alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §15028. Appeals by States

#### (a) Appeal

If any State is dissatisfied with the Secretary's action under section 15024(d)(3) or 15027 of this title, such State may appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which such State is located, by filing a petition with such court not later than 60 days after such action.

#### (b) Filing

The clerk of the court shall transmit promptly a copy of the petition to the Secretary, or any officer designated by the Secretary for that purpose. The Secretary shall file promptly with the court the record of the proceedings on which the Secretary based the action, as provided in section 2112 of title 28.

#### (c) Jurisdiction

Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or to set the action aside, in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently. Until the filing of the record, the Secretary may modify or set aside the order of the Secretary relating to the action.

#### (d) Findings and remand

The findings of the Secretary about the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive, but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case involved to the Secretary for further proceedings to take further evidence. On remand, the Secretary may make new or modified findings of fact and may modify the previous action of the Secretary, and shall file with the court the record of the further proceedings. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence.

#### (e) Finality

The judgment of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any action of the Secretary shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

#### (f) Effect

The commencement of proceedings under this section shall not, unless so specifically ordered by a court, operate as a stay of the Secretary's action.

(Pub. L. 106–402, title I, §128, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1711.)
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Quarterly January-March 2016 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML16082A326

Date Released: Thursday, April 28, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16082A331 - Quarterly January-March 2015 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206. (4 page(s), 4/28/2016)
    - ML16082A332 - Quarterly January-March 2016 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 2.206. (15 page(s), 4/28/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### Maureen Ash, Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of T.A., S.A., L.A. and H.A., Infants, Appellant, v County of Monroe, Respondent. Terri Ash, Appellant, v County of Monroe, Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[821 NYS2d 320]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J), entered July 12, 2005. The judgment granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Decedent’s wife, individually and on behalf of her children, and one of decedent’s children commenced this action to recover damages for emotional and financial harm resulting from defendant’s alleged negligence in failing to identify decedent’s remains in a timely manner. We conclude with respect to appeal No. 1 that Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. “Municipalities are generally immune from tort liability when their employees perform discretionary acts involving the exercise of reasoned judgment, except in those cases where plaintiffs establish that they had a ‘special relationship’ with the municipality giving rise to a duty enforceable in tort” *(Brown v City of New York,*22 AD3d 241, 241 [2005]; see *Pelaez v Seide,*2 NY3d 186, 198-199 [2004]). “Such a special relationship exists only where the *1168municipality has violated a duty commanded by a statute enacted for the special benefit of particular persons, where it has voluntarily assumed a duty that was justifiably relied upon by those who benefitted therefrom, or where it has assumed positive direction and control under circumstances in which a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation exists” *(Emmerling v Town of Richmond,*13 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2004]). Here, the allegedly negligent acts of defendant’s employees were discretionary, and the facts alleged by plaintiffs do not support an inference that a special relationship was formed under any of those categories *(see Brown,*22 AD3d 241 [2005]). Finally, we conclude with respect to appeal No. 2 that the court properly denied the motion of plaintiffs seeking leave to renew their opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Even assuming, arguendo, that the documents submitted by plaintiffs were not previously available, we conclude that the court properly determined that the information contained in those documents was known to plaintiffs at the time of the original motion *(see William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis,*182 AD2d 22, 27 [1992], *lv denied in part and dismissed in part*80 NY2d 1005 [1992], *rearg denied*81 NY2d 782 [1993]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Kehoe, Smith and Green, JJ.
### §15385. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 15385 was editorially reclassified as section 20985 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
No: 16-065 November 18, 2016

Contact: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Completes Safety Review of Proposed New Reactors

at Turkey Point Site In Florida

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has completed its Final Safety Evaluation Report for 

Combined Licenses (COL) for two proposed reactors at the Turkey Point site near Homestead, Fla. The 

report concludes there are no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the license for construction and 

operation of the proposed reactors, adjacent to two operating reactors approximately 40 miles south of 

Miami.

The staff will provide the report and Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Turkey Point 

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

mandatory hearing, expected to take place early next year, the Commission will examine whether the 

staff’s review supports the findings necessary to issue a license. Following the mandatory hearing, the 

Commission will vote on whether to authorize the staff to issue the license.

Florida Power & Light submitted its COL application for Turkey Point on June 30, 2009, for 

permission to build and operate two AP1000 nuclear reactors at the site. The NRC certified the 

amended 1,100-megawatt AP1000 design in 2012. More information on the certification process is 

available on the NRC website.

The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards independently reviewed those aspects 

of the Turkey Point application that concern safety. The committee provided the results of its review to 

the Commission on Sept. 16, 2016. The NRC completed its environmental review and issued the final 

impact statement for the proposed Turkey Point reactors earlier this month.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10788

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN M. JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE;

CLEMENTS INFIRMARY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-335

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The motion filed by John M. Jones, Texas prisoner # 663342,

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal is GRANTED. Because

Jones has had nothing in his prison trust-fund account for the

relevant six-month period, no initial partial filing fee is

assessed. Jones shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of

the preceding month’s income credited to his account until the
No. 96-10788

- 2 -

full filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency

having custody of Jones is directed to forward payments from his

prisoner account to the clerk of the district court each time the

amount in his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee of $105 is

paid. See id. 

Regarding Jones’s challenge to the district court’s

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as frivolous, we have

reviewed Jones’s brief and the record, and find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’s claims

of denial of due process and deliberate indifference to his

serious medical needs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Eason v.

Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Jones’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). We caution Jones that future frivolous civil suits and

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition

of sanctions. Jones is cautioned further to review any pending

suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that

are frivolous.

IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 

5th Cir. R. 42.2.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DALE FOSTER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 550 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of April, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Subpart 5322.1 — BASIC LABOR POLICIES

Parent topic: Part 5322 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions

5322.101-1 General

Contracting officers must involve the Regional Labor Advisors in all labor relation actions outlined in

FAR Part 22, as required. AFI 64-106, Air Force Industrial Labor Relations Activities, identifies the

Regional Labor Advisors and their assigned geographical areas.

(e) See MP5301.601(a)(i) regarding authority to designate contracts requiring contractors to report

actual or potential labor disputes to the contracting activity in addition to the following:

(i) Construction contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT);

(ii) Service contracts in excess of the SAT; and,

(iii) Any contract that contains the clause at FAR 52.222-1, Notice to the Government of Labor

Disputes, (e.g., mission critical services).

5322.101-3-70 Impact of Labor Disputes on Defense

Programs

(b)(ii) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

5322.103-4 Approvals

(a) The contracting officer is designated the agency approving official.
# Subpart 5311.1 - SELECTING AND DEVELOPING REQUIREMENT DOCUMENTS

**Parent topic:**Part 5311 - Describing Agency Needs

## 5311.103 Market Acceptance

(a) See MP5301.601(a)(i).
(January 15, 1952.)

#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Sobral, Irmaos S. A., Appellant, and Igoma Import & Export Corporation, Respondent.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3708 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3708

   To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from issuing a final rule that 
      prevents the agricultural employment of minors to detassel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2011

 Mr. Fortenberry (for himself and Mr. Terry) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
                               Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the Secretary of Labor from issuing a final rule that 
      prevents the agricultural employment of minors to detassel.

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

SECTION 1. RULE PREVENTING THE AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS TO 
              DETASSEL PROHIBITED.

    To the extent that the proposed rule entitled ``Child Labor 
Regulations, Orders and Statements of Interpretation; Child Labor 
Violations--Civil Money Penalties'' published by the Wage and Hour 
Division of the Department of Labor on September 2, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 
54836 et seq.) prevents or otherwise effects the agricultural 
employment of minors to detassel, rogue, or otherwise engage in the 
production of seed or to engage in related and incidental agricultural 
employment, the Secretary of Labor shall not issue a final rule on, or 
otherwise implement, the proposed rule.
                                 <all>
```
§ 642.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part implements section 213(a) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which requires the Federal Trade Commission to establish the format, type size, and manner of the notices to consumers, required by section 615(d) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), regarding the right to prohibit (“opt out” of) the use of information in a consumer report to send them solicitations of credit or insurance.
( b ) *Scope.* This part applies to any motor vehicle dealer as defined in § 642.2 of this part that uses a consumer report on any consumer in connection with any credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by the consumer, and that is provided to that motor vehicle dealer under section 604(c)(1)(B) of the FCRA (15 U.S.C. 1681b(c)(1)(B)).
[70 FR 5032, Jan. 31, 2005, as amended at 86 FR 50850, Sept. 13, 2021]
#### § 270.352 Public safety information.

A Team, NIST, and any other investigation participant will not publicly release any information it receives in the course of an investigation under the Act if the Director finds that the disclosure might jeopardize public safety.
### §14953. Relationship to other laws

#### (a) Preemption of inconsistent State law

The Convention and this chapter shall not be construed to preempt any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, or prevent a State or political subdivision thereof from enacting any provision of law with respect to the subject matter of the Convention or this chapter, except to the extent that such provision of State law is inconsistent with the Convention or this chapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency.

#### (b) Applicability of the Indian Child Welfare Act

The Convention and this chapter shall not be construed to affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).

#### (c) Relationship to other laws

Sections 3506(c), 3507, and 3512 of title 44 shall not apply to information collection for purposes of sections 14914, 14922(b)(4), and 14932(d) of this title or for use as a Convention record as defined in this chapter.

(Pub. L. 106–279, title V, §503, Oct. 6, 2000, 114 Stat. 843.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 106–279, Oct. 6, 2000, 114 Stat. 825, known as the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 14901 of this title and Tables.

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 95–608, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3069, which is classified principally to chapter 21 (§1901 et seq.) of Title 25, Indians. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1901 of Title 25 and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 6, 2000, with transition rule, see section 505(a)(1), (b) of Pub. L. 106–279, set out as an Effective Dates; Transition Rule note under section 14901 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 362 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 362

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2011

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To redesignate the Federal building and United States Courthouse 
 located at 200 East Wall Street in Midland, Texas, as the ``George H. 
 W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon 
                          Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States Courthouse located at 200 
East Wall Street in Midland, Texas, known as the George Mahon Federal 
Building, shall be known and designated as the ``George H. W. Bush and 
George W. Bush United States Courthouse and George Mahon Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
Courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush United States Courthouse 
and George Mahon Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 2, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 13, 2014

No. 04-14-00584-CV

IN RE EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On August 13, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for emergency 

relief. This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires 

further consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest may 

file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus in this court no later than August 27, 2014. Any 

such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

Relator’s request for temporary emergency relief is GRANTED. Any enforcement of the trial 

court’s August 4, 2014 First Amended Order Granting Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Grace River Ranch, LLC is TEMPORARILY STAYED until further order of this court.

It is so ORDERED on August 13th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-04-00108-CVL, styled Grace River Ranch, LLC v. El Caballero 

Ranch, Inc. a/k/a El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, LLC v. Robert W. Brittingham, pending in the 218th 

Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Stella Saxon presiding.
§ 3.35 Interrogatories to parties. ( a ) *Availability; procedures for use.* ( 1 ) Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories, not exceeding 25 in number, including all discrete subparts, to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation, partnership, association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. For this purpose, information shall not be deemed to be available insofar as it is in the possession of the Commissioners, the General Counsel, the office of Administrative Law Judges, or the Secretary in his or her capacity as custodian or recorder of any such information, or their respective staffs.
( 2 ) Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to on grounds not raised and ruled on in connection with the authorization, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections, if any, within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories. The Administrative Law Judge may allow a shorter or longer time.
( 3 ) Except as provided in § 3.31(h), interrogatories shall not be filed with the Office of the Secretary, the Administrative Law Judge, or otherwise provided to the Commission.
( b ) *Scope; use at hearing.* ( 1 ) Interrogatories may relate to any matters that can be inquired into under § 3.31(c)(1), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence.
( 2 ) An interrogatory otherwise proper is not necessarily objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, but such an interrogatory need not be answered until after designated discovery has been completed, but in no case later than 3 days before the final prehearing conference.
( c ) *Option to produce records.* Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served or from an examination, audit, or inspection of such records, or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based thereon, and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to such interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect such records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts or summaries. The specification shall include sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to identify readily the individual documents from which the answer may be ascertained.
[74 FR 1828, Jan. 13, 2009, as amended at 80 FR 15162, Mar. 23, 2015]
#### Tillie Oshrin, by Her Guardian ad Litem, Joseph Oshrin, Respondent, v. Simon Shapiro, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Scott, Smith, Page and Davis, JJ.
### §14044. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14044 was editorially reclassified as section 20701 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.