alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6939

JOSHUA BERNARD JOHNS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NANCY MATTHEW; M. LOVE; MR. TREND; SERGEANT TUCKER; SERGEANT BARNETT; CAPTAIN HILL; E. B. WALKER; MAJOR VAUGHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-342-AM) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 26, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joshua Bernard Johns, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joshua Bernard Johns appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Johns v. Matthew , No. CA-02-342-AM (E.D. Va. May 30, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 140.71 Scope.

This subpart applies only to applicants for and holders of licenses issued for the conduct of educational activities to persons found by the Commission to be nonprofit educational institutions, except that this subpart does not apply to Federal agencies.

Note:

Financial protection is not required with respect to licenses issued for the conduct of educational activities to persons found by the Commission to be non-profit educational institutions.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31590]



[[Page 78777]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards; Renewal

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards was established 
by Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended. Its 
purpose is to provide advice to the Commission with regard to the 
hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities, to review each 
application for a construction permit or operating license for certain 
facilities specified in the AEA, and such other duties as the 
Commission may request. The AEA as amended by PL 100-456 also specifies 
that the Defense Nuclear Safety Board may obtain the advice and 
recommendations of the ACRS.
    Membership on the Committee includes individuals experienced in 
reactor operations, management; probabilistic risk assessment; analysis 
of reactor accident phenomena; design of nuclear power plant 
structures, systems and components; materials science; and mechanical, 
civil, and electrical engineering.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that renewal of 
the charter for the ACRS until December 10, 2012 is in the public 
interest in connection with the statutory responsibilities assigned to 
the ACRS. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew L. Bates, Office of the 
Secretary, NRC, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: (301) 415-1963 or at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4e5e8e6e4eaf6e78ae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="72333e30323c20315c353d24">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: December 10, 2010.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-31590 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40186 c/w Nos. 03-40187 & 03-40496 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NOE MENDOZA-BARCENAS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-02-CR-611-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Noe Mendoza-Barcenas appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation and the revocation of his supervised release and probation. He asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to him. He also argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is anNos. 03-40186 c/w 03-40496 & 03-40187 -2- element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in the indictment. Because a challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) is not jurisdictional, Mendoza-Barcenas may not present these claims in an appeal following the revocation of supervised release. See United States v. Longoria , 298 F.3d 367, 372 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) ; United States v. Moody , 277 F.3d 719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Teran , 98 F.3d 831, 833 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996). Regardless, Mendoza-Barcenas acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489- 90, 496. This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32





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 Quarterly Report of Universal Detection Technology (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jacques Tizabi, Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.





Dated: November 17, 2010
/s/ Jacques TizabiJacques Tizabi

Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer
JX i71i ic riji C r 0 i 7716 Vi'1i

JT; r r 1? i - '5 cr ? ,4(4 &r't4q

b,v,si]

NOWARD .

PE1 r, i!flLj rc

C,&cf ,v: L

P YA't$ ,M)aAto4c?W

O,ii?-,.iTS.

,V)ricc c/,qg- OF

C o,'sc ,'yow riç ?ET,r/O,v //OW4D

?, e 4,ir 7Z OE,4' g,tc C?'A C-.fC*Z

,' ' r2E ,, 1,f,4- iES 7FjI.S

r,cC

IS 4r ve-' re /sif/ 1< F ' A

P4ir?J 'criv'y

How,4I2 c. T6, 'V7'c?3j ,4(-%c-L

W4sw'vro,t C R' 77eJ4v... r'sri, rJ

S/I's' T(.S'C PgiV

N/tCy ,eg,P q 32L/'

8tv_4y -4,lu1C/)

-

7i

-

. rooL 1 qi7

-

ThPPc 5E

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 28 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 3
EiTi f/C4rg 5cgvi1 I-4 0w4 gp & TQOLr 1 DO HEi?e8v

1- IFY rth4T A TKI 'fND gcr //A''iO

w/17-rEN eapy O' T' NoT1C

O,Z' CH4A6& Oi /9.4.5 iCC' i-iJ4'vb PEc; i/e,rEP , tJ. $ - N ,4/ 10

4". ?rs C4,y ,? 4S

ONThis Th'E___ OF________

P (j/i r (OJ<T

(IN,rO J7c5 J7J.5r'?(r cd,144r

,Po.^r /1'.E J3X 7/I

/. oNrc,4\ iev3 4j1',444 /o/-O7iI

S. &iS (B4So')

OFF,CE O1 YW

4Az,qM,f 5747r flQi, ii SQvrH LI1V/'#v'

M ONT £i>.' Ae q 3 / 3 0/52

C O ,lveN4, :o cv 7,'i -,'i,1r

A'DW4RD j - iZp

Wilosi Ca1 ,T,'4L x-r.

£rnss- S4/1 /'iircHe

e/1 ,p- ', Fø)9 3t-1l

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 28 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 2 of 3
PROVIDED TO

WASHINGTON CI ON

JA 28 2008

FOR MAILINj7

/IOW4 g L2 lo ,V7(QP3, ,ii-iü5-L

W4.SN,/"4-rd,J 'Q1ë'tCii4.44. $r,rwr,3,J

L/q5— 54 /4,7HC.L 7;VE

H1i°L5y ,Cô ,, P 32

Y.1.

4i$9/2OQ8

C MaJ Ci

Us U5TAGE

OFf1 or CL/< or ig

UA//flD $4rE1 DiS7/C1 CL1IT

o5T ø-'- ôox -,,,

, oNr4 o,dtEgy1 A4-4/4 3(Joi -7i,

Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 28 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 3 of 3
## J(i lin 

### I

Mailing:

The News Journal PO Box 15505 Wilmington, DE 19850 Sunday News Journal Streel The News Journal

The News Journal 950 W. Basin Road New Castle, DE 19720 (302) 324-2500 

# The News Journal

AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION

STATE OF DEL A WARE COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE

was published in THE NEWS JOURNAL on 

### N/A and/or THE SUNDAY NEWS JOURNAL on November 

### 22, 2009 

# 31 Legal Coordinator 

## =0 Title

# ~j7/1M

Sworn to before me this 

## n rd day of November, 

### 2009

# ·lA~**lk~~ -N"'o~ta-rY""'-""P""'U=bl=ic'='="'--1J**  " Wanda 

### James;'.\ii! Notary Public 

### '1 State of Delaware

-­ Commission expires 11/02/2012
§ 1016.18 Access to Restricted Data. ( a ) Except as DOE may authorize, no person subject to the regulations in this part shall permit any individual to have access to Restricted Data in his possession unless the individual has an appropriate access authorization granted by DOE, or has been certified by DOD or NASA through DOE; and ( 1 ) The individual is authorized by an Access Permit to receive Restricted Data in the categories involved and the permittee determines that such access is required in the course of his duties; or
( 2 ) The individual needs such access in connection with such duties as a DOE employee or DOE contractor employee, or as certified by DOD or NASA.
( b ) Inquiries concerning the access authorization status of individuals, the scope of Access Permits, or the nature of contracts should be addressed to the cognizant DOE or NNSA office.
[82 FR 41507, Sept. 1,2017]
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 8 of 8
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 1 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 2 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 3 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 4 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 5 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 6 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 7 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 8 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 9 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 10 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 11 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 12 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 13 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 14 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 15 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 16 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 17 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 18 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 19 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 20 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 21 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 22 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 23 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 24 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 25 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 26 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 27 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 28 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 29 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 30 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 31 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00714-MHT-WC Document 26-2 Filed 02/16/2007 Page 32 of 32
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 40 Filed 03/28/2008 Page 9 of 9
#### § 140.84 Criterion I—Substantial discharge of radioactive material or substantial radiation levels offsite.

The Commission will determine that there has been a substantial discharge or dispersal of radioactive material offsite, or that there have been substantial levels of radiation offsite, when, as a result of an event comprised of one or more related happenings, radioactive material is released from its intended place of confinement or radiation levels occur offsite and either of the following findings are also made:

(a) The Commission finds that one or more persons offsite were, could have been, or might be exposed to radiation or to radioactive material, resulting in a dose or in a projected dose in excess of one of the levels in the following table:

Total Projected Radiation Doses

| Critical organ | Dose (rems) |
| --- | --- |
| Thyroid | 30 |
| Whole body | 20 |
| Bone marrow | 20 |
| Skin | 60 |
| Other organs or tissues | 30 |

Exposures from the following types of sources of radiation shall be included:

(1) Radiation from sources external to the body;

(2) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from its occurrence in air or water; and

(3) Radioactive material that may be taken into the body from its occurrence in food or on terrestrial surfaces.

(b) The Commission finds that:

(1) Surface contamination of at least a total of any 100 square meters of offsite property has occurred as the result of a release of radioactive material from a production or utilization facility and such contamination is characterized by levels of radiation in excess of one of the values listed in Column 1 or Column 2 of the following table, or

(2) Surface contamination of any offsite property has occurred as the result of a release of radioactive material in the course of transportation and such contamination is characterized by levels of radiation in excess of one of the values listed in column 2 of the following table:

Total Surface Contamination Levels1

| Type of emitter | Column 1 Offsite property, contiguous to site, owned or leased by person with whom an indemnity agreement is executed | Column 2 Other offsite property |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Alpha emission from transuranic isotopes | 3.5 microcuries per square meter | 0.35 microcuries per square meter. |
| Alpha emission from isotopes other than transuranic isotopes | 35 microcuries per square meter | 3.5 microcuries per square meter. |
| Beta or gamma mission | 40 millirads/hour @ 1 cm.2 | 4 millirads/hour @ 1 cm.2 |
| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 The maximum levels (above background), observed or projected, 8 or more hours after initial deposition. | | |
| 2 Measured through not more than 7 milligrams per square centimeter of total absorber. | | |

[[33 FR 15999](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/33-FR-15999), Oct. 31, 1968, as amended at [40 FR 8794](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/40-FR-8794), Mar. 3, 1975]
§ 14.41 Payment of approved claims. ( a ) The NRC shall pay any award, compromise, or settlement in an amount of $2,500 or less made under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2672 out of the appropriations available to it. The NRC shall obtain payment of any award, compromise, or settlement in excess of $2,500 from the Department of the Treasury by forwarding Standard Form 1145 to the Payment Branch, Claims Group, General Accounting Office. If an award, compromise, or settlement is in excess of $25,000, Standard Form 1145 must be accompanied by evidence that the award, compromise, or settlement has been approved by the Attorney General or the Attorney General's designee. When the use of Standard Form 1145 is required, it must be executed by the claimant or it must be accompanied by either a claims settlement agreement or a Standard Form 95 executed by the claimant.
( b ) If a claimant is represented by an attorney, the voucher for payment must designate both the claimant and his or her attorney as payees, and the check must be delivered to the attorney whose address appears on the voucher.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANA TERESA PENA,

Appellant,

v.

ATTILA TINICS,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-3276

[July 18, 2019]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrea Ruth Gundersen, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. FMCE 16-6742 (41/93).

Jorge Garcia-Menocal of Garcia-Menocal Irias & Pastori LLP, Coral 

Gables, for appellant.

Marcy S. Resnik and Howard N. Kahn of Kahn & Resnick, PL, Dania, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

ARTHUR JAMES TIGNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv713-MHT

) (WO) 

OFFICER SELLER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a former

county inmate, filed this lawsuit challenging the

conditions of his confinement. This lawsuit is now

before the court on the recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge that defendants' motion for

summary judgment should be granted, albeit without

prejudice, for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. Also before the court are plaintiff’s

objections to the recommendation. After an independent

and de novo review of the record, the court concludes

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
that plaintiff’s objections should be overruled and the

magistrate judge’s recommendation adopted.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 17th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00713-MHT-SRW Document 32 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Leonard Vaughn et al., Appellants, v Frank X. Gargiulo et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Frank Payne, Respondent.

In a proceeding, *inter alia,*to validate a petition designating Leonard Vaughn and Joseph Harvey as candidates in the Liberal Party primary election to be held on September 9, 1980 for the party positions of Assembly District Leader and Associate District Leader, respectively, from the 32nd Assembly District, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 18, 1980, which, *inter alia,*dismissed the proceeding. By order dated August 26, 1980 this court remanded the matter to Special Term to make appropriate specific findings of fact with respect to its invalidation of appellants’ designating petition and held the appeal in abeyance in the interim. Special Term has now complied. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Harvey v Gargiulo,*78 AD2d 528). Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
§ 985.233 Salable quantities and allotment percentages—2023-2024 marketing year. The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of spearmint oil during the marketing year beginning on June 1, 2023, shall be as follows: ( a ) Class 1 (Scotch) oil—a salable quantity of 772,704 pounds and an allotment percentage of 34 percent.
( b ) Class 3 (Native) oil—a salable quantity of 1,034,492 pounds and an allotment percentage of 40 percent.
[89 FR 45563, May 23, 2024]
#### § 140.16 Commission review of proof of financial protection.

The Commission will review proof of financial protection filed by any licensee or applicant for license. If the Commission finds that the licensee or applicant for license is maintaining financial protection in accordance with the requirements of this part, approval of the financial protection will be evidenced by incorporation of appropriate provision in the license.