alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2286g. "Department of Energy defense nuclear facility" defined

As used in this subchapter, the term "Department of Energy defense nuclear facility" means any of the following:

(1) A production facility or utilization facility (as defined in section 2014 of this title) that is under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy and that is operated for national security purposes, but the term does not include—

(A) any facility or activity covered by Executive Order No. 12344, dated February 1, 1982, pertaining to the Naval nuclear propulsion program;

(B) any facility or activity involved with the transportation of nuclear explosives or nuclear material;

(C) any facility that does not conduct atomic energy defense activities; or

(D) any facility owned by the United States Enrichment Corporation.

(2) A nuclear waste storage facility under the control or jurisdiction of the Secretary of Energy, but the term does not include a facility developed pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §318, as added Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XIV, §1441(a)(1), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2083; amended Pub. L. 102–190, div. C, title XXXII, §3202(b)(1), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1582; renumbered title I and amended Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(7), (8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Executive Order No. 12344, referred to in par. (1)(A), is set out as a note under section 2511 of Title 50, War and National Defense.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, referred to in par. (2), is Pub. L. 97–425, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2201, which is classified generally to chapter 108 (§10101 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1992—Par. (1)(D). Pub. L. 102–486, §902(a)(7), added subpar. (D).

1991—Par. (1)(B). Pub. L. 102–190 struck out "with the assembly or testing of nuclear explosives or" after "involved".

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

#### References to United States Enrichment Corporation

References to the United States Enrichment Corporation deemed, as of the privatization date (July 28, 1998), to be references to the private corporation, see section 3116(e) of Pub. L. 104–134, set out as a note under former section 2297 of this title.
S A N I T I Z E D EPICLON HP - 4700 MEASUREMENT OF 1 - OCT ANOL/W

AT ER P ARTITION
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 98-11494 Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DEWAYNE WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas

(4:98-CR-10-1-A )

_________________________________________________________________

September 28, 1999

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Dewayne Wilson appeals his conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

First, he claims th at the court abused its discretion by

admitting into evidence, over his objection, the cocaine base

seized from his home. Because the Government made a p rima facie

showing of authenticity , the evidence was properly admitted,

leaving the jury to determine whether the cocaine base was the same2

as that seized from Wilson’s residence. S ee United States v.

Sparks , 2 F.3d 574, 582 (5th Cir. 1993).

Next, Wilson maintains that the court erred in overruling his

objection to certain of the Government’s comments during closing.

However, the Government was responding properly to defense

counsel’s interpretation of the evidence. S ee United States v
.

Parker

, 877 F.2d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Morris

,

568 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 1978).

Finally, Wilson asserts that the court abused its discretion

in denying his downward departure motion, claiming that the

guidelines do not adequately account for his harsh upbringing. He

also contends that he is entitled to the departure because the

guideline range for cocaine base is unconstitutional when compared

to that for cocaine powder. The district considered the merits of

Wilson’s motion and denied it. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to

review that denial. E.g., United States v. Palmer , 122 F.3d 215,

222 (5th Cir. 1997). As for the constitutionality of the

guidelines’ treatment of crack and powder cocaine, as Wilson

concedes, it has been consistently upheld. E .g., United States v.

Buchanan , 70 F.3d 818, 828-29 nn.9-10 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED
§ 232.301 EDGAR Filer Manual. Filers must prepare electronic filings in the manner prescribed by the EDGAR Filer Manual, promulgated by the Commission, which sets forth the technical formatting requirements for electronic submissions. The requirements for becoming an EDGAR Filer and updating company data are set forth in the EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume I: “General Information,” Version 41 (December 2022). The requirements for filing on EDGAR are set forth in the updated EDGAR Filer Manual, Volume II: “EDGAR Filing,” Version 70 (July 2024). All of these provisions have been incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, which action was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You must comply with these requirements in order for documents to be timely received and accepted. The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for inspection at the Commission and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The EDGAR Filer Manual is available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Operating conditions may limit access to the Commission's Public Reference Room. For information on the availability of the EDGAR Filer Manual at NARA, visit *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html* or email *fr.inspection@nara.gov .* The EDGAR Filer Manual may also be obtained from *https://www.sec.gov/edgar/filerinformation/current-edgar-filer-manual .* [89 FR 65180, Aug. 9, 2024]
#### Howard Streeter, Respondent, v. Eugene N. Foss, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except John M. Kellogg, P. J., dissenting.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.19d-2 Applications for stays of disciplinary sanctions or summary suspensions by a self-regulatory organization. If any self-regulatory organization imposes any final disciplinary sanction as to which a notice is required to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(d)(1) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1), pursuant to Section 6(b)(6), 15A(b)(7) or 17A(b)(3)(G) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6), 78 o -3(b)(7) or 78q-1(b)(3)(G)), or summarily suspends or limits or prohibits access pursuant to Section 6(d)(3), 15A(h)(3) or 17A(b)(5)(C) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78f(d)(3), 78 o -3(h)(3) or 78q-1(b)(5)(C)), any person aggrieved thereby for which the Commission is the appropriate regulatory agency may file with the Commission a written motion for a stay of imposition of such action pursuant to Rule 401 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, § 201.401 of this chapter. [60 FR 32825, June 23, 1995]
Converted by EDGARwiz






















December 30, 2005







U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Division of Corporate Finance

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549




Re: Form 20-F Registration Statement for Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp.




Dear Sirs:

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use of our independent auditors’ report dated July 1, 2003, except for 2003 information in Note 11 which is as of November 30, 2005, on the audit of the statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year ended April 30, 2003 of Crosshair Mining & Exploration Corp. (formerly International Lima Resources Corp.), which report appears in the Form 20-F, and we consent to the reference to us under the heading “Experts” in such Form 20-F.




DALE MATHESON CARR-HILTON LABONTE

Chartered Accountants




Vancouver, BC
#### Joseph W. Roberts et al., Respondents, v. Murnie Fulmer et al., Appellants.

Memorandum: On the record before us, we feel that specific performance must be denied. The evidence in our opinion discloses that the oral agreement between the parties created the relationship of tenant and owner rather than that of seller and purchaser. Where specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real property is sought, the acts of the parties must be 11 unequivocal in their character and must have reference to the carrying out of the agreement. An act which admits of explanation without reference to the alleged oral contract * * * is not, in general, admitted to constitute a part performance ”. *(Wooley*v. *Stewart,*222 N. Y. 347, 351; see, also, *Burns*v. *McCormick,*233 N. Y. 230; *Neverman*v. *Neverman,*254 N. Y. 496.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an action to compel defendants to specifically perform an oral contract for the sale of a farm and dairy to plaintiffs.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.7a-37 Inspection of applications, statements and reports.

All applications, statements and reports are available for public inspection during business hours at the principal office of the Commission.

[16 FR 8737, Aug. 29, 1951]
# ····018810 TRAVEL SERVICE(CANADA) Inc.

# •

OM,';;; The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary LaHood: OnbehalfofNissin Travel Service (Canada), Inc. , I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDelta Air Lines for newnonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for ourregion, where many corporations have strong trade and marketpresence with Japan. There are over 500 Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose business models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth ofour business ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacityto Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can support trans-pacific routes. This summer Deltais adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTWto make it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit ourbusiness travelers. Thank you for consideration ofthis request.

. ',: .

5598 McADAM ROAD. MfSSISSAUGA, ONTARIO L4Z 1P1 • PH: (905) 361-0755 • FAX: (905)**361-~759** • (800) 563-2735
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### §§ 240.3b-9-240.3b-10 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Oscar Cuebas, Also Known as Oscar Cuevas, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court of Kings County, convicting him of conspiracy to operate a lottery, and sentencing him to serve an indeterminate term in the penitentiary. Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2013-0666; Dir ID 2013-NM-060-AD
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.                  

###### Civil Rights Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a conference call of the State Advisory Committee Chairpersons in the Western Region (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Washington) will convene at 1 p.m. (PST) and adjourn at 2 p.m., Friday, December 10, 2004. The purpose of the conference call is to discuss regional civil rights issues and update information. This conference call is available to the public through the following call-in number: 1-800-473-7795, access code number 31697230. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated using the provided call-in number or over wireless lines and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and access code. 

To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting Thomas Pilla of the Western Regional Office, (213) 894-3437, by 3 p.m. on Thursday, December 9, 2004. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington DC, November 23, 2004. 

Aonghas St. Hiliare, 

Acting Chief Managing Officer. 

[FR Doc. 04-26765 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-004 January 30, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO MEET WITH NFS OFFICIALS FEBRUARY 5

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting on February 5 in

Erwin, Tennessee, to hear officials of Nuclear Fuel Services discuss the company’s performance since

it last met with the NRC in October. The company is also expected to discuss the results of its efforts

to improve both safety and regulatory compliance at its facility. 

The Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Preparation Facility planned for the NFS site

will not be discussed since the NRC has received a formal request for a hearing on that project.

The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. at the NFS Training Center in Erwin on Jackson Love

Highway near Exit 15 on Interstate 181. Members of the public are invited to observe the meeting and

will have an opportunity to ask questions of the NRC staff before the meeting is over. 

###
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Roseboro, Also Known as Anndy, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 221]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered October 12, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of assault in the first degree, rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

*1289It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of one count each of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), rape in the first degree (§ 130.35 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]) and two counts of sodomy in the first degree (former § 130.50 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission in evidence of the testimony of a police officer confirming the victim’s identification of defendant at the hospital *(,see*CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. The officer testified that defendant was brought to the hospital for a showup identification procedure and that, when the victim saw defendant, she identified him without being asked any questions. That identification by the victim was admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, i.e., it was “made under the stress of excitement caused by an external event, and not the product of studied reflection and possible fabrication” *(People v Johnson,*1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]). Contrary to defendant’s further contentions, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction of sodomy (see *generally People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 (TCS TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS LOGO) Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) I, Maurice B. Tosé, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Amendment to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Maurice B. ToséMaurice B. ToséDate:
April 11, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### § 210.12-13B Open forward foreign currency contracts.

[For management investment companies only]

| Col. A | Col. B | Col. C | Col. D | Col. E |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Amount and description of currency to be purchased1 | Amount and description of currency to be sold1 | Counterparty | Settlement date | Unrealized appreciation/ depreciation.2 3 4 |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Forward foreign currency contracts where description of currency purchased, description of currency sold, counterparty, or settlement dates differ shall be listed separately. | | | | |
| 2 Indicate by an appropriate symbol each investment which cannot be sold because of restrictions or conditions applicable to the investment. | | | | |
| 3 Indicate by an appropriate symbol each investment whose value was determined using significant unobservable inputs. | | | | |
| 4 Column E shall be totaled and shall agree with the total of correlative amount(s) shown on the related balance sheet. | | | | |

[[81 FR 82017](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-82017), Nov. 18, 2016]
TIME 11:22 EDT

DATE 4/13/2015

RECORD OF CONVERSATION

NAME(S) OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONFERENCE AND LOCATION

Lacy Charvet, Vice President, Southern Seaplane Inc.

SUBJECT

Request for exemption: Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015- 2673

DIGEST

Lacy Charvet was contacted to obtain additional background information related to her petition for 

exemption. Ms. Charvet was asked which aircraft would be used in Southern Seaplane Inc.’s part 

141 training program. The aircraft that would be operated by Southern Seaplane, for the purposes of 

this exemption, would be its Cessna CE 185, CE-206, and CE-210.

An additional question was asked regarding Southern Seaplane’s capability of using a hard surface 

runway. Southern Seaplane can conduct operations using its private asphalt runway measuring 

3200 x 40 feet which is used by its amphibious aircraft for take-offs.

CONCLUSION, ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED

The information obtained was relevant to the petition for exemption and will be considered.

Jabari Raphael, Aviation Safety Analyst, Airmen Certification and Training Branch, AFS-810
(August 29, 2006)

#### Edlyn Alexander, Respondent, v Dave Alexander, Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 834]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sunshine, J.), dated September 26, 2005, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CFLR 306-b, and denied his cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CFLR 306-b is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff failed to serve the defendant in accordance with CFLR 306-b. Under the circumstances of this case, including the plaintiffs failure to proceed at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, and the plaintiffs lack of diligence throughout the proceeding, it was an improvident exercise of the Supreme Court’s discretion to, in effect, grant that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CFLR 306-b *(see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95 [2001]; *Baione v Central Suffolk Hosp.,*14 AD3d 635 [2005]; *Winter v Irizarry,*300 AD2d 472 [2002]; *Matter of DeSilva v Town of Brookhaven,*299 AD2d 409 [2002]). Accordingly, the defendant’s *525cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; *Colon v Bailey,*26 AD3d 454 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
§ 232.100 Persons and entities subject to mandated electronic filing. The following persons or entities shall be subject to the electronic filing requirements of this part 232: ( a ) Registrants and other entities whose filings are subject to review by the Division of Corporation Finance;
( b ) Persons or entities whose filings are subject to review by the Division of Investment Management;
( c ) Persons or entities whose filings are subject to review by the Division of Market Regulation; and
( d ) Any party (including natural persons) that files a document jointly with, or as a third party filer with respect to, a person or entity that is subject to mandated electronic filing requirements.
[62 FR 36456, July 8, 1997, as amended at 67 FR 36699, May 24, 2002; 72 FR 14417, Mar. 28, 2007; 73 FR 10616, Feb. 27, 2008; 87 FR 38964, June 30, 2022]