alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 18, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136911 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136911 

 COA: 284321 

Oakland CC: 2007-217831-FH 

GREGORY PATRICK ROWLAND,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 27, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 18, 2008 

 Clerk
### §10195. Test and evaluation facility siting review and reports

#### (a) Consultation and cooperation

The Governor of a State, or the governing body of an affected Indian tribe, notified of a site identification under section 10193 of this title shall have the right to participate in a process of consultation and cooperation as soon as the site involved has been identified pursuant to such section and throughout the life of the test and evaluation facility. For purposes of this section, the term "process of consultation and cooperation" means a methodology—

(1) by which the Secretary—

(A) keeps the Governor or governing body involved fully and currently informed about any potential economic or public health and safety impacts in all stages of the siting, development, construction, and operation of a test and evaluation facility;

(B) solicits, receives, and evaluates concerns and objections of such Governor or governing body with regard to such test and evaluation facility on an ongoing basis; and

(C) works diligently and cooperatively to resolve such concerns and objections; and

(2) by which the State or affected Indian tribe involved can exercise reasonable independent monitoring and testing of onsite activities related to all stages of the siting, development, construction and operation of the test and evaluation facility, except that any such monitoring and testing shall not unreasonably interfere with onsite activities.

#### (b) Written agreements

The Secretary shall enter into written agreements with the Governor of the State in which an identified site is located or with the governing body of any affected Indian tribe where an identified site is located in order to expedite the consultation and cooperation process. Any such written agreement shall specify—

(1) procedures by which such Governor or governing body may study, determine, comment on, and make recommendations with regard to the possible health, safety, and economic impacts of the test and evaluation facility;

(2) procedures by which the Secretary shall consider and respond to comments and recommendations made by such Governor or governing body, including the period in which the Secretary shall so respond;

(3) the documents the Department is to submit to such Governor or governing body, the timing for such submissions, the timing for such Governor or governing body to identify public health and safety concerns and the process to be followed to try to eliminate those concerns;

(4) procedures by which the Secretary and either such Governor or governing body may review or modify the agreement periodically; and

(5) procedures for public notification of the procedures specified under subparagraphs (A) through (D).

#### (c) Limitation

Except as specifically provided in this section, nothing in this subchapter is intended to grant any State or affected Indian tribe any authority with respect to the siting, development, or loading of the test and evaluation facility.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title II, §215, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2247.)
§ 204.35 Petition for pre-offset hearing. ( a ) The employee may petition for a pre-offset hearing. The petition must state with specificity why the employee believes the agency's determination is in error. To the extent that a debt has not been established by judicial or administrative order, a debtor may request a pre-offset hearing concerning the existence or amount of the debt or the terms of repayment. With respect to debts established by a judicial or administrative order, a debtor may request a pre-offset hearing concerning the payment or other discharge of the debt.
( b ) The petition must fully identify and explain, with reasonable specificity, all the facts, evidence and witnesses, if any, that the employee believes support his or her position. The petition must be signed by the employee.
[58 FR 38520, July 19, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 54131, Oct. 26, 2001]
#### In the Matter of Justin R., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 834]

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Mary E. Bednar, J.), entered on or about September 22, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute reckless endangerment in the second degree, and imposed a conditional discharge for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based upon legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility.

*366To the extent that appellant is challenging aspects of the presentment agency’s summation, those arguments are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. However, while not a ground for reversal, we believe that the presentment *agency*should have responded to appellant’s contentions regarding its summation. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
511.002 Policy.

(a) When considering sustainable acquisition for products and services pursuant to FAR

11.002(d)(1), it is the policy of GSA to consider the following:

(1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Consider practices and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions such as operational emissions, embodied carbon, transportation and logistics costs.

(2) Ecolabels. Use the Sustainable Facilities Tool (sftool.gov) to identify ecolabels that apply and

incorporate them into the requirements.

(3) Waste, Sourcing, Efficiency, and Content Management. Consider supporting environmental

objectives such as waste reduction, source reduction; increased material, energy, or water

efficiency; or maximum practicable recovered material content. This may include considering waste

reduction techniques and taking into account reduction in packaging to include shipping packaging

when buying supplies (e.g., the purchase of more durable products that last for years, requiring

fewer replacements).

(4) Services. For services, consider overall environmental and social opportunities and risks when

drafting the requirement package to include any ancillary supplies.

(b) FAR 11.002(b) and GSA Order ADM 8000.1, GSA Metric Program, establish policy for using the

metric system in procurements. The GSA Construction Metrication Ombudsman, located in the PBS

Office of Acquisition Management, can be found at http://www.gsa.gov/ombudsman.

Parent topic: Part 511 - Describing Agency Needs
<PAGE>

                  Exhibit 23.3 - Consent of Murtha Cullina LLP


                               MURTHA CULLINA LLP
                                   CITYPLACE I
                                185 ASYLUM STREET
                        HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103-3469
                            TELEPHONE (860) 240-6000
                            FACSIMILE (860) 240-6150




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C.  20549


         Re:  Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals Ltd.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Legal Matters"
in the prospectus  constituting a part of the registration statement on Form S-1
filed by Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.


                                    Very truly yours,

                                    MURTHA CULLINA LLP



                                    By: /s/ Timothy L. Largay
                                            Timothy L. Largay
                                            A Partner


Hartford, Connecticut
August 17, 2000
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

July 7, 2016 

 

 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

REFER TO: M160628 

 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Andrew L. Bates, Acting Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM – BRIEFING ON 

HUMAN CAPITAL AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, 

9:30 A.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2016, COMMISSIONERS’ 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed by the NRC staff on the agency’s Human Capital and Equal 

Employment Opportunity Programs. Topics presented included organizational landscape, 

implementation of strategic workforce planning initiatives, developing the workforce, building a 

resilient organizational culture, civil rights update, and diversity and inclusion update. The 

Commission was also addressed by the Chapter Executive Vice-President of the National 

Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). 

The staff should continue to make best use of the Nuclear Safety Professional Development 

Program and the Honor Law Graduate Program to develop the workforce. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-4709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KRISTINA M. WORSTELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-01-144)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian A. Glasser, Eric B. Snyder, BAILEY & GLASSER, L.L.P.,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United

States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kristina Worstell appeals the 41-month sentence imposed after

a jury found her guilty of assaulting a postal employee, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (2000). We affirm.

Worstell contends that under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000) (holding any fact, other than prior conviction, that

increases criminal penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum must

be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt), the

district court impermissibly subjected her to a higher sentencing

guidelines range upon a finding that the assault caused serious

bodily injury because that fact was not submitted to a jury and

proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have previously held

sentencing factors are not required to be alleged in the indictment

or submitted to the jury. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d

192, 202 (4th Cir. 2000). Worstell was sentenced within the

statutory maximum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) upon a jury

finding of bodily injury, and Apprendi does not apply.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Worstell’s sentence. 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
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-960-1430-BJ] ES-052046, Group 43, Illinois 

                    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will officially file the plat of the dependent resurvey of a portion of the subdivisional lines and the survey of a portion of the subdivision of section 17, which define the Great River National Wildlife Refuge acquisition boundary in Township 7 South, Range 5 West, Fourth Principal Meridian, Illinois, accepted on January 29, 2004, in the Eastern States Office, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

The survey was requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

All inquiries or protests concerning the technical aspects of the survey must be submitted in writing to the Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Eastern States, Bureau of Land Management,  7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153, prior to the date of the official filing. 

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the appropriate fee. 

Dated: January 29, 2004. 

Stephen D. Douglas, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 04-2675 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
facid Location type (U=UTM, L=lat/lon) Latitude

(decimal) or UTM Easting (m) Longitude

(decimal) or UTM Northing (m) UTM

zone Elevation (m) 39089NEI11394 L 40.012186 -82.464739 12115NEI3FL12115Al L 27.226098 -82.456535 12115NEI3FL12115Al L 27.195843 -82.468815 16055NEI3ID16055Ale L 47.749516 -117.015763 33015NEI3NH33015WebL 42.868476 -71.258860 55071NEI3WI55071BB L 43.928224 -87.843723 18083NEI31872 L 38.774890 -87.332784Type of receptor (P=house, school, etc.; B=boundary; M=monitor) Hill Height P P P P P P P
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 20 2002

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT G. LILE, 

Plaintiff-Appellee/CrossAppellant,

v. Nos. 98-3292 & 98-3294

DAVID R. McKUNE and CHARLES

SIMMONS, 

Defendants-Appellants/CrossAppellees.

 

OPINION ON REMAND FROM THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Timothy G. Madden, Kansas Department of Corrections, Topeka, Kansas, for

Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Matt Wiltanger (David J. Waxse and Paul W. Rebein with him on the briefs) of

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Overland Park, Kansas, for PlaintiffAppellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

_________________________
-2-

On remand from the United States Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. __ , 122 S. Ct. 2017 (2002), we vacate our prior

opinion, order and mandate to the district court and remand with direction to

dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Petitioners-Appellants’ claims pursuant to

the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution do not rise to the level of

compulsion contemplated by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. Id. at 2032-

35 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193

(1977) (when no single rationale explains the result of a fragmented Supreme

Court, the holding is the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the

judgments on the narrowest grounds” (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169

n.15 (1976)).

REMANDED.
### §14223. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14223 was editorially reclassified as section 12643 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### **CHAPTER 65—NOISE CONTROL**

Sec.
4901.
Congressional findings and statement of policy.
4902.
Definitions.
4903.
Federal programs.
4904.
Identification of major noise sources.
4905.
Noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce.
4906.
Omitted.
4907.
Labeling.
4908.
Imports.
4909.
Prohibited acts.
4910.
Enforcement.
4911.
Citizen suits.
4912.
Records, reports, and information.
4913.
Quiet communities, research, and public information.
4914.
Development of low-noise-emission products.
4915.
Judicial review.
4916.
Railroad noise emission standards.
4917.
Motor carrier noise emission standards.
4918.
Authorization of appropriations.
### §1406a. Expenses of management and operation of transferred projects as nonadministrative; payment

On and after May 10, 1939 all necessary expenses in connection with the management and operation of projects transferred to the Authority by Executive Order Numbered 7732 of October 27, 1937, as modified by Executive Order Numbered 7839 of March 12, 1938, may be considered as nonadministrative expenses, notwithstanding the provisions of section 712a of title 15, and be paid from the rents received from each transferred project.

(May 10, 1939, ch. 119, §1, 53 Stat. 690.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the United States Housing Act of 1937 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act June 25, 1938, ch. 681, title I, 52 Stat. 1129.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries; Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

The Authority, meaning the United States Housing Authority, was consolidated with other agencies into the Housing and Home Finance Agency, and name of Authority changed to Public Housing Administration by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1947, eff. July 27, 1947, 12 F.R. 4981, 61 Stat. 954, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Functions of Public Housing Administration and Housing and Home Finance Agency (of which Public Housing Administration was a constituent agency) and of heads thereof transferred to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by Pub. L. 89–174, §5(a), Sept. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 669, which is classified to section 3534(a) of this title. Section 9(c) of such act, set out as a note under section 3531 of this title, provided that references to Housing and Home Finance Agency or to any agency or officer therein are to be deemed to mean Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and that Housing and Home Finance Agency and Public Housing Administration have lapsed.

Executive Order No. 7732, Oct. 27, 1937, 2 F.R. 2324, 44 C.F.R. 201.11, effective Nov. 1, 1937, transferred to the United States Housing Authority all right, interest, and title held by the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works in any housing or slum-clearance projects constructed or in the process of construction on Sept. 1, 1937.
#### § 424.1 Unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

In connection with the sale or offering for sale by retail food stores of food, grocery products or other merchandise to consumers in or affecting commerce as “commerce” is defined in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 44, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1), to offer any such products for sale at a stated price, by means of an advertisement disseminated in an area served by any stores which are covered by the advertisement, if those stores do not have the advertised products in stock and readily available to customers during the effective period of the advertisement, unless the advertisement clearly and adequately discloses that supplies of the advertised products are limited or the advertised products are available only at some outlets.

[54 FR 35467, Aug. 28, 1989, as amended at 79 FR 70056, Nov. 25, 2014]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Federal Register Notice for DRaft Regulatory Basis for Cyber Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities.

Accession Number: ML15198A024

Date Released: Monday, August 31, 2015

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.
    - ML15198A037 - Memo for Federal Register Notice Request For Public Comments On Draft Regulatory Basis Proposing New Cyber Security Regulations For Fuel Cycle Facilities. (2 page(s), 8/27/2015)
    - ML15198A041 - FRN for Cyber Draft Regulatory Basis. (9 page(s), 8/27/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### §13283. Discount payments

#### (a) Certification

The Secretary shall provide a discount payment to a proposer of a proposal selected under this part for purposes of reimbursing the proposer for a discount provided to the users if the proposer certifies to the Secretary that—

(1) the electric motor vehicles have been purchased or leased by a user or users in accordance with the requirements of this part; and

(2) the proposer has provided to the user or users a discount payment in accordance with the requirements of this part.

#### (b) Payment

Not later than 30 days after receipt from the proposer of certification that the Secretary determines satisfies the requirements of subsection (a), the Secretary shall pay to the proposer the full amount of the discount payment, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations Acts.

#### (c) Calculations of discount payments

(1) The discount payment shall be no greater than—

(A) the price differential; or

(B) the price of the comparable conventionally fueled motor vehicle.

(2) The purchase price of the electric motor vehicle, less the discount payment and less any additional reduction in the purchase price of the electric motor vehicle that may result from contributions provided by other parties, may not be less than the manufacturer's suggested retail price of a comparable conventionally fueled motor vehicle.

(3) The maximum discount payment shall be no greater than $10,000 per electric motor vehicle.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title VI, §613, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2902.)