platers in Bay Area2Revised March2011.doc

Evaluation.doc

Evaluation.doc

Evaluation.doc

EVAL.doc

EVAL.doc

Jason,

I have provided source test data along with permit evaluations for the facilities.  Please see

attached documents.  The other information has been provided in the main document labeled:

List of Chrome Platers in Bay Area2 Revised March 2011 and I also have provided a spread sheet

with this information for easier to read format. .  Please note that I was unable to obtain

dimensions of the tanks and rectifier capacity as each source is permitted to have amp-hr per year

usage limit.  Nor was I able to provide you with a list of exempt sources that use electroplating.  I

have only provided information that was on the list.

If you need additional information, please email or call me and I will see if it can be provided.

Sincerely,

Irma Salinas

(415) 749-5110
### Part B—Buildings