alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Park Square Lumber Corp., Respondent, v. Robert Metrick Company, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover for goods sold and delivered (lumber), and on an account stated, judgment entered after trial before an Official Referee modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the figure “ $18,692.46 ” and by substituting in place thereof the figure “$1,538.58”; by striking therefrom the figures “ $2,289.83 ” and “ $22,232.78 ” and by substituting in place thereof the adjusted amount of interest and the new total amount of the judgment; and by striking from the last decretal paragraph the provision for dismissal of the counterclaim and affirmative defense on the merits. As thus modified the judgment insofar as appeal is taken is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed. The evidence establishes that plaintiff delivered 67,357 feet of two and three-inch lumber in excess of the quantities contemplated by the contract; and that the average market price thereof was $112.50 a thousand. Except for one item of $103.20, which should be allowed to plaintiff, the one-inch materials are not in dispute. Plaintiff is also entitled to $382 for gyplap. The evidence further establishes that the value of the ungraded and useless lumber is $2,500, for which appellant is entitled to credit. The result is tabulated as follows:

Total delivered under the contract.............................. $136,002.50 Total two and three-inch lumber in excess of the contract plus above two items in addition to the contract.......................... 8,062.86 Total delivered............................................... $144,065.36 Balance ..................................................... 4,038.58 Less allowance for ungraded and defective lumber................ 2,500.00 Plaintiff’s net recovery......... 1,538.58

Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.
### Part D—Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program
No: IV-15-002 January 23, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC Issues Two Yellow Findings to Arkansas Nuclear One 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that two violations associated with 

flood protection at Arkansas Nuclear One are of substantial safety significance. The plant, located in 

Russellville, Ark., is operated by Entergy Operations, Inc.

 “Problems existed with the condition of some flood protection barriers at the plant.” NRC 

Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said. “This created the potential for water to enter the auxiliary

building in the unlikely event of extreme flooding, potentially compromising safety-related equipment. 

While the deficiencies have been corrected they were of substantial safety significance and as such we 

will now reassess the appropriate level of oversight for the plant.” 

 A comprehensive inspection of flood barriers by the licensee and the NRC during 2013 and 

2014 identified numerous deficiencies documented in an NRC inspection report issued on Sept. 9. 

 The licensee has replaced the degraded seals or parts, implemented compensatory measures, 

and added appropriate instructions to procedures to ensure the protection of vital safety-related 

equipment. The NRC has inspected these corrective measures to ensure their adequacy.

 The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear plants with a color-coded 

process that classifies inspection findings as green, white, yellow or red in order of increasing safety 

significance. NRC held a regulatory conference with Entergy officials on Oct. 28, 2014, and after 

thoroughly considering information provided by the licensee, determined that the violations related to 

flood protection have substantial safety significance, or are “yellow” for both units. 

 The NRC will determine the appropriate level of agency oversight and notify Entergy 

officials of that decision in a separate letter
§ 1027.4 Notice requirements before offset. ( a ) Salary offset shall not be made against an employee's pay unless the employee is provided with written notice signed by the Executive Director of the debt at least 30 days before salary offset commences.
( b ) The written notice shall contain: ( 1 ) A statement that the debt is owed and an explanation of its nature and amount;
( 2 ) The agency's intention to collect the debt by deducting from the employee's current disposable pay account;
( 3 ) The amount, frequency, proposed beginning date, and duration of the intended deduction(s);
( 4 ) An explanation of interest, penalties, and administrative charges, including a statement that such charges will be assessed unless excused in accordance with the Federal Claims Collections Standards at 4 CFR 101.1 *et seq;*
( 5 ) The employee's right to inspect, request, and receive a copy of government records relating to the debt;
( 6 ) The employee's opportunity to establish a written schedule for the voluntary repayment of the debt in lieu of offset;
( 7 ) The employee's right to an oral hearing or a determination based on a review of the written record (“paper hearing”) conducted by an impartial hearing official concerning the existence or the amount of the debt, or the terms of the repayment schedule;
( 8 ) The procedures and time period for petitioning for a hearing;
( 9 ) A statement that a timely filing of a petition for a hearing will stay the commencement of collection proceedings;
( 10 ) A statement that a final decision on the hearing (if requested) will be issued by the hearing official not later than 60 days after the filing of the petition requesting the hearing unless the employee requests and the hearing official grants a delay in the proceedings;
( 11 ) A statement that knowingly false or frivolous statements, representations, or evidence may subject the employee to appropriate disciplinary procedures and/or statutory penalties;
( 12 ) A statement of other rights and remedies available to the employee under statutes or regulations governing the program for which the collection is being made;
( 13 ) Unless there are contractual or statutory provisions to the contrary, a statement that amounts paid on or deducted for the debt which are later waived or found not owed to the United States will be promptly refunded to the employee; and
( 14 ) A statement that the proceedings regarding such debt are governed by section 5 of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (5 U.S.C. 5514).
#### § 894.402 Do the premiums I pay reflect the cost of providing benefits?

The premiums you pay shall reasonably and equitably reflect the cost of the benefits provided.
| **Business Segments (Narrative) (Details)**   | 12 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| **Business Segments [Abstract]**              |            |   |   |
| Percentage of direct foreign written premiums | 8.90%           | 9.20% | 8.80% |

| X                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**cna_BusinessSegmentsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Percentage of direct written premiums derived outside of the United States
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_Percentageofforeigndirectwrittenpremiums**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**num:percentItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
No: III-13-040 November 4, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Proposed a $3,500 Fine for a Michigan Cardiology Practice Over 

Willful Violations of Regulations for Employee Radiation Dose Monitoring

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a fine of $3,500 for Jackson Cardiology 

Associates of Jackson, Mich. after finding a nuclear medicine technologist employed by the practice 

willfully violated NRC regulations by not wearing the required radiation dose monitoring badges and 

lying to an NRC inspector about it.

During a routine inspection on Aug. 20, 2012, an NRC inspector found the technologist without 

the required monitoring badges to measure occupational radiation dose. The technologist initially told 

the inspector she had left the badges at home. But during a follow-up inspection on Nov. 7, 2012, the 

technologist admitted she had lied to the inspector and said she lost the badges in February 2012.

The NRC’s Office of Investigations in a follow-up investigation found the technologist did not 

have her monitoring badges analyzed or replaced between the latter half of 2010 and June 2012. The 

investigation also found the technologist stopped wearing her monitoring badges in late June 2012, and 

she had not made payments to the vendor who analyzed Jackson Cardiology’s monitoring badges.

The first violation is for the technologist’s willful failure to wear the required badges; the second 

is for the technologist willfully providing the NRC with incomplete and inaccurate information about 

her badges. The proposed fine is the base civil penalty for Severity Level III violations, the second to 

lowest of the NRC’s four severity levels. Jackson Cardiology has taken several corrective actions, 

including changing procedures for radiation monitoring reports and payments, retraining the 

technologist and increasing oversight and supervision.

“We cannot tolerate willful violations of NRC requirements nor lying to NRC inspectors,” said 

Cynthia Pederson, NRC Region III Administrator. “While the actual safety significance in this case was 

limited because of the low dose rates, the technologist’s actions kept Jackson Cardiology from following 

radiation exposure monitoring requirements and impacted the NRC’s regulatory inspection process.”

Jackson Cardiology has the option to deny the violations or request alternative dispute resolution

with the NRC to resolve the issue.
§ 1511.2 Definitions. ( a ) A *pacifier* is an article consisting of a nipple that is intended for a young child to suck upon, but is not designed to facilitate a baby's obtaining fluid, and usually includes a guard or shield and a handle or ring.
( b ) *Guard or shield* means the structure located at the base of the nipple used to prevent the pacifier from being completely drawn into the child's mouth.
( c ) *Handle or ring* means the structure usually located adjacent to the guard or shield used for holding or grasping the pacifier. A hinged handle or ring is one that is free to pivot about an axis parallel to the plane of the guard or shield.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6514

JERMAINE L. COBBS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF GOODMAN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (5:20-cv-00818-MBS)

Submitted: August 24, 2021, Decided: August 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine L. Cobbs, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine L. Cobbs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Cobbs’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cobbs has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
NRC TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE OF BABCOCK & WILCOX NUCLEAR 

OPERATIONS GROUP IN LYNCHBURG 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with management of B&W Nuclear 

Operations Group, Inc., in Lynchburg, Va., on Tuesday, Sept. 21 to discuss the results of NRC’s 

performance review for the nuclear fuel fabrication facility. 

The meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. EDT in the second floor conference room at the 

Lynchburg City Hall, located at 900 Church St. The meeting will be open to members of the public 

and the news media. NRC officials will be available during the meeting to answer questions from 

those in attendance. 

The NRC staff assessed B&W’s performance during a period beginning July 31, 2009 and 

ending June 30, 2010 in the areas of safety operations, radiological controls, facility support and 

special topics. Security was also assessed, but that area will not be publicly discussed due to the 

sensitive nature of the information. The NRC staff review determined that B&W continued to 

conduct its activities safely and securely, protecting public health and the environment. 

The NRC found no areas needing improvement during the performance review period. Due 

to that performance level, NRC inspections at the facility during the next review period are being 

conducted at the normal level of inspection for this type of nuclear fuel assembly facility, and no 

additional inspections are required. 

“NRC inspectors closely examine operations and review facility performance at the B&W 

plant and all of the nation’s licensed nuclear facilities,” said Luis Reyes, administrator of the NRC 

Region II office in Atlanta. “This meeting gives us the opportunity to discuss the company’s 

performance with their managers and area residents and hear any concerns they might have.” 

A copy of the NRC review is publicly available online at www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams/web-based.html. The number to access the document is ML102310266. 

### 

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. 

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

No. II-10-061 September 13, 2010 

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

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416
§ 1015.11 Disclosure of trade secrets to consultants and contractors; nondisclosure to advisory committees and other government agencies. ( a ) In accordance with section 6(a)(2) of the CPSA, the Commission may disclose information which it has determined to be a trade secret or other matter referred to under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) to Commission consultants and contractors for use only in their work for the Commission. Such persons are subject to the same restrictions with respect to disclosure of such information as any Commission employee.
( b ) In accordance with section 6(a)(2) of the CPSA, the Commission is prohibited from disclosing information which it has determined to be a trade secret or other matter referred to under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) to advisory committees, except when required in the official conduct of their business, or to other Federal agencies and state and local governments except when permitted by the provisions of section 29(f) of the CPSA.
[82 FR 37010, Aug. 8, 2017]
____________________________

INFORMATION REPORT

February 27, 2015 SECY-15-0030

For: The Commissioners 

From: Melanie A. Galloway /RA/

 Assistant for Operations 

 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Subject: WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT - WEEK ENDING 

 FEBRUARY 20, 2015 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer A 

Office of Information Services B 

Office of the Secretary C 

 

 /RA Houman Rasouli Acting for/ 

 

 Melanie A. Galloway 

 Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Contact: 

L. Rakovan, OEDO 
February 27, 2015 SECY-15-0030

For: The Commissioners 

From: Melanie A. Galloway 

 Assistant for Operations 

 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Subject: WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT - WEEK ENDING 

 FEBRUARY 20, 2015 

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer A 

Office of Information Services B 

Office of the Secretary C 

 

 /RA Houman Rasouli Acting for/

 Melanie A. Galloway 

 Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Contact: 

L. Rakovan, OEDO 

DISTRIBUTION: 

EDO R/F AO R/F 

ADAMS Accession No: ML15057A427 *via email 

OFFICE OEDO/CPM AO/OEDO 

NAME LRakovan* MGalloway (HRasouli for) 

DATE 02/ 27 /15 02 / 27 /15 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 ENCLOSURE A

Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) 

Items of Interest 

Week Ending February 20, 2015 

Arrivals

None

Retirements

None 

Departures

Halpen Simon Administrative Assistant NRR
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 ENCLOSURE B

Office of Information Services (OIS) 

Items of Interest 

Week Ending February 20, 2015 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Requests and Appeals Received

During the Period of February 13 – February 19, 2015: 

 

All documents pertaining to named individual’s allegations involving the 

Idaho National Laboratory FOIA/PA-2015-0145

Documents released in FOIA/PA 2013-0309 FOIA/PA-2015-0146

Documents released in FOIA/PA 2014-0339 FOIA/PA-2015-0147

All filing systems and locations, and all records maintained pertaining to 

training videos during 2014 FOIA/PA-2015-0148

List of individuals promoted and to what grade, and list of individuals who 

received performance awards and the award amount, within the Office of 

Information Services from 2012 thru 2015

FOIA/PA-2015-0149

All records related to the natural gas pipelines near the Turkey Point 

nuclear plant FOIA/PA-2015-0150

All documents from 2010 to present related to the Fifty Mile Emergency 

Planning Zone, and the Radiological Emergency Plan for Suffolk County, 

New York, and atmospheric/airborne environmental discharge from the 

Millstone Nuclear Power Plant reactor unit 2 and 3

FOIA/PA-2015-0151

Copies of listed International Commission on Radiological Protection 

documents referred to in Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

Federal Register Notice Volume 79, Number 143

FOIA/PA-2015-0152
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 ENCLOSURE C

 

Office of the Secretary (SECY) 

 Items of Interest 

 Week Ending February 20, 2015 

Document Released to Public Date of 

Document

Subject

Memoranda

1. Staff Requirements Memorandum 02/18/2015 Affirmation Session - SECY-14-0068 and SECY14-0069 (both - Indian Point Nuclear Generating 

Units 2 & 3)
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00196

- CR

Jesse Riojas Beltran

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 43rd District Court

o f Parker County (CR13

- 0658 )

August 6, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SE COND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

_____________ Justice Bonnie Sudderth
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Boise and Payette 
National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will 
conduct a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES: Wednesday, January 21, 2004, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Idaho Counties Risk Management Program Building, 3100 South 
Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda topics will include review and 
approval of project proposals, ratification of the committee chair, and 
an open public forum.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Swick, Designated Federal 
Officer, at (208) 634-0401 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2d0d1d5cbc1c9e2c4d18cc4c7c68cd7d1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8efcfdf9e7ede5cee8fda0e8ebeaa0fbfd">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 30, 2003.
E. Jane Cropp,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Payette National Forest.
[FR Doc. 04-264 Filed 1-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- Reports, Statements & Publications
- Monthly Treasury Statement
- Current Issue

# Current Issue

          This data is moving to FiscalData.Treasury.gov where it is available for download in multiple machine-readable formats with complete metadata!

## August 2024

- PDF  |  EXCEL 

## Quick Links

Monthly Receipts, Outlays, and Deficit or Surplus, Fiscal Years 1981-2024: 

- PDF  |  EXCEL 

These files contain the monthly receipts/outlays and deficit/surplus of the United States published in Table 1 of the Monthly Treasury Statement,          for fiscal years 1981-2024. The figures reflect backdated adjustments and may be amended (monthly) based on agency reporting. 

Quarterly Distributed Offsetting Receipts by Department Report

Budget Summary with Adjusted Differences Report - August 2024

Last modified 09/12/24