alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8506. Authorization of appropriations

Necessary amounts may be appropriated to the Committee to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3838.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8506 | 41:48c. | June 25, 1938, ch. 697, §6, 52 Stat. 1196; Pub. L. 92–28, §1, June 23, 1971, 85 Stat. 82; Pub. L. 93–76, July 30, 1973, 87 Stat. 176; Pub. L. 93–358, §1(4), July 25, 1974, 88 Stat. 393. |

Section

The reference to the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974 is omitted as obsolete.
Scottsbluff/Gering .... 

# United Chamber of**Comm~:fct:;·;;.\j** November 3, 2014 Mr. Michael F. Martin US Dept. ofTransportation 1200NewJerseyAvenue SE Washington, DC 20590 VISION LEADERSHIP

RE: Essential Air Servicefor WesternNebraska DearMr. Martin: : ··, OPPORTUNITY- '•:

**~** -;

**~** ' .;_

**'-~**

The Scottsbluff/Gering United Chamber ofCommerce represents over four hundred businesses. We support the Essential Air Service bid from Aerodynamics Inc. The Western Nebraska Regional Airport Board held a special board meeting on October 22, 2014 and shared information on the four bids. ADI is the only qualified bid that will ensure dependable, affordable service forWesternNebraska Transportation is a key element that determines the success and future of a community. Scottsbluff/Gering is a regional hub that offers retail professional services and health care for Western Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming. A regional airport with dependable flights to Denver InternationalAirportis vital for ourcommunity. We urge the US Department ofTransportation to accept the Essential Airport Service bid from Aerodynamics Inc. Sincerely,



# "!{~a.**~3tn._** Karen S. Anderson ExecutiveDirector Karen@scottslbuffgering.net 

### 1517 Broadway, Suite 104 • Scottsbluff, NE 69361 Tel. (308) 632-2133 • Fax: (308) 632-7128 • Email: chamber@scottsbluffgering.net • www.scottsbluffgering.net
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

s0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140366 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140366 

 COA: 288670 

Wayne CC: 08-000127-FH 

JAMES ANTHONY CONNER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANN LOTIERZO,

Appellant,

v.

GERALD BARBARITO, FELIPE DE JESUS ESTEVEZ,

DIOCESE OF PALM BEACH, INC., ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, INC. 

and THOMAS EUTENEUER,

Appellees.

No. 4D22-238

[March 8, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Martin County; Gary L. Sweet; L.T. Case No. 432019CA001525.

Martin B. Kofsky of Kofsky Law Office, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

Emily C. Smith, Daniel C. Dresch, and Michael A. Mullen of Gaebe 

Mullen Antonelli DiMatteo, Coral Gables, for appellees Gerald Barbarito, 

Felipe De Jesus Estevez, Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc., and Archdiocese of 

Miami, Inc.

GROSS, J.

In her third amended complaint, a parishioner has attempted to state 

causes of action against a priest and the church hierarchy arising out of 

her ongoing counseling relationship with the priest.

The trial judge dismissed four counts against the church hierarchy with 

prejudice based on the application of Florida’s impact rule, leaving the 

priest as the only remaining defendant. 

Florida’s impact rule is “a judicially-created rule designed to assure the 

validity of claims for emotional distress.” Woodard v. Jupiter Christian 

Sch., Inc., 913 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citing Int’l Ocean 

Tel. Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 So. 148 (1893)). The rule requires 

that “before a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress caused 

by the negligence of another, the emotional distress suffered must flow 

from physical injuries the plaintiff sustained in an impact.” Fla. Dep’t of 
2

Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 206 (Fla. 2007) (quoting R.J. v. Humana of 

Fla., Inc., 652 So. 2d 360, 362 (Fla. 1995)).

In Doe v. Evans, the Florida Supreme Court recognized that a fiduciary 

duty generally arises in counseling relationships such as those between a 

priest and a parishioner. 814 So. 2d 370, 373–75 (Fla. 2002). And in 

Gracey v. Eaker, the Florida Supreme Court held that the breach of such 

a fiduciary relationship is not subject to the impact rule. 837 So. 2d 348, 

355–56 (Fla. 2002). Appellant’s counts seeking recovery against the 

church hierarchy may be subject to dismissal for many reasons, but not 

because of application of the impact rule.

Appellant’s attorney made statements at a hearing that make it unclear 

what legal theories she is pursuing against the defendants. Appellant 

should be given one more chance to file a focused amended complaint 

setting forth her claims.

We affirm the dismissal of “Count Six—Duty to Disclose” because it 

does not state a recognized cause of action apart from a breach of fiduciary 

duty, which appellant had attempted to assert in a separate count.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
§ 326.2 How is the Fellowship Program administered? ( a ) *Eligibility.* Eligibility criteria will be determined by the Department of Commerce and publicized nationwide. Fellows must be United States citizens.
( b ) *Provisions.* The amount awarded to each individual student shall not exceed $35,000.00 for the total amount of time the student is in the Program. Continued eligibility for participation is contingent upon the Fellow's ability to meet the educational requirements set forth below.
( c ) *Program requirements.* ( 1 ) Participation in the Program is conditional upon successful completion of pre-employment processing specified by the Department of Commerce, including background investigation, medical examination, and drug testing.
( 2 ) As a condition of participation, fellows are required to complete prescribed coursework.
( 3 ) As a condition of participation, foreign travel is required for all Fellows.
( 4 ) Fellows are required to accept employment, if offered, with the Department of Commerce U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service upon successful completion of the Program and, if applicable, Foreign Service entry requirements.
( 5 ) If offered employment, Fellows must commit to a two-year service agreement.
( 6 ) Additional Program requirements may be determined annually by the Department of Commerce and publicized nationwide.
No: III-13-032 August 1, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Finalizes White Finding for Flooding Protection Issue

at Dresden Nuclear Power Plant

The Dresden nuclear power plant will receive additional oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission due to an inspection finding involving the plant’s failure to establish a procedure that 

would effectively address a flooding scenario. The finding was identified by NRC inspectors during one 

of the agency’s extensive post-Fukushima reviews of U.S. reactors.

Dresden, located in Morris, Ill., about 25 miles southwest of Joliet, is operated by Exelon 

Generation Co., LLC.

The NRC uses a color-coded system to classify inspection findings, which range from green, for 

an issue of very low safety significance, to red, for a finding of high safety significance. In this case, the 

NRC has determined the inspection finding to be white, meaning it has a low to moderate safety 

significance. The finding will result in the plant moving from the Licensee Response Column to the 

Regulatory Response Column of the NRC’s performance Action Matrix. The NRC will conduct a 

supplemental inspection to make sure the company has understood the cause and extent of the problem

and has taken sufficient corrective actions to prevent recurrence. 

“Protection against flooding at U.S. nuclear plants is one of the areas to receive additional focus

from the NRC following the March 2011 events at the Fukushima Daiichi facility in Japan,” said NRC 

Region III Administrator Charles Casto. “We will conduct reviews to make sure the flooding issue at the 

Dresden station has been addressed in a thorough and comprehensive manner.”

NRC inspectors determined that the company failed to establish a procedure addressing all of the 

effects of flooding on the plant from February 1991 to November 2012. Specifically, the existing 

procedure did not account for an effective way to add water to the reactor if the plant had a leak 

resulting in the lowering of the coolant level in the reactor during a severe flooding event. This situation

could cause the coolant water in the reactor to become dangerously low.

This issue is not a current safety concern since Exelon has revised the procedure and is now in 

compliance with NRC requirements.

The inspection report' related to this issue is currently available shortly on the NRC’s website

and notice of violation will be available shortly. .
# L_2022182EN.01004801.xml

| 7.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 182/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 182/48

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 68/2022

of 18 March 2022

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2022/1136]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 of 29 October 2021 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use in cosmetic products of certain substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 of 29 October 2021 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the use in cosmetic products of certain substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 1a (Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XVI of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32021 R 1902: Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 of 29 October 2021 (OJ L 387, 3.11.2021, p. 120).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32021 R 1902: Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 of 29 October 2021 (OJ L 387, 3.11.2021, p. 120).’.

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2021/1902 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 19 March 2022, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 2022.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Nicolas VON LINGEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 387, 3.11.2021, p. 120.

1

(*)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*

---
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8 QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F7 Date: December 17, 2008 R

# I. eVlSlon 1


## Record ofContacts FDMS Docket No. FAA-

# 2.t IC,- I 

# I'5 tj With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organ..ization Person Contacted Date [ Boeing Safety SIIcl1yBenda Various (5109, 

### 6109, 8/09, 11/09) Boeing 

## unco Debra Dean 8/09 I Boeing UDCO Chris Dnvis 7/9/09 Boeing Hermon Fray 8/09 I ATA Joe White 11/09 I

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List 10Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use
### SUBCHAPTER III—GENERAL PROVISIONS RESPECTING GRANT PROGRAMS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3375 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3375

   To direct the President to impose duties on merchandise from the 
  People's Republic of China in an amount equivalent to the estimated 
    annual loss of revenue to holders of United States intellectual 
property rights as a result of violations of such intellectual property 
                rights in China, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 4, 2011

 Mr. King of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the President to impose duties on merchandise from the 
  People's Republic of China in an amount equivalent to the estimated 
    annual loss of revenue to holders of United States intellectual 
property rights as a result of violations of such intellectual property 
                rights in China, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. STUDY AND REPORT ON VIOLATIONS OF UNITED STATES INTELLECTUAL 
              PROPERTY RIGHTS IN CHINA.

    (a) Study.--The United States Trade Representative shall conduct an 
annual study to determine the estimated annual loss of revenue to 
holders of United States intellectual property rights as a result of 
violations of such intellectual property rights in the People's 
Republic of China.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the United States Trade 
Representative shall submit to Congress a report that contains the 
results of the study conducted pursuant to subsection (a).

SEC. 2. IMPOSITION OF DUTIES ON MERCHANDISE FROM CHINA AND DISTRIBUTION 
              OF PROCEEDS OF SUCH DUTIES TO HOLDERS OF CERTAIN UNITED 
              STATES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting 
through the United States Trade Representative, shall--
            (1) impose duties on merchandise from the People's Republic 
        of China in an amount equivalent to the estimated annual loss 
        of revenue to holders of United States intellectual property 
        rights as a result of violations of such intellectual property 
        rights in China, as determined by the Trade Representative 
        pursuant to the study conducted under section 1(a) and 
        contained in the report submitted to Congress under section 
        1(b); and
            (2) provide for the distribution of the proceeds of such 
        duties to holders of United States intellectual property rights 
        described in paragraph (1) on a proportional basis.
                                 <all>
```
#### Edward J. Callahan et al., as Committee of the Person and Estate of Katherine E. Callahan, an Incompetent Person, Respondents-Appellants, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 27204.)

Present— Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.
About this capture
Alexa Crawls
Alexa Internet
Wayback Machine
Alexa Crawls 2000
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6161

PURNELL REW,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ROSE WHITE, RN; M. L. JOHNSON, RN; BONITA BADGETT, RN 

Coordinator; KEITH DAVIS, Warden,

 Defendants – Appellees,

and

DEERFIELD MEDICAL DEPT.,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:11-cv-01291-JCC-JFA)

Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Purnell Rew, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Purnell Rew appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rew v. 

White, No. 1:11-cv-01291-JCC-JFA (E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
### SUBCHAPTER IV–A—EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30336

Summary Calendar

TIMOTHY GAUTREAU; ET AL.,

Plaint iffs,

JAMES J. BALL,

Movant-Appellant,

versus

A. O. SMITH CORP., on behalf of A. O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.,

on behalf of Agristor Credit Corp.;

ALABAMA HARVESTORE SYSTEMS INC.;

ARTHUR O. SMITH; BRUCE M. SMITH;

ROBERT J. O’TOOLE; GLENN R. BOMBERGER;

SMITH INVESTMENT CO.; ARTHUR O. SMITH, II; LLOYD B. SMITH,

Defendants-Appellees.

----------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-1187

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

March 27, 2002

Before JOLLY, WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

James J. Ball, counsel for the plaint iffs, appeals the district court’s imposition of monetary

sanctions against him following the dismissal of the instant civil suit premised on diversity and federalquestion jurisdicti o n. The district court imposed sanctions against Ball after concluding that theNo. 01-30336

-2-

applicable statutes of limitation were such an obvious affirmative defense to the claims presented that

the suit should not have been filed in the first place.

Referencing Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp.

, 521 U.S. 179 (1997) and Horn v. A.O. Smith Corp.

,

50 F.3d 1365 (7th Cir. 1995), Ball argues tha t t he district court “failed to recognize the basis in

existing Harvestore case law” for the Gautreaus’ claims. He also argues that the district court failed

to give specific reasons and findings to support the sanctions award. Finally, he argues for the first

time on appeal that the district court erred by failing to consider his abilit y to pay any sanctions

imposed.

Ball’s references to K

lehr and Horn do not demonstrate that the district court’s sanct ions

ruling was based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the

evidence. S ee Mercur y Air Group, Inc. v. Mansour , 237 F.3d 542, 548 (5th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in sanctioning him. See

id. Moreover, the district court gave sufficient reasons for the sanctions award, including the type

and amount of the sanctions. S ee Granader v. McBee

, 23 F.3d 120, 123-24 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally,

Ball has not shown the requisite plain error regarding the district court’s purported failure to consider

his ability to pay. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136309 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136309 

 COA: 283264 

Oakland CC: 2007-213507-FC 

SCOTT MICHAEL CLIFTON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 4, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
Submitted on record and briefs November 3,

conviction affirmed; unitary assessment vacated; remanded for resentencing December 27, 2000

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*PATRICIA KATHLEEN BECKER, *Appellant.*

(C983201CR; CA A105279)

15 P3d 1264

David E. Groom, Public Defender, and Anne Fujita Munsey, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Jas. Jeffrey Adams, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Brewer, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*722PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the second degree. ORS 161.405. The trial court included in the sentence a $500 unitary assessment. Defendant appeals, assigning error to the inclusion of the unitary assessment. According to defendant, the statute that authorizes the imposition of a unitary assessment, ORS 137.290(2)(b), does not apply to attempt crimes. The state concedes error. We accept the concession.

ORS 137.290(2)(b) provides that “[t]he unitary assessment shall include * * * $500 if the crime of conviction is a crime found in ORS chapter 163.” Although the crime of second-degree assault is defined in ORS 163.175 — and thus may be a “crime found in ORS chapter 163” — the crime of *attempted*second-degree assault is not.

Conviction affirmed; unitary assessment vacated; remanded for resentencing.