alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 14-037 June 26, 2014

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Renews Operating License for Dow Chemical Co. 

TRIGA Research Reactor in Michigan

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating license of the Dow Chemical 

Co. TRIGA research and test reactor located in Midland, Mich., for an additional 20 years.

The reactor was originally licensed in 1967. Dow applied to renew the license in April 2009. 

The NRC published an environmental assessment with a finding of no significant impact on July 20, 

2012. The renewed license was issued June 18.

The Commission directed the staff on Aug. 7, 2012, not to make final licensing decisions for 

commercial power reactors and spent fuel storage sites until the agency completes its waste confidence 

rulemaking in response to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. The staff determined licensing of research 

and test reactors does not depend on the waste confidence finding or the related temporary storage rule, 

so relicensing of research and test reactors can continue.

The renewed license (ML12137A151) and the NRC staff’s safety evaluation report on the 

license renewal (ML12137A181) are available on the NRC website.
### §15092. Definitions and special rule

#### (a) Definitions

In this subchapter:

#### (1) Child with a disability

The term "child with a disability" means an individual who—

(A) has a significant physical or mental impairment, as defined pursuant to State policy to the extent that such policy is established without regard to type of disability; or

(B) is an infant or a young child from birth through age 8 and has a substantial developmental delay or specific congenital or acquired condition that presents a high probability of resulting in a disability if services are not provided to the infant or child.

#### (2) Family

#### (A) In general

Subject to subparagraph (B), for purposes of the application of this subchapter in a State, the term "family" has the meaning given the term by the State.

#### (B) Exclusion of employees

The term does not include an employee who, acting in a paid employment capacity, provides services to a child with a disability in an out-of-home setting such as a hospital, nursing home, personal care home, board and care home, group home, or other facility.

#### (3) Family support for families of children with disabilities

The term "family support for families of children with disabilities" means supports, resources, services, and other assistance provided to families of children with disabilities pursuant to State policy that are designed to—

(A) support families in the efforts of such families to raise their children with disabilities in the home;

(B) strengthen the role of the family as primary caregiver for such children;

(C) prevent involuntary out-of-the-home placement of such children and maintain family unity; and

(D) reunite families with children with disabilities who have been placed out of the home, whenever possible.

#### (4) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

#### (5) State

The term "State" means each of the 50 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

#### (6) Systems change activities

The term "systems change activities" means efforts that result in laws, regulations, policies, practices, or organizational structures—

(A) that are family-centered and family-directed;

(B) that facilitate and increase access to, provision of, and funding for, family support services for families of children with disabilities; and

(C) that otherwise accomplish the purposes of this subchapter.

#### (b) Special rule

References in this subchapter to a child with a disability shall be considered to include references to an individual who is not younger than age 18 who—

(1) has a significant impairment described in subsection (a)(1)(A); and

(2) is residing with and receiving assistance from a family member.

(Pub. L. 106–402, title II, §203, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1729.)
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M150924B 

September 30, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM – BRIEFING ON 

STRATEGIC PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW OF THE NEW 

REACTORS BUSINESS LINE, 10:00 A.M., THURSDAY, 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015, COMMISSIONERS’ CONFERENCE 

ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 

(OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed by the NRC staff on strategic considerations associated with the 

New Reactor Business Line, including priorities, near- and longer-term projections and trends, 

emerging focus areas, and Project Aim recommendations. 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

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

 PDR
#### William J. Donahue, Respondent, v. Samuel Hecht, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court made by an Official Referee, granting a trial preference in pursuance of subdivision (d) of rule 8 of the Kings County Supreme Court Rules. Order reversed, without costs, and action ordered restored to its regular position on the General Calendar. The record does not indicate that this is a proper case for the granting of a preference under the stated rule. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 28, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 28, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22A0623. JASMINE A. RICHARDSON v. AVID ACCEPTANCE, LLC.
The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13. On December 09, 2021, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a brief no later than December 20, 2021. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ANSI Accredited Standards Committee “C8” (“C8 Committee”), by its Secretariat, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (“NEMA”), has filed written notification simultaneously with the                           ( print page 70282)                        Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities.  The notification were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: ANSI Accredited Standards Committee “C8”, Rosslyn, VA.  The nature and scope of the C8 Committee's standards development activities are: To develop and maintain American National Standards (“ANSI”) related to wire and cable products. 

Currently, C8 Committee maintains 38 standards relating to high performance wire, power cables, and communications cable and wire.  The standards developed by C8 Committee are published by NEMA.

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-26621  Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### Charles Hall, plaintiff in error, v. Timothy Vanier, defendant in error.

1. A Final Judgment is one that' disposes of the merits of the case.

2. -. Z. Y. commenced an action against H. and others, upon an award. Afterwards, upon it being made to appear to the court that Z. y. had assigned to T. y. his interest in the action, an order of substitution was made. T. y. then dismissed the action without prejudice, and commenced an action on the award in his own name. *Held,*that the order of substitution was not a final order or judgment, and not conclusive.

This was a re-hearing of the case reported in 6 Neb., 85.

*W. J. Cormell*and *John I.*Redick, for plaintiffs in error.

*E.*Wakeley, for defendant in error.

*398Maxwell, Ch. J.

This case was argued and submitted to the court last year, and an opinion filed, which is reported in 6 Neb., 85. Afterwards, upon an affidavit being filed that there was an agreement between the attorneys for the respective parties not to submit the case at the term at which it was submitted, and a decision rendered, a re-hearing was granted.

It appears from the record that Z. Vanier brought an action in the district court of Douglas county against the plaintiff in error, upon the award in question, and before the trial of the cause Timothy Vanier was substituted as plaintiff, who then dismissed the action without prejudice. The defendant in error afterwards brought an action on the award in his own name. The attorney for the defendant in error insists that the order substituting Timothy Vanier for Z. Vanier in the first action is a final judgment, and is conclusive upon the question of the assignment. A final judgment is one that disposes of the case, either by dismissing it before a hearing is had upon the merits, or after trial, by rendering judgment either in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. But no judgment or order which does not determine the rights of the parties in the cause, and preclude further inquiry as to their rights in the premises, is a final judgment. The order in question was not therefore a final determination, and is not conclusive.

The other questions presented on the argument of the case were fully considered in the former opinion. And after due consideration we see no reason for reversing our judgment in that case. The judgment heretofore rendered in this court, reversing the judgment of the court below, is therefore affirmed.

Judgment accordingly.
#### Michael Gusko, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Walter Hand et al., as Trustees of Composition Roofers Damp and Water Proof Workers Association, Local Union No. 8 Insurance Trust Fund, Appellants. Max M. Hirson et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ.
#### Cape Produce Company (Proprietary) Limited, Appellant, v. Holt, Renfrew *&*Co., Limited, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 28, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-17059

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A95-895-148

CLARA MARIA DE LOS ANGELES SEGURA SILVA, 

Petitioner, 

versus 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(August 28, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
 Silva also contends that the IJ erred in finding that she did not establish past 1

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. 

2

In this case, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Clara Maria Segura Silva,

a native and citizen of Columbia, S.A., removed from the United States to

Columbia, and the Board of Immigration (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Silva

thereafter moved the BIA to reconsider its decision. The BIA denied her motion. 

Silva now petitions this court to review the BIA’s denial of her motion to

reconsider. She contends that the BIA erred in denying her motion to reconsider

because it did not exercise independent judgment.1

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for an abuse of

discretion. Assa’ad v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 332 F.3d 1321, 1341 (11th Cir. 2003). 

“Judicial review of denials of discretionary relief incident to deportation

proceedings . . . is limited to determining ‘whether there has been an exercise of

administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or

capricious.’” See Garcia-Mir v. Smith, 766 F.2d 1478, 1490 (11th Cir. 1985)

(citation omitted) (addressing a motion to reopen). 

“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying

the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by

pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). In this case, the BIA did not abuse
3

its discretion in denying Silva’s motion to reconsider because Silva failed to

specify any errors of law or fact in the BIA’s decision and merely reiterated the

arguments she presented in appealing the IJ’s removal order. Accordingly, we

deny her petition.

PETITION DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Imtaz Ali, Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 668]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mc-Gann, J.), rendered July 12, 2005, convicting him of gang assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Grosso, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly declined to suppress the victim’s confirmatory identification of the defendant *(see People v Benjamin,*2 AD3d 740, 741 [2003]; *People v Thompson,*230 AD2d 926 [1996]). Under the circumstances, an independent source hearing was not warranted *(see People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], *cert denied*498 US 833 [1990]; *People v Garcia,*216 AD2d 412 [1995]).

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury the charge of gang assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.06) as a lesser-included offense of gang assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.07) is without merit. There was a reasonable view of the evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater *(see People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61, 64 [1982]; *523
      *People v Green,*56 NY2d 427, 430 [1982]; *cf. People v Palmer,*197 AD2d 712, 713 [1993]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #P078]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration for Public Assistance on November 15, 2004, the U.S. Small Business Administration is activating its disaster loan program only for private non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature. I find that New Castle County in the State of Delaware constitutes a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding from the remnants of Hurricane Jeanne occurring on September 28, 2004 and continuing through October 2, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on January 14, 2005 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.900Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.875
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is P07806. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59008). Dated: November 19, 2004. Allan I. Hoberman, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 04-26572 Filed 12-1-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### §13367. Coal exports

#### (a) Plan

Within 180 days after October 24, 1992, the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall submit to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a plan for expanding exports of coal mined in the United States.

#### (b) Plan contents

The plan submitted under subsection (a) shall include—

(1) a description of the location, size, and projected growth in potential export markets for coal mined in the United States;

(2) the identification by country of the foreign trade barriers to the export of coal mined in the United States, including foreign coal production and utilization subsidies, tax treatment, labor practices, tariffs, quotas, and other nontariff barriers;

(3) recommendations and a plan for addressing any such trade barriers;

(4) an evaluation of existing infrastructure in the United States and any new infrastructure requirements in the United States to support an expansion of exports of coal mined in the United States, including ports, vessels, rail lines, and any other supporting infrastructure; and

(5) an assessment of environmental implications of coal exports and the identification of export opportunities for blending coal mined in the United States with coal indigenous to other countries to enhance energy efficiency and environmental performance.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1338, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2986.)
Hon. Robert S. Calvert 

Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Mr. Calvert: 

Re: Applicability of Oil 

Production Tax on Tank 

Bottoms 

You have asked this office for an opinion on whether tank 

bottoms are taxable under the crude~oil production tax provided 

for by Chapter 4, Title 122-A, Taxation-General, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. 

This question has previously been answered 

General's Opinion O-1320 (1939) a copy of which 

by Attorney 

I am enclosing. 

Also, in State v. Stack, 199 S.W.2d 701 (Tex.Civ.App. 1947), 

the Court has reaffirmed the position that tank bottom oil charged 

back to the producer as part of his allowable is taxable under 

the statute. The Court in that opinion stated: 

"The manner in which the Railroad Commission fixes this allowance is certainly shown 

to be reasonable. Permits are required to 

clean tanks; the bottoms tested in the 

presence of Railroad Commission employees, 

and all merchantable or pipe line oil is 

charged back to the producer and only the 

remainder is moved and then only by permission of the Railroad Commission. 

precaution is taken to the end that al SF 

oil other than sediment is taxed." (Emphasis 

added) 

Therefore, in keeping with Attorney General!s Opinion O-1320 

and State v. Stack, supra, it is the opinion of this office that 

oil which is removed from tank bottoms and is chargeable back to 

the producer as part of his allowable, as provided by Rules and 

Regulations of the Railroad Commission, is taxable under Chapter 4, 

Title 122A, Taxation-General, Vernon's Civil Statutes. 

SUMMARY 

Tank bottom oil that is chargeable back to 

the lease as part of the producer's allowable 

-l- 
Mr. Robert S.Calvert, Page 2 (M-l) 

is taxable under the crude oil reduction 

tax as provided for by Chapter .f , Title 

122A, Taxation-General, Vernon's Civil 

Statutes. 

truly yours, 

tcms 

'2. MARTIN 

ney General of Texas 

Prepared by Linward Shivers 

A 

E 

;istant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman 

Bill Allen 

Marvin F. Sentell 

John Pettit 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT: 

A. J. Carubbi, Jr. 

-2-
#### Tully & Di Napoli, Inc., Appellant, v. Granite Quarries, Inc., Respondent.

—Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Breitel and Bastow, JJ.
#### Logan Cresap, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Horace S. Marshall, Deceased, Appellant, v. New York Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of Bidgive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.  December 16, 2009 /s/ Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard Chief Financial Officer
#### § 802.71 Acquisitions by gift, intestate succession or devise, or by irrevocable trust.

Acquisitions resulting from a gift, intestate succession, testamentary disposition or transfer by a settlor to an irrevocable trust shall be exempt from the requirements of the act.
#### Levine Bros., Inc., Appellant, v. Nathan Streitman, Respondent.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted on the authority of *Mutual Milk & Cream Co.*v. *Heldt*(120 App. Div. 795). Order to be settled on notice. Present—Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Page, JJ.