alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: III-14-026 July 10, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Schedules Public Meeting July 17 to Discuss Performance of 

Braidwood Nuclear Power Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting July 17 to discuss the 

agency’s annual assessment of safety performance for the Braidwood nuclear power station. The twounit plant is operated by Exelon Generation Co., and is located in Braceville, Ill., approximately 

20 miles southwest of Joliet.

The meeting is scheduled for 6-8 p.m. at Braidwood City Hall, 141 W. Main Street, in 

Braidwood. The NRC will present its assessment of the plant’s 2013 performance, talk about agency 

activities, and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public. 

“NRC inspectors spend a significant amount of time monitoring a wide range of plant activities 

to ensure the plant operates safely. Our hands-on approach is a key factor in protecting the public and 

environment,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold public meetings near 

the plant every year to make our inspectors available and accessible to answer questions and have open 

discussions about NRC oversight with those who live near the plant.”

The annual assessment letter sent from the NRC Region III office to the company addresses the 

performance of the plant during 2013 and will serve as the basis for the discussion.

Overall, the Braidwood facility operated safely in 2013, with no significant inspection findings

or negative performance indicators. As a result, Braidwood Unit 1 and Unit 2 will continue to receive 

the NRC’s normal level of oversight during 2014. 

Inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant, inspection 

specialists from the Region III office in Lisle, Ill., and specialists from the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year by NRC inspectors are 

activities associated with radiological safety, equipment designs, and emergency preparedness.

The most current performance information for Braidwood Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the 

NRC website.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 9, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60722

Summary Calendar

AUGUSTIN NGAMBO TEOUDEO; CHRISTINE LAURE NGUEFACK NGAMBO,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A98 394 052

BIA No. A98 394 051

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

Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Augustin Ngambo Teoudeo (Teoudeo) and Christine Laure

Nguefack Ngambo (Ngambo), both natives and citizens of Cameroon,

challenge the denial of their application for asylum, withholding

of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. 

The immigration judge (IJ) rejected their application based on a

finding that Teoudeo and Ngambo were not credible. The Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion.
No. 06-60722

-2-

In their petition for review, Teoudeo and Ngambo assert that

the IJ’s credibility determination was not supported by the

record and that the IJ and BIA failed to consider probative

evidence in support of their claims. However, Teoudeo and Ngambo

have not specified how the IJ’s credibility determination was

not supported by the record or what evidence the IJ and BIA

failed to consider. Because Teoudeo and Ngambo have failed to

properly brief the issue of the district court’s credibility

determination, they have abandoned the only relevant issue for

review. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6181

ROBERT WATSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE; GERALDINE MIRO; MR. NICHOLS;

MS. ROSS; MS. JOHNSON; JOHN SHU; D. L. SMITH;

MR. COHEN; FRED BROWN; SERGEANT JOHNSON;

CAPTAIN ALBRITTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA96-3371-4-19BE)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 8, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra J. Senn, STUCKEY & SENN,

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order, which dismissed

all Defendants except one and ordered service of complaint on the

remaining Defendant. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337

U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order

nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
### §10251. Authorization of appropriations

Notwithstanding subsection (d) of section 10222 of this title, and subject to subsection (e) of such section, there are authorized to be appropriated for expenditures from amounts in the Waste Fund established in subsection (c) of such section, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title IV, §411, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5041, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–248.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.
Order filed January 26, 2017

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00641

- CV

____________ MARK TRIMBLE , Appellant

V.

ONEWEST BANK AND FED ERAL NATIONAL MORTGA GE ASSOCIATION AND LANE LAW FIRM, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15

- CV

- 0457



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due January 13, 2017

. No brief or motion for ext ension
of time has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before February 13, 2017 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
#### Isabelle J. Landy, Respondent, v. Murray Landy, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Murray Landy, Appellant, v. Isabelle J. Landy, Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

There is no right to examine the defendant in the action for dissolution so as to require him to account until the alleged partnership and the right to an accounting are established. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.
### Part B—State Energy Conservation Plans

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This part, originally designated part C and subsequently redesignated part D by Pub. L. 95–619, title IV, §441(a), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3267, was changed to part B for purposes of codification.
#### § 326.4 Who administers the Program?

The Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Global Markets, Office of Global Talent Management is responsible for administering the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Pilot Fellowship Program and grants to students and may be contacted for more detailed information.
Form of Restricted Stock Agreement


 Exhibit 10.2 
 INFINITY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CORPORATION 
 RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT 
 Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation (the “Company”), hereby awards to [Employee]
                 shares of its common stock (“Shares”) in accordance with and subject to the terms of the Infinity Property and Casualty Corporation
2002 Restricted Stock Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and of this Restricted Stock Agreement. The Shares shall become “Vested Shares,” as defined in the Plan according to the
following schedule: 
  

			
	 Years of Service
	 	 Vested Percentage

	 1
	 	    %
	 2
	 	    %
	 3
	 	    %
	 4
	 	    %

 You [are / are not] entitled to voting rights on Shares that are not Vested Shares. You [are / are not] entitled
to receive dividends and other distributions on Shares that are not Vested Shares. 
 The Shares acquired pursuant to the Plan are subject to
certain restrictions affecting the sale, assignment, transfer, pledge, hypothecation or other disposition of such Shares in accordance with and subject to the terms of the Plan. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the      day of
                ,20    . 
  

					
	INFINITY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CORPORATION	 	
			
	By:	 	  
	 	
	Name:	 	  
	 	
	Title:	 	  
	 	


 I hereby accept the award of Shares set forth above in accordance with and subject to the
terms and conditions of this Restricted Stock Agreement and of the Plan and agree to be bound thereby. 
  

			
	  
	 	
	Employee
§ 700.20 Use of priority ratings. ( a ) Section 101(c) of the Defense Production Act authorizes the use of priority ratings for projects which maximize domestic energy supplies.
( b ) Projects which maximize domestic energy supplies include those which maintain or further domestic energy exploration, production, refining, and transportation; maintain or further the conservation of energy; or are involved in the construction or maintenance of energy facilities.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Ringland F. Kilpatrick.

Motion granted. Present— Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling Page and Davis, JJ.
#### § 971.800 General.

The subpart contains miscellaneous provisions pursuant to the Act which are applicable to exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits.
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-118610,333-107466, 333-66676, 333-51656, and 333-48026) pertaining to various stock incentive and optionplans and in Registration Statements (Form S-3, Nos. 333-119431, 333-112759, 333-104305 and333-133018) of TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2006, with respect toTelecommunication Systems, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting ofTeleCommunication Systems, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K/A — Amendment No. 2) ofTeleCommunication Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPBaltimore, Maryland
No. II-10-028 April 20, 2010 

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

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 

NRC ISSUES YELLOW AND WHITE INSPECTION FINDINGS TO BROWNS FERRY 

NUCLEAR PLANT REGARDING FIRE PROTECTION ISSUES 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has made a final determination on two 

inspection findings at the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant related to fire protection. One is 

"yellow," meaning the issue has substantial safety significance and the other is “white,” 

indicating an issue of low to moderate safety significance. The findings will result in additional 

NRC inspections and potentially other NRC actions. The three-unit Browns Ferry plant, operated 

by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is located near Athens, Ala., 32 miles west of Huntsville 

The NRC staff originally identified three apparent violations related to fire protection and 

a conference with TVA was held Feb. 22. During that meeting, TVA described its assessment of 

the significance of the findings, its root cause evaluations and corrective actions. TVA also 

offered their view that the two violations involving the failure to take adequate measures to 

protect equipment in the event of a fire were similar and should be combined. 

After considering the information from the conference, and additional information 

supplied after the conference, the NRC staff has concluded that those two violations could be 

combined into one and that the significance of that finding was determined to be “yellow.” The 

other finding, related to procedures for combating a plant fire, was determined to be “white.” 

Under the NRC reactor oversight process, inspection findings are evaluated using a 

significance determination process and assigned a color indicating its safety significance. 

Findings with very low safety significance are labeled "green." "White" findings have low to 

moderate safety significance, "yellow" findings have substantial safety significance, and "red" 

findings have high safety significance. 

“Protecting vital plant systems and components from fire and having workable 

procedures for fire response is critical to nuclear safety,” said NRC Region II Administrator Luis 

Reyes. “We expect all nuclear plants to meet NRC fire protection regulations and will take the 

necessary steps to ensure they do so.” 

The NRC staff will determine the most appropriate response and notify TVA later of any 

additional inspections, meetings or other activities the agency may plan. TVA has 30 days to 

respond to the NRC’s letter detailing the findings. 

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 
### 

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 Web site.
§ 1203.6 Labeling and instructions. ( a ) *Labeling.* Each helmet shall be marked with durable labeling so that the following information is legible and easily visible to the user: ( 1 ) Model designation.
( 2 ) A warning to the user that no helmet can protect against all possible impacts and that serious injury or death could occur.
( 3 ) A warning on both the helmet and the packaging that for maximum protection the helmet must be fitted and attached properly to the wearer's head in accordance with the manufacturer's fitting instructions.
( 4 ) A warning to the user that the helmet may, after receiving an impact, be damaged to the point that it is no longer adequate to protect the head against further impacts, and that this damage may not be visible to the user. This label shall also state that a helmet that has sustained an impact should be returned to the manufacturer for inspection, or be destroyed and replaced.
( 5 ) A warning to the user that the helmet can be damaged by contact with common substances (for example, certain solvents [ammonia], cleaners [bleach], etc.), and that this damage may not be visible to the user. This label shall state in generic terms some recommended cleaning agents and procedures (for example, wipe with mild soap and water), list the most common substances that damage the helmet, warn against contacting the helmet with these substances, and refer users to the instruction manual for more specific care and cleaning information.
( 6 ) *Signal word.* The labels required by paragraphs (a) (2) through (5) of this section shall include the signal word “WARNING” at the beginning of each statement, unless two or more of the statements appear together on the same label. In that case, the signal word need only appear once, at the beginning of the warnings. The signal word “WARNING” shall be in all capital letters, bold print, and a type size equal to or greater than the other text on the label.
( b ) *Instructions.* Each helmet shall have fitting and positioning instructions, including a graphic representation of proper positioning.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
One North Wacker
Chicago IL 60606
Telephone (312) 298 2000

Independent Accountants Report

To the Board of Directors of
VW Credit, Inc. as servicer under
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement
Dated August 10, 2000 and
BankOne as Trustee:

We have examined managements assertion about VW Credit, Inc.s (the Company)
compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of Americas Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage
Bankers (USAP) for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the
accompanying management assertion (see Exhibit 1) to the extent the procedures
in such program are applicable to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
August 10, 2000. As Program Step I., four relating to Escrow Accounts, Program
Step III., two, three and four relating to Disbursements Made on behalf of
Investor, Tax, Insurance and Late Payment Penalties, Program Step V., two,
three
and four relating to Adjustable Rates Mortgages and Program Step VII., one
relating to Fidelity Bond and Error and Omissions Policies are not applicable
to
the servicing obligations set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, we
did not perform the related procedures. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on managements assertion about the compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Companys
compliance with that applicable servicing standards and performing such other
procedures, as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that
our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance with the
applicable minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable minimum servicing standards for the year ended
December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
February 7, 2003
### Part D—Indemnity Payments to Dairy Farmers
#### In re Estate of James Foster, Deceased. On Appeal of Walter Foster et al., Executors, Appellants, v. W. H. Hopkins, Appellee.

Gen. No. 21,376.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John McNutt, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 3, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by W. H: Hopkins, plaintiff, against the estate of James Foster in the Probate Court upon four bonds given in the Municipal Court to perfect writs of error from the Appellate Court to the Municipal Court. From an allowance of the claim in the Probate Court, appeal was taken to the Circuit Court. From the judgment of the Circuit Court for plaintiff, the executors of the estate appeal.

Louis Greenberg and Fred De Young, for appellants.

Clinton A. Stafford and Harry A. Barnhardt, for appellee.

*375Abstract of the Decision.

1. Action, § *43*
      ***
      *—When several bonds signed by testator as surety may be embodied in same claim against estate.*The obligee in several bonds given in the same court to perfect writs of error from the Appellate Court to such court, which are respectively signed by the same persons as principal and surety, may include all such bonds in one action in the Probate Court against the estate of the deceased surety.

2. Appeal and error, § *878*
      ***
      *—necessity of evidence appearing in abstract.*The Appellate Court is not bound to consider the testimony of a witness which is not abstracted.

3. Witnesses, § *141*
      ***
      *—when executor not incompetent to testify in action against estate.*An executor is competent to testify in an action against the estate upon bonds signed by testator as surety regarding facts occurring subsequently to the death of the testator.

4. Principal and surety, § *46*
      ***
      *—when surety estopped to deny judgments recited in bonds.*A surety upon bonds given to perfect writs of error is estopped to deny the judgments recited in the bonds.

5. Trial, § *204*
      ***
      *—when verdict directed for failure to establish defense.*The trial court may direct a verdict for the plaintiff where, as the result of the proper exclusion of evidence, the defendant has not established his defense.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TOMMY HERRING , ) ) Plaintiff, )

)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20

- 0811 (UNA) ) FDA, et al. , ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
and h is pro se complaint. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff alleges that, on September 21 , 1979, a toxic chemical was injected into his spine . Compl. at 4. He identifies the substance as “AIDS virus,” and claims his health care providers have hidden this information from him by refusing to release his medical records. Id

. Now that the “tox ic chemical [has] eat[en] through the spine cord,” the plaintiff experiences pain.
Id . He contends that this would not have happened to him if President John F. Kennedy had not
been killed. Id

. He demands damages of $19 billion. See id

. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”). H aving reviewed the plaintiff = s complaint,the Court concludes that its factual allegations are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason,

the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)(B)

. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

/s/ AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge

DATE: April 7 , 2020