alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 300.500 General.

These rules will be applied in determining whether a securities transaction gives rise to a “claim for cash” or a “claim for securities” on the filing date of either a liquidation proceeding pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) or a direct payment procedure pursuant to section 10 of the Act.
### §1973ff–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973ff–3 was editorially reclassified as section 20306 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

══════════

No. 17-0724

══════════

REY GARZA, PETITIONER,

v.

ROXANA REGALADO HARRISON AND JOSEPH SANTELLANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JONATHEN ANTHONY SANTELLANA, DECEASED,

RESPONDENTS

══════════════════════════════════════════

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

══════════════════════════════════════════

JUSTICE BOYD, joined by JUSTICE LEHRMANN, concurring.

I agree with the Court’s analysis and join its opinion and judgment. I write separately only 

to emphasize that the Court does not decide or address whether this action “could have been 

brought” against the City of Navasota. Section 101.106(f) requires dismissal if this suit is “[1] filed 

against an employee of a governmental unit [2] based on conduct within the general scope of that 

employee’s employment and if [3] it could have been brought under this chapter against the 

governmental unit.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.106(f). The first requirement is 

indisputably satisfied on this record. The Court correctly holds that the facts satisfy the second 

requirement as well, but it does not address the third requirement because—as the Court notes—

the plaintiffs do not dispute that they could have brought this wrongful-death suit against Garza’s 

employer, the City of Navasota. Ante at ___. Because the plaintiffs do not challenge the third 
2

requirement, we do not address that issue and instead hold only that the suit is based on Garza’s 

conduct within the general scope of his employment as a police officer.

_____________________

Jeffrey S. Boyd

Justice

Opinion delivered: May 24, 2019
§ 48.3 Registration required. ( a ) Except as specified in this part, it shall be unlawful for a foreign board of trade to permit direct access to its electronic trading and order matching system unless and until the Commission has issued a valid and current Order of Registration to the foreign board of trade pursuant to the provisions of this part.
( b ) It shall be unlawful for a foreign board of trade or the clearing organization to make false or misleading statements in or in connection with any application for registration under this part.
§ 1422.9 Conduct of hearing. ( a ) Hearings shall be conducted by a Hearing Officer and shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Hearing Officer. At any time another Hearing Officer may be substituted for the Hearing Officer previously presiding. It shall be the duty of the Hearing Officer to inquire fully into all matters in issue and the Hearing Officer shall obtain a full and complete record upon which the Board can make an appropriate decision. An official reporter shall make the only official transcript of such proceedings. Copies of the official transcript may be examined in the appropriate regional office during normal working hours. Requests by parties for copies of transcripts should be made to the official hearing reporter.
( b ) Hearings under this section are considered investigatory and not adversary. Their purpose is to develop a full and complete factual record. The rules of relevancy and materiality are paramount; there are no burdens of proof and the technical rules of evidence do not apply.
#### DANIEL B. SCHULER *et al.,*Plaintiffs-Appellees, *v.*ALFRED O. JACOB, Adm’r of the Estate of Anthony Montoya, Deceased, *et al.,*Defendants.—(MICHAEL J. PORTH, Plaintiff-Appellant.)

Third District

No. 75-162

Opinion filed June 30, 1976.

Edward Zukosky, of Wenona, for appellant.

Peter Ferracuti, of Ottawa, for appellees.

Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL

delivered the opinion of the court:

Daniel B. Schuler, his wife Evelyn Schuler, and appellant Michael B. Forth were injured in a multiple-car accident near Streator, Illinois. The insurance company which provided coverage for the deceased driver of one of the vehicles admitted liability and filed an interpleader action. Coverage for personal injuries was limited to *15,000 per person and *30,000 per occurrence.

After hearing evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court awarded judgments for personal injuries against the administrator of the estate of the decedent in the following amounts: Daniel Schuler— *500,000; Michael Forth — *100,000; Evelyn Schuler — *100,000. The insurance proceeds were then distributed as follows: Daniel Schuler— *15,000; Michael Forth — *7,500; Evelyn Schuler — *7,500.

Forth appeals from the distribution order, claiming that his injuries were more extensive than Evelyn Schuler’s, that his medical expenses were greater than her expenses, and, therefore, that the court erred in its distribution of the insurance proceeds.

The record on appeal includes *inter alia*the pleadings, medical reports *775and bills, and answers to interrogatories, but does not include a transcript of the proceedings in the Circuit Court of La Salle County at which time the court received evidence and heard arguments.

In a similar case, the Illinois Supreme Court in *Skaggs v. Junis*(1963), 28 Ill. 2d 199, 201-02, 190 N.E.2d 731, stated:

> “In such a situation, unless there is a contrary indication in the order or in the record, it is presumed that the court heard adequate evidence to support the decision that was rendered ° ° °. Where it is alleged that the evidence presented was actually insufficient to support the court’s finding, the burden of preserving said evidence rests with the party who appeals from said order. No record of the evidence heard on May 23 and 24 regarding the ° # ” claim is before this court and, therefore, *it must be assumed that the evidence that was heard fully supported the court’s finding 9 9 9■”*(Emphasis added.)

See also *Egebergh v. Schumann*(1st Dist. 1974), 20 Ill. App. 3d 356,314 N.E.2d 337 (abstract opinion).

The same rule must govern the case at bar. Accordingly, we conclude that the order of the trial court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ALLOY, P. J., and STOUDER, J., concur.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 376]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5113]]

Public Law 115-376
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
501 South Kirkman Road in Orlando, Florida, as the ``Napoleon `Nap' Ford 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 6591]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NAPOLEON ``NAP'' FORD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 501 South Kirkman Road in Orlando, Florida, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Napoleon `Nap' Ford Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Napoleon 
`Nap' Ford Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6591:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 28, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 1103.102 Application.

This part applies to all programs or activities conducted by the agency.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# License Amendment Request 16-03 - Revise Current Licensing Basis to Adopt a Methodology for the Analysis of Seismic Category I  Structures with Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction.

Accession Number: ML16216A250

Date Released: Friday, August 12, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16216A240 - Seabrook, License Amendment Request 16-03 - Revise Current Licensing Basis to Adopt a Methodology for the Analysis of Seismic Category I  Structures with Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction. Attachment 1 Markup of UFSAR Pages Enclosed. (73 page(s), 8/1/2016)
    - ML16216A241 - MPR-4288, Revision 0, "Seabrook Station: Impact of Alkali-Silica Reaction on Structural Design Evaluations," July 2016. (39 page(s), 7/31/2016)
    - ML16216A242 - MPR-4273, Revision 0, "Seabrook Station - Implications of Large-Scale Test Program Results on Reinforced Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction," July 2016. (79 page(s), 7/31/2016)
    - ML16216A243 - SG&H Report 160268-R-01 Development of ASR Load Factors for Seismic Category I Structures (Including Containment) at Seabrook Station. Seabrook, NH Revision 0. (38 page(s), 7/27/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10199

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RACKSTRAW,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-149-1

Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Robert Christopher 

Rackstraw has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rackstraw has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10199 Document: 00512871288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
No. 14-10199

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-10199 Document: 00512871288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
#### § 1306.7 Designation.

The Chief Financial Officer is delegated authority and designated to perform all the duties for which head of the agency is responsible under the forgoing statutes and joint regulations. The authority delegated hereunder may be further delegated by the Chief Financial Officer subject to applicable laws, regulations and MCC policies.
JUDGE SAYS COASTAL PETE
                           ENTITLED TO DRILLING PERMIT


         APALACHICOLA,  FL,  April 8, 1998 - Coastal  Petroleum  Company  said a
Florida  administrative law judge today recommended that the Company is entitled
to an  offshore  drilling  permit for its St.  George's  Island  prospect in the
Panhandle region.

         Coastal,  which has an 800,000-acre  offshore  leasehold along the Gulf
Coast,  has been seeking a permit to drill the highly  regarded  prospect  since
1992.

         The  Company  said Judge Mary Clark also  recommended  that a surety of
$225 million would be adequate,  as opposed to the $4.25 billion demanded by the
State.

         Phillip W. Ware,  Coastal's  president,  said  Florida's  Department of
Environmental Protection and its Administration Commission (the Governor and the
Cabinet) now have 45 days to act on Judge Clark's recommendations. He also noted
that her findings of fact must be accepted  unless the state  agencies can show,
from the record, that there was no evidence to support those findings.

         Ware further noted that Coastal is pleased with the decision.

         Coastal  Petroleum  Company  is  a  majority-held subsidiary of Coastal
Caribbean Oils & Minerals, Ltd. (Boston:  CCO-B; CCO-BN).


                   Contact: Phillip W. Ware, at (850) 653-2732
### §211b. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–412, title V, §501(f), Sept. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1258

Section, act Feb. 28, 1948, ch. 83, §6(b)–(f), 62 Stat. 45, dealt with promotion of Public Health Service officers.

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

#### Savings Provision

Repeal not to affect any action taken or proceeding pending at the time of repeal, see section 501(h) of Pub. L. 94–412, set out as a note under section 1601 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
§ 50.10 Prevention of evasion of the clearing requirement and abuse of an exception or exemption to the clearing requirement. ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or recklessly evade or participate in or facilitate an evasion of the requirements of section 2(h) of the Act or any Commission rule or regulation promulgated thereunder.
( b ) It shall be unlawful for any person to abuse the exception to the clearing requirement as provided under section 2(h)(7) of the Act or an exception or exemption under this chapter.
( c ) It shall be unlawful for any person to abuse any exemption or exception to the requirements of section 2(h) of the Act, including any exemption or exception as the Commission may provide by rule, regulation, or order.
No: II-14-020 April 14, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules Meetings to Discuss Vogtle Nuclear Plant 

Performance and Construction Inspection for New Units

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have scheduled an open house for April 24 to provide 

information on the agency’s assessment of the two operating units at the Vogtle nuclear plant during 

2013. The NRC will also provide a presentation on the agency’s inspection of construction activities for 

the two new Vogtle units.

The informal open house is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in the auditorium of the Augusta 

Technical College’s Waynesboro Campus, located at 216 Ga. Highway 24 S, in Waynesboro, Ga. The 

NRC staff will be available to answer questions about the safety performance of Vogtle Units 1 and 2, 

as well as overall NRC oversight and inspection. A separate presentation on inspection and oversight of 

Units 3 and 4, now under construction, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the same auditorium and will 

be followed by a question and answer session. 

The Vogtle plant is located near Waynesboro, about 26 miles southeast of Augusta. It is 

operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Co.

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that Vogtle Units 1 and 2 operated safely in 2013, and there 

were no inspection findings or performance indicators that would cause the NRC to increase its level of 

oversight and inspection. Based on the plant’s performance, the NRC staff plans to continue the 

detailed routine or baseline inspections all nuclear power plants receive.

“Our resident and region-based inspectors spend many hours monitoring plant activities to 

ensure that the plant operates safely,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We hold 

these meetings every year to make our staff available to people who live close to the plant and answer 

questions about our oversight.”

Routine inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

inspection specialists from the Region II office in Atlanta.

The NRC performance review of Vogtle site construction found that, overall, Southern Nuclear 

Operating Co. and its contractors conducted construction activities in compliance with NRC regulations 

and the conditions of the plant’s combined license. Based on that assessment, the NRC will not expand 

its activities beyond the detailed inspections currently being planned and conducted. 

The annual assessment letter for the Vogtle units, current performance information for Unit 1

and Unit 2, and the annual construction assessment letter for the new Vogtle units are available on the 

NRC website.
#### § 134.30 Payment of award.

An applicant seeking payment of an award shall submit to the Comptroller or other disbursing official of the Department of State a copy of the final decision granting the award accompanied by a statement that the applicant will not seek review of the decision in the United States courts. Requests for payment should be sent to: Executive Director, Office of the Comptroller, Room 1328, Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20520. The Department of State will pay the amount awarded to the applicant within 60 days, unless judicial review of the award or of the underlying decision of the adversary adjudication has been sought by the applicant or any other party to the proceeding.
SNEntergy

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Palisades Nuclear Plant

27780 Blue Star Memorial Highway

Covert, MI 49043-9530

Tel 269 764 2000

Anthony J. Vitale

Site Vice President

PNP 2015-018

March 11,2015

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ATTN: Document Control Desk

11555 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852

SUBJECT: Required Response 2 for Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1:

Flooding - Hazard Re-Evaluation Report

Palisades Nuclear Plant

Docket 50-255

License No. DPR-20

REFERENCES: 1. NRC letter, Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding

Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force

Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated

March 12, 2012 (Adams Accession No. ML12056A046).

2. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter, PNP 2012-049, Response

to NRC Request for Information (RFI) Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f)

Regarding the Flooding Aspects of Recommendations 2.1 and 2.3

of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the

Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident, dated June 8, 2012 (ADAMS

Accession No. ML12163A533).

Dear Sir or Madam:

On March 12, 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a 50.54(f) letter

to all power reactor licensees and holders of construction permits in active or deferred

status. Enclosure 2 of Reference 1 contains specific requested actions, requested

information, and required responses associated with Recommendation 2.1: Flooding.

Pursuant to Required Response 2 of Enclosure 2 in Reference 1, Entergy Nuclear

Operations, Inc. (ENO) is providing the Palisades Nuclear Plant Flooding Hazard

Re-Evaluation Report in the attachment. No interim action plan is included as

discussed in Required Response 2 because there were no evaluations or actions

required to address any higher flooding hazards relative to the design basis.
PNP 2015-018

Page 2 of 2

Summary of Commitments

This letter contains no new or revised commitments. This letter completes the following

commitment made in Reference 2:

0 Submit flood hazard evaluation to the NRC by March 12, 2015.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

March 11,2015.

Sincerely,

ajv/jse

Attachment: Palisades Nuclear Plant Flooding Hazard Re-Evaluation Report

cc: Director of Office of Nuclear Regulation

Administrator, Region III, USNRC

Project Manager, Palisades, USNRC

Resident Inspector, Palisades, USNRC
Attachment to

PNP 2015-018

Palisades Nuclear Plant

Flooding Hazard Re-Evaluation Report

143 pages follow
[File No. Cr. 158.]

#### STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Appellant, v. CHARLES HAWLEY, Respondent.

(279 N. W. 255.)

Opinion filed April 14, 1938.

*Alvin G. Slrutz,*Attorney General, and *James M. Hanley, Jr.,*State’s Attorney, for appellant.

*G. F. Kelsch,*for respondent.

Christianson, Ch. J.

This case was argued and submitted at the .same time as State v. Young, ante, 300, 279 N. W. 251. Precisely the same questions aré involved in this case as were .involved there. ,.The *310records in the two cases are identical. On the authority of the decision in State v. Young the order appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings conformable to law.

Burr, Nuessle and Morris, J'J., and Grimson, Dist. J., concur.

Sature, J., being disqualified, did not participate, Hon. G. Grim-son, Judge of Second Judicial District, sitting in his stead.
#### JOHNSON & JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, and Nikko Materials USA, Inc. (doing business as Gould Electronics, Inc.), Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v. R.E. SERVICE CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2006-1252, 2006-1253, 2006-1545, 2006-1546.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 8, 2007.

ORDER

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
#### § 38.711 Warning letters.

Where a rule violation is found to have occurred, no more than one warning letter may be issued per rolling 12-month period for the same violation.
§ 50.1 Definitions. For the purposes of this part, *Business day* means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
*Day of execution* means the calendar day of the party to the swap that ends latest, provided that if a swap is: ( 1 ) Entered into after 4:00 p.m. in the location of a party; or
( 2 ) Entered into on a day that is not a business day in the location of a party, then such swap shall be deemed to have been entered into by that party on the immediately succeeding business day of that party, and the day of execution shall be determined with reference to such business day.