alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7237

ROBERT DAVILA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusJAMES BROOKS, Major at Lee Correctional Institution; THOMAS JACKSON, Mailroom worker at Lee Correctional Institution; ROBERT VAUGHN,Mailroom worker at Lee Correctional Institution; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees, and WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-1240-18BD) Submitted: November 30, 1998 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Davila, Appellant Pro Se. John Evans James, III, RICHARDSON & JAMES, Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Robert Davila appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation. We conclude the district court properly found there was no issue of material fact and the defendants-appelleeswere entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Davila v. Brooks , No. CA-97-1240-18BD (D.S.C. July 17, 1998). 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
§ 1203.30 Purpose, basis, and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* The purpose of this subpart is to establish requirements that manufacturers and importers of bicycle helmets subject to the Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets (subpart A of this part 1203) shall issue certificates of compliance in the form specified.
( b ) *Basis.* Section 14(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1), requires every manufacturer (including importers) and private labeler of a product which is subject to a consumer product safety standard to issue a certificate that the product conforms to the applicable standard. Section 14(a)(1) further requires that the certificate be based either on a test of each product or on a “reasonable testing program.” The Commission may, by rule, designate one or more of the manufacturers and private labelers as the persons who shall issue the required certificate. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(2).
( c ) *Scope.* The provisions of this subpart apply to all bicycle helmets that are subject to the requirements of the Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets, subpart A of this part 1203.
### SUBCHAPTER XI—GENERAL PROVISIONS, PEER REVIEW, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION
### §13104. Grants to States for State technical assistance programs

#### (a) General authority

The Administrator shall make matching grants to States for programs to promote the use of source reduction techniques by businesses.

#### (b) Criteria

When evaluating the requests for grants under this section, the Administrator shall consider, among other things, whether the proposed State program would accomplish the following:

(1) Make specific technical assistance available to businesses seeking information about source reduction opportunities, including funding for experts to provide onsite technical advice to business 1 seeking assistance and to assist in the development of source reduction plans.

(2) Target assistance to businesses for whom lack of information is an impediment to source reduction.

(3) Provide training in source reduction techniques. Such training may be provided through local engineering schools or any other appropriate means.

#### (c) Matching funds

Federal funds used in any State program under this section shall provide no more than 50 per centum of the funds made available to a State in each year of that State's participation in the program.

#### (d) Effectiveness

The Administrator shall establish appropriate means for measuring the effectiveness of the State grants made under this section in promoting the use of source reduction techniques by businesses.

#### (e) Information

States receiving grants under this section shall make information generated under the grants available to the Administrator.

(Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, §6605, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–323.)

1 So in original. Probably should be "businesses".
No: IV-15-007 March 30, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks 817- 200-1128

 Lara Uselding 817-200-1519

NRC Returns Fort Calhoun to Normal Reactor Oversight Program;

Public Meeting Scheduled for April 9

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is returning the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant to the

NRC’s normal reactor oversight program. The plant, operated by Omaha Public Power District 

(OPPD), is located 19 miles north of Omaha, Neb. 

 The NRC increased its oversight following a 2011 refueling outage that was extended due to 

record flooding, an electrical fire and significant performance issues. Since December 2011, the agency 

has conducted approximately 60,000 hours of inspection, assessment and licensing activities. The plant 

restarted Dec. 18, 2013, after a shutdown of 32 months.

 “Fort Calhoun Station has operated safely since plant restart,” said Region IV Administrator

Marc Dapas. “In addition, OPPD has made significant improvements to its corrective action program, 

continues to implement its long-term improvement plan and has effectively addressed the performance 

deficiencies that resulted in NRC’s increased oversight.”

 Currently, the NRC has reviewed and closed seven of the ten improvement areas in the postrestart Confirmatory Action Letter in which OPPD committed to correct past deficiencies and ensure 

there is sustained improved performance going forward. The remaining open items include long-term 

actions such as performing a design basis reconstitution.

 Although the plant will be returned to the normal oversight process, NRC staff will continue 

to perform follow-up inspections to verify that all CAL commitments continue to be met. Fort Calhoun 

is returning to normal oversight as it currently has no significant safety or security issues. 

 The letter issued to OPPD outlining the agency’s decision can be found here. A public 

meeting will be held in Omaha on April 9 between the NRC and OPPD to discuss Fort Calhoun’s 

efforts to improve performance. The meeting will be at the Thompson Center, 6705 Dodge St., from 6-

9 p.m. NRC staff will be available to answer questions from members of the public following that 

meeting.
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00006-CR

ERIC MONTREAL ANDERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court

Hopkins County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2330084

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Eric Montreal Anderson pled not guilty to and was convicted of unlawful possession of a 

firearm by a felon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04 (Supp.). After a trial on punishment, a 

Hopkins County jury assessed a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The trial court also 

ordered Anderson to pay $75.00 in reimbursement fees, and the bill of costs included a $15.00 

time payment fee. 

On appeal, Anderson argues that the trial court erred by including duplicative 

reimbursement fees and by including a time payment fee in the bill of costs.1 

We addressed the issues raised by Anderson in detail in our opinion in cause number 06-

24-00002-CR. For the reasons discussed in that opinion, we sustain Anderson’s points of error.2 

1

In companion cause number 06-24-00002-CR, Anderson appeals a conviction for possession of five pounds or less 

but more than four ounces of marihuana. He also appeals a conviction for evading arrest in cause number 06-24-

00004-CR and a conviction for possession of four grams or more but less than 200 grams of fentanyl in cause 

number 06-24-00005-CR.

2By separate point of error, Anderson raised a challenge to the order to withdraw funds. As explained by our opinion 

in cause number 06-24-00002-CR, Anderson’s complaint is a civil matter, and we decline to address it in this 

criminal appeal. See Johnson v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Appeals at Waco, 280 S.W.3d 866, 871–72 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2008) (orig. proceeding); Harrell v. State, 286 S.W.3d 315, 318–19 (Tex. 2009); Perez v. State, 424 S.W.3d 81, 89 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (Alcalá, J., concurring).
3

We modify the trial court’s judgment and bill of costs by deleting the order to pay $75.00 

in duplicative reimbursement. We further modify the bill of costs by deleting the time payment 

fee. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: July 30, 2024

Date Decided: September 6, 2024

Do Not Publish
#### Jewel Hirsch, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant, and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[820 NYS2d 889]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), dated December 22, 2004, as failed to determine that branch of its cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The only issue raised by the defendant City of New York on its appeal concerns that branch of its cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Inasmuch as the Supreme Court failed to determine that branch of the cross motion, it remains pending and undecided and thus we dismiss the appeal *(see Matter of Flood v Schopfer,*20 AD3d 417 [2005]; *Katz v Katz,*68 AD2d 536, 542-543 [1979]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David A. Slack, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of StratosInternational, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:
     a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
     c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
-1-

 

     b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: August 30, 2004 /s/ David A. Slack   David A. Slack   Senior Vice President — Finance and Chief FinancialOfficer  
-2-