alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 2.1210 Initial decision and its effect. ( a ) Unless the Commission directs that the record be certified to it in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the presiding officer shall render an initial decision after completion of an informal hearing under this subpart. That initial decision constitutes the final action of the Commission on the contested matter 120 days after the date of issuance, unless: ( 1 ) Any party files a petition for Commission review in accordance with § 2.1212;
( 2 ) The Commission, in its discretion, determines that the presiding officer's initial decision is inconsistent with the staff's action as described in the notice required by § 2.1202(a) and that the inconsistency warrants Commission review, in which case the Commission will review the initial decision; or
( 3 ) The Commission takes review of the decision sua sponte.
( b ) The Commission may direct that the presiding officer certify the record to it without an initial decision and prepare a final decision if the Commission finds that due and timely execution of its functions warrants certification.
( c ) An initial decision must be in writing and must be based only upon information in the record or facts officially noticed. The record must include all information submitted in the proceeding with respect to which all parties have been given reasonable prior notice and an opportunity to comment as provided in §§ 2.1207 or 2.1208. The initial decision must include: ( 1 ) Findings, conclusions, and rulings, with the reasons or basis for them, on all material issues of fact or law admitted as part of the contentions in the proceeding;
( 2 ) The appropriate ruling, order, or grant or denial of relief with its effective date;
( 3 ) The action the NRC staff shall take upon transmittal of the decision to the NRC staff under paragraph (e) of this section, if the initial decision is inconsistent with the NRC staff action as described in the notice required by § 2.1202(a); and
( 4 ) The time within which a petition for Commission review may be filed, the time within which any answers to a petition for review may be filed, and the date when the decision becomes final in the absence of a petition for Commission review or Commission sua sponte review.
( d ) Pending review and final decision by the Commission, an initial decision resolving all issues before the presiding officer is immediately effective upon issuance except as otherwise provided by this part (e.g., § 2.340) or by the Commission in special circumstances.
( e ) Once an initial decision becomes final, the Secretary shall transmit the decision to the NRC staff for action in accordance with the decision.
[69 FR 2267, Jan. 14, 2004, as amended at 77 FR 46598, Aug. 3, 2012; 79 FR 66601, Nov. 10, 2014]
#### § 1021.310 Environmental impact statements.

DOE shall prepare and circulate EISs and related RODs in accordance with the requirements of the CEQ Regulations, as supplemented by this subpart. DOE shall include in draft and final EISs a disclosure statement executed by any contractor (or subcontractor) under contract with DOE to prepare the EIS document, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5(c).

[61 FR 36239, July 9, 1996]
MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

2007-1838.

#### State ex rel. Barker v. Internatl. Truck & Engine Corp.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-972, 2007-0hio-4800. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

It is ordered by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
§ 52.301 Violations. ( a ) The Commission may obtain an injunction or other court order to prevent a violation of the provisions of— ( 1 ) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( 2 ) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
( 3 ) A regulation or order issued under those Acts.
( b ) The Commission may obtain a court order for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act: ( 1 ) For violations of— ( i ) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended;
( ii ) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act;
( iii ) Any regulation, or order issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section;
( iv ) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under the sections specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
( 2 ) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

J.B., a minor child, by and through * 

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on * 

Behalf of himself and all others * 

similarly situated; * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00755-CSC 

 * 

 * 

WALTER WOOD, in his individual * 

capacity, * 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

J.B., a minor child, by and through * 

his next friend, ADDIE WARD, on * 

Behalf of himself and all others * 

similarly situated; * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

vs. * CASE NO: 2:06cv00908-MEF 

 * 

 * 

WALTER WOOD, in his individual * 

capacity, * 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS LIST

 Plaintiffs may call one or more of the following witnesses in the trial of this 

matter: 

#: WITNESS: ADDRESS: WILL/MAY 

CALL: 

1. Walter Wood Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

2. Pat Pendergast Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 3
3. Allen Peaton Alabama Dept. Youth Services May Call 

4. Tim Davis Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

5. Queen Baker Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

6. Gary Gregg Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

7. Kiki Sanford Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

8. Addie Ward 6016 Old Castle Place 

Montgomery, AL 36117 

Will Call 

9. JADA Alabama Dept. Youth Services Will Call 

10. CW See DYS Records Will Call 

11. JW See DYS Records Will Call 

 

_/s/Michael J. Crow____________ 

 MICHAEL J. CROW (CR039) 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

 

OF COUNSEL: 

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 

P.O. Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 

(334) 269-2343 

 _/s/Robert D. Drummond______ 

ROBERT D. DRUMMOND (DRU004) 

 Attorney for Plaintiffs 

OF COUNSEL: 

Attorney at Law 

323 De LaMare 

Fairhope, AL 36532 

(251) 990-6249 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on the 15th day of October 2007, I electronically filed 

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 

send notification of such filing to the following: 

T. Dudley Perry 

P.O. Box 66 

Mt. Meigs, AL 36057 

Michael Crow 

P.O. Box 4160 

Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 

Robert D. Drummond 

Attorney at Law 

323 De LaMare 

Fairhope, AL 36532 

/s/Robert D. Drummond, Jr.______ 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00755-MHT-CSC Document 68 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 3
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 107

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on International 

Relations in the One Hundred Ninth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2005

Mr. HYDE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

International Relations in the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on International 

4 Relations (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $18,869,785 for the One Hundred 

9 Ninth Congress. 
2

•HRES 107 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $9,092,015 shall be available 

4 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

5 noon on January 3, 2005, and ending immediately 

6 before noon on January 3, 2006; and 

7 (2) not more than $9,777,770 shall be available 

8 for expenses incurred during the period beginning at 

9 noon on January 3, 2006, and ending immediately 

10 before noon on January 3, 2007. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 2210

DIAMOND FALLS ESTATE S , LLC ; SHIRLEY M. BUAFO; CH ARLES K.

BUAFO

,

Plaintiff s

- Appellant s

,

v.

NANTAHALA BANK & TRU ST COMPANY

,

Defendant

– Appellee

,

and

STEVE E. GRAVETT; EXCELL PARTNERS, LLC; JANE/JOHN DOES; LUXUR,

INC.; REALTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC,

Defendants.

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

at Bryson City. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv

- 00007

- MR

- DLH )

Argued : March 21, 2017 Decided: April 7, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circu it Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 ARGUED : John Anthony Moore, MOORE LAW GROUP, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for

Appellants. Esther Elizabeth Manheimer, VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM, Asheville, North

Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF : Michael S. Rosier, ROSIER LAW FIRM, Lanham,

Maryland, for Appellants.

Un published opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

This case arises under diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and involves a loan that

the A ppellants, Diamond Falls Estates, LLC, Shirley M. Buafo, and Charles K. Buafo

,

obtained from Nantahala Bank & Trust Company (“Nantahala”) to develop a North

Carolina property. The district court granted summary judgmen t in favor of Nantahala on

the A ppellants’ claim s and on Nantahala’s counterclaims.

A ppellants present the following issues for our review:

I. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for

summary judgment on the breach of contract claim ;

II. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for

summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty and constructive

fraud claims ;

III. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for

summary judgment on the negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation

claims ; and

IV. Whether the district court erred by granting Nantahala’s motion for

summary judgment on the unfair and deceptive trade practices claim

.

Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, and having fully

considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court

in its thorough memorandum opinion

. Diamond Falls Estates, LLC v. Nantahala Bank &

Trust Co ., No. 2:14

- cv

- 00007

- MR

- DLH (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2015).

AFFIRMED
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-10 Leaf Gas Exchange DataThe Boreal Ecosystem-Atmospheric Study (BOREAS) TE-10 (Terrestrial Ecology) team collected several data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on the reflectance, transmittance, gas exchange, chlorophyll content, carbon content, hydrogen content, and nitrogen content of boreal vegetation. This data set contains measurements of assimilation, stomatal conductance, transpiration, internal CO2 concentration, and water use efficiency conducted in the Southern Study Area (SSA) during the growing seasons of 1994 and 1996 using a portable gas exchange system. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004231Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsHall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Middleton, Elizabeth*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Sullivan, Joseph*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberRept-2000-03136-0/VOL160NAS 1.15:209891/VOL160NASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL160Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004231.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Diane Weinberg, Respondent, v. Barry Weinberg, Appellant.

Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 13, 1966, dismissed as academic, without costs. That order was superseded by the subsequent order granting reargument and adhering to the court’s original decision. Order of said court, dated September 19, 1966, modified (1) by decreasing the amount of temporary alimony awarded in its fourth decretal paragraph from $150 to $100 per week and (2) by deleting so much of its eighth decretal paragraph as provides that defendant pay for telephone expenses. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs. In our opinion, the award of temporary alimony was excessive to the extent indicated. The best interests of the parties will be served by a prompt trial of the action. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 34
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 34 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 34.35 Labeling, storage, and transportation. ( a ) The licensee may not use a source changer or a container to store licensed material unless the source changer or the storage container has securely attached to it a durable, legible, and clearly visible label bearing the standard trefoil radiation caution symbol conventional colors, *i.e.*, magenta, purple or black on a yellow background, having a minimum diameter of 25 mm, and the wording CAUTION* RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL NOTIFY CIVIL AUTHORITIES (or “NAME OF COMPANY”) *____ or “DANGER”
( b ) The licensee may not transport licensed material unless the material is packaged, and the package is labeled, marked, and accompanied with appropriate shipping papers in accordance with regulations set out in 10 CFR part 71.
( c ) Locked radiographic exposure devices and storage containers must be physically secured to prevent tampering or removal by unauthorized personnel. The licensee shall store licensed material in a manner which will minimize danger from explosion or fire.
( d ) The licensee shall lock and physically secure the transport package containing licensed material in the transporting vehicle to prevent accidental loss, tampering, or unauthorized removal of the licensed material from the vehicle.
#### Harold A. Fein, Appellee, v. Taylor Washing Machine Company, Appellant.

Gen. No. 41,050.

opinion filed June 26, 1940.

Kamfner & Halligan and Louis J. Victor, for appellant; Edwin A. Halligan and Samuel M. Lanoff, of counsel; Harold A. Fein, *pro se;*Edward S. Altersohn, of counsel.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Friend.

“Not to be published in full.”
#### People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Oscar Nelson v. Union Bank of Chicago. Victor Bartoli, Sr., Guardian, Appellant, v. Harry R. Spellbrink, Receiver, Appellee.

Gen. No. 40,826.

opinion filed June 24, 1940.

Arthur E. Walsh, for appellant; Schuyler & Hennessy, for appellee; Theodore E. Zahler and C. Ernest Heaton, of counsel.

Opinion by

Justice O’Connor.

“Not to be published in full.”
#### STAGNITTA, Respondent, v. SKANEATELES PAPER CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 25, 1914.)

Action by Salvatore Stagnitta, an infant, etc., against the Skaneateles Paper Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Alfred Brinkley Herren, *Appellant,*v. Ruth Sue Herren, *Appellee.*

No. 47,747

Opinion filed November 8, 1975.

*John W. Sowers,*of Sowers, Carson, Johnston and Baker, of Wichita, argued the cause, and *David M. Arnold,*of the same firm, was with him on the brief for the appellant.

*Roger Sherwood,*of Wichita, argued the cause, and was on the brief for the appellee.

Prager, J.

Affirmed.

Fatzr, C. J., and Schroeder, J., dissent.

Miller, J., not participating.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8377

ANNIS RECARDO LLOYD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

 v. 

CONNIE JORDAN; JUDGE J. HOCKENBURY; JUDGE LANIER; RODDEY 

BROWN, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, 

District Judge. (5:08-ct-03119-D) 

Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Annis Recardo Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Annis Recardo Lloyd appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find 

that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Lloyd v. 

Jordan, No. 5:08-ct-03119-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2008). 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. 

DISMISSED
RTI CONTACT REPORT

0210426.004.006 

From: Cindy Hancy, RTI International 

Date of Contact: July 7, 2010 

Contacted by: Telephone 

Company/Agency: Atotech, Rock Hill SC 

Telephone Number: (803) 817-3500 

Person Contacted: Eugene Barlow

CONTACT SUMMARY:

Mr. Barlow was contacted to discuss costs for Atotech’s PFOS and non-PFOS based 

wetting agents for the technology review and residual risk assessment of chromium 

electroplating. Mr. Barlow responded that he did not feel comfortable sharing cost 

information. Mr. Barlow was then told that if he felt cost information for wetting agents 

was confidential he could send the information directly to the EPA who would handle it 

as CBI. Mr. Barlow stated that he was less inclined to give this information to a 

government agency because the freedom of information act allows government agencies

to disclose confidential information and that all he could do was send the technical data 

sheets for the wetting agents. When asked if instead of giving a cost estimate for each 

product, if he could give the cost difference between non-PFOS and PFOS based wetting 

agents, Mr. Barlow stated there was no large cost difference between the two types of 

wetting agents, but did not give an estimate. 

1
# Subpart 2424.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy

**Parent topic:**PART 2424 - PROTECTION OF PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

## 2424.103 Procedures.

(b)(2) See 24 CFR part 16 for the HUD regulations which implement the Privacy Act.
#### OPPENHEIM et al., Appellants, v. BOREK, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Action by Benjamin F. Oppenheim and another against Michael Borek.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
H. Res. 494

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

October 18, 2005.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 

the bill (H.R. 554) to prevent legislative and regulatory functions from being usurped by civil liability actions brought or 

continued against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims of 

injury relating to a person’s weight gain, obesity, or any 

health condition associated with weight gain or obesity. The 

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under 
2

•HRES 494 EH 

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now 

printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature 

of a substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding 

clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 

offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered 

only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 

report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 

opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 

against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 

consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 

rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments 

as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 

Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
3

•HRES 494 EH 

ments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.