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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Petitioner - Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES DOW VANDIVERE, 

Respondent - Appellant. 

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02017-D)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

James Dow Vandivere, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

James Dow Vandivere was committed to the custody of the Attorney General 

pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 as a sexually 

dangerous person. Vandivere appealed, and this court affirmed the district court’s 

judgment. During the pendency of his appeal, Vandivere filed a motion under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to set aside the commitment judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction. 

Vandivere also filed a motion to compel, arguing that the district court was required by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) to set forth in detail its factual and legal bases for its ruling on the 

motion to set aside judgment. The district court denied both motions, and Vandivere

appealed. 

We have reviewed the record and find no error warranting reversal. The district 

court did not reversibly err in denying Vandivere’s request for Rule 60(b)(4) relief 

because none of the criteria for granting such relief were met in this case. See Wendt v. 

Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412-13 (4th Cir. 2005). Additionally, to comply with Rule 

52(a)(1), a district court “need only make brief, definite, pertinent findings and 

conclusions upon the contested matters; there is no necessity for over-elaboration of 

detail or particularization of facts.” Torres-Lazarini v. United States, 523 F.3d 69, 74 

(1st Cir. 2008); see Darter v. Greenville Comm. Hotel Corp., 301 F.2d 70, 75 (4th Cir.

1962) (explaining that Rule 52(a) “does not require” a district court to “make detailed 

evidentiary findings” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court’s

determination in its denial order that Vandivere’s request for Rule 60(b)(4) relief 

“lack[ed] merit” satisfied this standard. See Darter, 301 F.2d at 75. 
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Vandivere, 

No. 5:15-hc-02017-D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2018). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary W. Horvath, Appellant. Residence Inn/Buffalo Lodging Associates, L.L.C., Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 817]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 23, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

Claimant worked for the employer as a sales assistant and hospitality director. She did not return to her position after April 2, 2004, when she was told that her duties would change under a new employment restructuring plan. Claimant thereafter commenced an age discrimination lawsuit against the employer which was resolved by a settlement agreement. Subsequently, claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately disqualified her from receiving benefits on the ground that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals and we affirm.

Claimant’s sole contention is that the settlement agreement with her employer which resolved the discrimination claim acknowledges that she was terminated involuntarily. This claim, however, is not properly before us inasmuch as it is being raised for the first time on appeal *(see Matter of Altman [Commissioner of Labor],*3 AD3d 658, 659 [2004]; *Matter of Chen [Commissioner of Labor],*307 AD2d 580, 581 [2003]). Claimant never produced the agreement in question and, thus, failed to develop the record to allow meaningful review of her claim *(see Matter of Hailstock [Borg-Warner Morse Tec*— Commissioner *of Labor],*308 AD2d 631, 631 [2003]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board’s decision.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 1.34 Monthly record, “point balance”. ( a ) With respect to commodity futures transactions, each futures commission merchant shall prepare, and retain in accordance with the requirements of § 1.31, a statement commonly known as a “point balance,” which accrues or brings to the official closing price, or settlement price fixed by the clearing organization, all open contracts of customers as of the last business day of each month or of any regular monthly date selected: *Provided, however,* That a futures commission merchant who carries part or all of customers' open contracts with other futures commission merchants on an “instruct basis” will be deemed to have met the requirements of this section as to open contracts so carried if a monthly statement is prepared which shows that the prices and amounts of such contracts long and short in the customers' accounts are in balance with those in the carrying futures commission merchants' accounts, and such statements are retained in accordance with the requirements of § 1.31.
( b ) With respect to commodity option transactions, each futures commission merchant shall prepare, and retain in accordance with the requirements of § 1.31, a listing in which all open commodity option positions carried for customers are marked to the market. Such listing shall be prepared as of the last business day of each month, or as of any regular monthly date selected, and shall be by put or by call, by underlying contract for future delivery (by delivery month) or underlying commodity (by option expiration date), and by strike price.
[77 FR 66324, Nov. 2, 2012]
### §14043d–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14043d–1 was editorially reclassified as section 12462 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### Part D—Residential Energy Efficiency Rating Guidelines
### §1433. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title VI, §606, 63 Stat. 440, provided for conversion of State and local low-rent or veterans' housing projects to Federal projects if the contract for State financial assistance for such project was entered into on or after Jan. 1, 1948, and prior to Jan. 1, 1950.
NRC NAMES ADDITIONAL RESIDENT INSPECTOR 

FOR VOGTLE NUCLEAR PLANT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have selected Chad Huffman as a 

resident inspector for the construction of Vogtle Units 3 and 4, located near Waynesboro, Ga., about 26 

miles southeast of Augusta. In February, the NRC issued combined operating licenses for the new units to 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co., which operates the existing Vogtle units.

Chad Huffman is a native of Kings Mountain, N.C., and began his NRC 

career in 2005 as a reactor risk engineer in the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Research at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Md. In 2011, Huffman joined the 

NRC’s resident inspector development program in Region II’s Center for 

Construction Inspection in Atlanta. 

During his time in Region II, Huffman participated in construction 

inspections at Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee as well as at Vogtle Units 3 and 4. 

Prior to joining the NRC, Huffman worked as an engineer at a nuclear utility and also held various 

positions in residential and commercial construction.

He received his bachelor of science and master’s degrees in nuclear engineering from North 

Carolina State University in Raleigh, N.C.

Huffman joins Senior Resident Inspector Justin Fuller and Resident Inspector Coleman Abbott at 

the Vogtle nuclear construction site.

“Chad Huffman has the knowledge and experience to help ensure that construction is completed 

according to NRC regulations and in a way that protects people and the environment,” said NRC Region 

II Deputy Regional Administrator for Construction Fred Brown.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-12-038

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

 May 31, 2012 

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
Each operating U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC resident inspectors. 

They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring 

significant work projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public. Inspectors can serve for up to 

seven years at any one site. Construction sites have their own NRC resident inspectors and the number 

assigned will be dependent on the work being done at each site.

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should contact the 

Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link on the 

NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website. 

For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
#### In the Matter of Omar Adams, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., *645Respondents.

[818 NYS2d 922]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules that prohibit possession of contraband and disobeying a direct order. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Inasmuch as petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is entitled, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Carroll v Goord,*24 AD3d 845 [2005]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
### §12624. Evaluations

Pursuant to the provisions for evaluations conducted under section 12639 of this title, and in particular subsection (g) of such section, the Corporation shall conduct periodic evaluations of the National Civilian Community Corps Program authorized under this division. Upon completing each such evaluation, the Corporation shall transmit to the authorizing committees a report on the evaluation.

(Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §164, formerly §195M, as added Pub. L. 102–484, div. A, title X, §1092(a)(1), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2532; renumbered §164 and amended Pub. L. 103–82, title I, §104(b), title IV, §402(b)(2), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 840, 919; Pub. L. 111–13, title I, §1514, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1528.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 12653m of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 103–82, §104(b).

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 164 of Pub. L. 101–610 was classified to section 12615 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–82, §104(a).

#### Amendments

2009—Pub. L. 111–13 in section catchline substituted "Evaluations" for "Annual evaluation" and in text substituted "periodic evaluations" for "an annual evaluation" and "National Civilian Community Corps Program" for "Civilian Community Corps programs" and inserted at end "Upon completing each such evaluation, the Corporation shall transmit to the authorizing committees a report on the evaluation."

1993—Pub. L. 103–82, §402(b)(2), substituted "Corporation" for "Commission on National and Community Service".

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

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–13 effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 6101(a) of Pub. L. 111–13, set out as a note under section 4950 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1993 Amendment

Amendment by section 402(b)(2) of Pub. L. 103–82 effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 406(a) of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as a note under section 5061 of this title.
### §13643. Regulations

The Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to carry out subtitles B through F of this title and the amendments made by such subtitles not later than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning on October 28, 1992. The regulations shall be issued after notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the provisions of section 553 of title 5 (notwithstanding subsections (a)(2), (b)(B), and (d)(3) of such section).

(Pub. L. 102–550, title VI, §685, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3832.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subtitles B through F of this title, referred to in text, mean subtitles B to F of title VI of Pub. L. 102–550, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3812–3830, which enacted this chapter, amended sections 1437a, 1437c to 1437g, 1437l, 1437o, 1438, 8011, 8013, and 12705 of this title and section 1701q of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 1437a of this title and section 1701q of Title 12.
§ 904.245 Subpoenas. ( a ) *In general.* Subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence for the purpose of discovery or hearing may be issued as authorized by the statute under which the proceeding is conducted.
( b ) *Timing.* Applications for subpoenas must be submitted at least 15 days before the scheduled hearing or deposition.
( c ) *Motions to quash.* Any person to whom a subpoena is directed or any party may move to quash or limit the subpoena within 10 days of its service or on or before the time specified for compliance, whichever is shorter. The Judge may quash or modify the subpoena.
( d ) *Enforcement.* In case of disobedience to a subpoena, the requesting party may request the U.S. Department of Justice to invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence.
| **IT Transformation Costs by Segment Narrative (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | 12 Months Ended | 36 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|
||
| Total expected costs of the program                                                                       |            | $ 37            |
| Total costs of the program incurred in 2010                                                               | $ 36            |            |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Total costs of the IT Transformation program incurred in 2010
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_TotalCostsOfProgramIncurredIn2010**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Total expected costs of the IT Transformation program
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**cna_TotalExpectedCostsOfProgram**Namespace Prefix:**cna_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
#### Marly Millard, Plaintiff, v Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC, et al., Defendants. USA Clean, Improperly Sued as USA Clean, Formerly Known as Frontier Supply & Equipment, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Tramz Hotels, Inc., Doing Business as Holiday Inn et al., Third-Party Defendants. Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v Tramz Hotels, Inc., Doing Business as Holiday Inn, Third-Party Defendant, and Frontier Alkali Corp., Doing Business as Frontier Supply & Equipment, Renamed Gary H., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 529]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered May 5, 2005. The order denied the cross motion of third-party defendant Frontier Alkali Corp., doing business as Frontier Supply & Equipment, renamed Gary H., Inc., for summary judgment on its indemnification claim against third-party plaintiff Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC.

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation withdrawing appeal signed by the attorneys for the parties on August 25 and 30, 2006,

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M150226A 

February 26, 2015 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Brooke Poole, Director 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

 Margaret M. Doane 

 General Counsel 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION, 12:55 

P.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015, COMMISSIONERS' 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

I. SECY-15-0009 – Petitions to Suspend Reactor Licensing Decisions and Reactor 

License Renewal Decisions Pending Issuance of “Waste Confidence” Safety Findings 

(Filed on Multiple Dockets)

The Commission1

 approved a Memorandum and Order responding to a petition filed by several 

organizations requesting that the Commission suspend final reactor licensing decisions pending 

its issuance of a “waste confidence safety decision.” Petitioners have also submitted 

companion filings proposing a related contention, together with procedural motions to reopen 

the record in several proceedings. The Memorandum and Order denies the petitions to 

suspend and the related motions and confirms the Commission’s determinations regarding the 

safety of continued spent fuel storage and the technical feasibility of permanent spent fuel 

disposal in a repository. 

(Subsequently, on February 26, 2015, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.) 

 

 

 1 Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 5841, provides that 

action of the Commission shall be determined by a Amajority vote of the members present.@ 

Commissioners Svinicki, Ostendorff, and Baran were present in the Conference Room. 

Chairman Burns participated in the meeting via speakerphone. 
cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 EDO 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A203
### §1437bbb–3. Applicability of requirements under programs for covered housing assistance

#### (a) In general

In each fiscal year of the demonstration program under this subchapter, amounts made available to a participating jurisdiction under the demonstration program shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as such amounts would be subject to if made available under the provisions of this chapter pursuant to which covered housing assistance is otherwise made available under this chapter to the public housing agency for the jurisdiction, except that—

(1) the Secretary may waive any such term or condition identified by the jurisdiction to the extent that the Secretary determines such action to be appropriate to carry out the purposes of the demonstration program under this subchapter; and

(2) the participating jurisdiction may combine the amounts made available and use the amounts for any activity eligible under the programs under sections 1437f and 1437g of this title.

#### (b) Number of families assisted

In carrying out the demonstration program under this subchapter, each participating jurisdiction shall assist substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as would have otherwise been served by the public housing agency for the jurisdiction had the jurisdiction not participated in the demonstration program under this subchapter.

#### (c) Protection of recipients

This subchapter may not be construed to authorize the termination of assistance to any recipient receiving assistance under this chapter before October 21, 1998, as a result of the implementation of the demonstration program under this subchapter.

#### (d) Effect on ability to compete for other programs

This subchapter may not be construed to affect the ability of any applying or participating jurisdiction (or a public housing agency for any such jurisdiction) to compete or otherwise apply for or receive assistance under any other housing assistance program administered by the Secretary.

(Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §561, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2619.)
#### Melville Wolfe, Respondent, v. Maria Schubert, Defendant, and Emil Schubert, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
#### § 301.7 Describing furs by certain breed names prohibited.

If the fur of an animal is described in any manner by its breed, species, strain or coloring, irrespective of former usage, such descriptive matter shall not contain the name of another animal either in the adjective form or otherwise nor shall such description (subject to any exception contained in this part or animal names appearing in the Fur Products Name Guide) contain a name in an adjective form or otherwise which connotes a false geographic origin of the animal. For example, such designations as “Sable Mink,” “Chinchilla Rabbit,” and “Aleutian Mink” shall not be used.
### Part B—Public Access Provisions Under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990