alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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. 08-40274 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. VICTOR HUGO LUCERO-SIMENTAL, also known as, Mario Reyes-Simental, also known as, Rudolfo Simental, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:07-CR-593-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Victor Hugo Lucero-Simental appealsfrom his conviction of illegal reentry following deportation. Lucero-Simental contends solely that his ninety-sixmonth sentence was unreasonable. Lucero-Simental did not object to his sentence or raise the same arguments in the district court that he advanced in favor of the sentence he requested. His contentions arguably should be reviewed for plain error. See United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D January 6, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-40274

2 United States v. Willingham, 497 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 2007) (stating that arguments not presented to the district court are reviewed for plain error). B ut see United Statesv. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 564 (5th Cir. 2008) (declining to decide the standard of review when the defendant failed to object to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence), cert. denied, 77 U.S.L.W. 3324 (U.S. Dec. 1, 2008) (No. 08-5226). Thesentence o

f ninety-six months was within Lucero-Simental’s guideline sentencing range and therefore is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), cert. denied, 129S. Ct. 328 (2008). The district court provided sufficient
reasons for the sentence, addressing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), s ee Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2468 (2007); accordingly, Lucero-Simental has failed to demonstrate error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED.
NRC ISSUES FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT

FOR VIRGIL C. SUMMER NEW REACTORS APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its Final Safety Evaluation 

Report (FSER) for Combined Licenses (COL) for the proposed Virgil C. Summer Units 2 and 3

reactors. The NRC, in its FSER, concluded that there are no safety aspects that would preclude 

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

Jenkinsville, S.C. The FSER will be available on the NRC website.

The FSER and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be provided to the 

Commission for the mandatory hearing phase of the licensing process. In the mandatory hearing, 

expected to take place later this year, the Commission will determine whether the staff’s review 

supports the findings necessary to issue a license. In addition, because the Summer application 

references the amended AP1000 design, the Commission must complete the certification process 

for that design before it can render a mandatory hearing decision on the license.

South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) submitted its COL application for Summer on 

March 27, 2008. SCE&G is applying for permission to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at 

the Summer site, adjacent to the company’s existing reactor, approximately 26 miles northwest

of Columbia, S.C. Westinghouse submitted an application to amend the already-certified 

AP1000, a 1,100 megawatt electric design, on May 26, 2007. More information on proposed 

changes to the AP1000, as well as the staff’s review, is available on the NRC website. 

The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) independently reviewed 

those aspects of the application that concern safety, as well as the advanced safety evaluation 

report without open items (an earlier version of the FSER). The ACRS provided the results of its 

review to the Commission in a report dated Feb. 17. The NRC completed its environmental 

review and issued the FEIS for the Summer COL on April 15. 

###

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.

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. 11-150 August 18, 2011
*Figure 1 New York City and the New York Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA).*  Chapter 1's Figure 1 is a map showing New York City (NYC) and the New York Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (NY CMSA).  NYC includes five boroughs: Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island.  The NY CMSA is a Census-defined area including and surrounding NYC.  It includes the five boroughs, the southeast corner of New York State, northern New Jersey, southwest Connecticut, and a small corner of eastern Pennsylvania.  

Click here to return to Figure 1
#### § 904.103 [Reserved]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26125]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

46 CFR Part 531

[Docket No. 04-12]
RIN 3072-AC30


Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier Service Arrangements

AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking; extension of time.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 
November 3, 2004 (69 FR 63981) proposed an exemption from the tariff 
publication requirements of the Shipping Act of 1984 for service 
arrangements made by non-vessel-operating common carriers, subject to 
the conditional filing requirements set forth in this new Part. The 
Commission has received and determined to grant a request from the 
Department of Justice, for an extension of time to November 30, 2004 to 
file comments in this proceeding.

DATES: Comments are now due November 30, 2004. Submit an original and 
15 copies of comments (paper), or e-mail comments as an attachment in 
WordPerfect 10, Microsoft Word 2003, or earlier versions of these 
applications.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this proposed rule to: 
Bryant L. VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North 
Capitol Street, NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC 20573-0001; (202) 523-
5725, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f2c1a1c0d1a0b1e0d063f19121c51181009"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfecdadccddacbdecdc6ffd9d2dc91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy W. Larson, General Counsel, 
Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1018, 
Washington, DC 20573-0001; (202) 523-5740, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0443616a61766568476b716a776168446269672a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c186a4afa4b3a0ad82aeb4afb2a4ad81a7aca2efa6aeb7">[email protected]</span></a>; and Austin L. Schmitt, Director, Office of 
Operations, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., 
Room 1078, Washington, DC 20573-0001, (202) 523-0988.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-26125 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### SUBCHAPTER II—FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

1956—Act Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 836, title I, §103(i), 70 Stat. 824, included disability insurance benefits in subchapter heading.
#### Bessie T. Roach, Respondent, v. City of Albany, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Albany County Special Term of the Supreme Court permitting plaintiff’s attorney to examine, at the office of the corporation counsel of the city of Albany, a photograph used and in evidence when plaintiff was examined by the Albany City comptroller. Appellant argues that no facts or special circumstances were shown to justify the exercise of judicial discretion and compulsion and that the photograph is confidential as a part of the work *808product of its attorneys. The city comptroller examined plaintiff, pursuant to Albany Local Law No. 2 of 1943, concerning her claim against the city because of injuries alleged to have been sustained in a fall on a city sidewalk. Plaintiff’s compliance with the request for examination was a condition precedent to bringing this action. She appeared with her attorney and, when interrogated, was shown this photograph on which, at the request of the assistant corporation counsel, she placed a cross to mark the spot of the alleged fall. Her attorney’s later request to examine the photograph was refused by the corporation counsel’s office. The work of an attorney in preparation for trial of an action may be immune from discovery. *(Brooklyn Bridge Freezing é Gold Storage Co.*v. *Vermuhlen,*273 App. Div. 956; *Tavern Fruit Juice Co.*v. *Long Island B. B. Co.,*279 App. Div. 985; *Gratsos*v. *Commercial Union Assur. Co.,*279 App. Div. 570.) Not all that finds its way into a lawyer’s files, however, enjoys such immunity. *“*Where relevant and non-privileged facts remain hidden in an attorney’s file and where production of those facts is essential to the preparation of one’s ease, discovery may properly be had.” *(Hickman v. Taylor,*329 U. S. 495, 511.) The character of this photograph as privileged or confidential was lost when the defendant, by its attorney, produced it, questioned plaintiff about it and made it a part of the city’s record of the examination proceeding. The photograph itself is relevant and could be brought to court by subpcena duces tecum. *(Bloodgood*V. *Lynch,*293 N. Y. 308, 314.) In *Eagle-Picher Lead Co.*v. *Mansfield Paint Co.*(203 App. Div. 9, 12) this court said, " The court has no interest in assisting the party to conceal the grounds of his prosecution or his defense, in the hope that surprise at the trial may give him advantage.” This philosophy has here found later expression as to examinations of parties before trial. *(Brand*v. *Butts,*242 App. Div. 149; *Breault*v. *Embossing Co.,*253 App. Div. 175.) While we do not pass upon the right of public authorities to conduct confidential examinations, the circumstances of the use of the photograph on the examination of plaintiff, where she was attended by counsel and the latter’s ability to obtain, without objection on the part of the city, the stenographic minutes of the inquiry indicate that the court’s order was a proper exercise of discretion. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 motion costs to respondent. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ.
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, 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:*                         Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Integrated Review Group; Cellular and Molecular Biology of Glia Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         February 7-8, 2019.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Lorien Hotel & Spa, 1600 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Linda MacArthur, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4187, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-537-9986,                         *macarthurlh@csr.nih.gov.*

This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in advance of the meeting due to the partial Government shutdown of December 2018.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 18, 2019.

Sylvia L. Neal,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2019-00187 Filed 1-28-19; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### §3707. Antitrust violations

If the agency head considers that a bid or proposal evidences a violation of the antitrust laws, the agency head shall refer the bid or proposal to the Attorney General for appropriate action.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3773.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3707 | 41:253b(i). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303B(i), formerly §303B(e), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, §2711(a)(2), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1180; redesignated as §303B(f), Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1064(1), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3268; redesignated as §303B(i), Pub. L. 104–106, title XLI, §4104(b)(2), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 645. |

Section
NRC ISSUES FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR

VOGTLE NEW REACTORS APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has completed its Final Safety Evaluation Report 

(FSER) for a limited work authorization (LWA) and Combined Licenses (COL) for the proposed 

Vogtle Units 3 and 4 reactors. The NRC, in its FSER, concluded that there are no safety aspects that 

would preclude issuing the LWA and COL for construction and operation of the proposed reactor 

site, near Waynesboro, Ga. The FSER will be available on the NRC website. 

The FSER and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) will be 

provided to the Commission itself for the mandatory hearing phase of the licensing process. In the 

mandatory hearing, expected to take place this fall, the Commission will determine whether the 

staff’s review has been adequate to support the findings necessary to issue a COL. In addition, 

because the Vogtle COL application references the amended AP1000 design, the Commission must 

complete the certification process for that design before it can render a mandatory hearing decision 

on the COL.

Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) submitted its COL application for Vogtle on 

March 28, 2008, and supplemented the application on Oct. 2, 2009. SNC is applying for permission 

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. The LWA would authorize a specific set 

of activities that fall short of full reactor construction if the COL was delayed. Westinghouse 

submitted an application to amend the already-certified AP1000, a 1100 megawatt electric design, 

on May 26, 2007. More information on the AP1000 amendment review is available on the NRC 

website. 

The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) independently reviewed 

those aspects of the application that concern safety, as well as the advanced safety evaluation report 

without open items (an earlier version of the FSER). The ACRS provided the results of its review to 

the Commission in a report dated Jan. 24. The NRC completed its environmental review and issued 

the FSEIS for the Vogtle COL on March 24. 

###

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.

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. 11-146 August 9, 2011
/* Updated 2009-11-04 *//* v2.2.0.24 *//* DefRef Styles */..report table.authRefData{	background-color: #def;	border: 2px solid #2F4497;	font-size: 1em; 	position: absolute;}..report table.authRefData a {	display: block;	font-weight: bold;}..report table.authRefData p {	margin-top: 0px;}..report table.authRefData .hide {	background-color: #2F4497;	padding: 1px 3px 0px 0px;	text-align: right;}..report table.authRefData .hide a:hover {	background-color: #2F4497;}..report table.authRefData .body {	height: 150px;	overflow: auto;	width: 400px;}..report table.authRefData table{	font-size: 1em;}/* Report Styles */..pl a, .pl a:visited {	color: black;	text-decoration: none;}/* table */..report {	background-color: white;	border: 2px solid #acf;	clear: both;	color: black;	font: normal 8pt Helvetica, Arial, san-serif;	margin-bottom: 2em;}..report hr {	border: 1px solid #acf;}/* Top labels */..report th {	background-color: #acf;	color: black;	font-weight: bold;	text-align: center;}..report th.void	{	background-color: transparent;	color: #000000;	font: bold 10pt Helvetica, Arial, san-serif;	text-align: left;}..report .pl {	text-align: left;	vertical-align: top;	white-space: normal;	width: 200px;	white-space: normal; /* word-wrap: break-word; */}..report td.pl a.a {	cursor: pointer;	display: block;	width: 200px;	overflow: hidden;}..report td.pl div.a {	width: 200px;}..report td.pl a:hover {	background-color: #ffc;}/* Header rows... */..report tr.rh {	background-color: #acf;	color: black;	font-weight: bold;}/* Calendars... */..report .rc {	background-color: #f0f0f0;}/* Even rows... */..report .re, .report .reu {	background-color: #def;}..report .reu td {	border-bottom: 1px solid black;}/* Odd rows... */..report .ro, .report .rou {	background-color: white;}..report .rou td {	border-bottom: 1px solid black;}..report .rou table td, .report .reu table td {	border-bottom: 0px solid black;}/* styles for footnote marker */..report .fn {	white-space: nowrap;}/* styles for numeric types */..report .num, .report .nump {	text-align: right;	white-space: nowrap;}..report .nump {	padding-left: 2em;}..report .nump {	padding: 0px 0.4em 0px 2em;}/* styles for text types */..report .text {	text-align: left;	white-space: normal;}..report .text .big {	margin-bottom: 1em;	width: 17em;}..report .text .more {	display: none;}..report .text .note {	font-style: italic;	font-weight: bold;}..report .text .small {	width: 10em;}..report sup {	font-style: italic;}..report .outerFootnotes {	font-size: 1em;}
Guía para el Ciudadano

sobre Extracción por Solventes*





	

	
	






















	

 







	

!



""
#
$




%	&


















"



&#
"










'(
)'
	)*+
(






$







	

	




	



	
	





 






 
$+





$







	
$+






,+








#	







	-




%






#












$+
$




$+


 







		






 








 
"










&
	


	




"$



	












"
$+




#















	$

%#


$+


.$
	

$+










 


















	

	










	

	



	

 !

"	#$%

%&'#()*+



,-!+-.//

0123
'

0"0	24

%	








	

		

 






%/01


+






$














2

3 





3 



#



 


'"&
)'(


%
)

3 

#

$+






	





$




4
	.






5
$






$+








+





$+



*








#





















%







	


+%#







.














#



	$



 



$


+
	









+$


$





#







	
	





 




	














4#













 




6





	$






$+





	


	









"

$

$+


	

$






#




	

 








	
$
















	

	
	





 








$+
$


+



 










 



	



""
$
$




	



















%




&6









#






"
	








#






 










#
	








+

  	

     	   
  

 

 	
  	
 
 

 
   	





 	
 
 
 

 ! "
  #
$ 
 

   	
  	 	 %
 	
 	&
    	
 


 
 	
 	

 	 $ 
  

  
  
 
 '
 
     



  

 	

	




Office of Solid Waste and EPA 542-F-01-009S

Emergency Response September 2002

(5102G) www.epa.gov/superfund/sites

www.cluin.org
### SUBCHAPTER XVI—JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 1 , 2022
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00496

- CV

UNION PACIFIC RAILRO AD COMPANY , Appellant
V. LAWRENCE MARTIN JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF LAW RENCE MARTIN

SR.(DECEASED), ET AL , Appellee s
On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 83855

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a n order signed August 18, 2021. On August 23, 2022, appellant filed a mo tion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted. We dismiss the appeal.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan

.