alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 602.18 Dissemination of results. ( a ) Recipients are encouraged to disseminate research results promptly. DOE reserves the right to utilize, and have others utilize to the extent it deems appropriate, the reports resulting from research awards.
( b ) DOE may waive the technical reporting requirement of progress reports set forth in § 602.17, if the recipient submits to DOE a copy of its own report that is published or accepted for publication in a recognized scientific or technical journal and that satisfies the information requirements of the program.
( c ) Recipients are urged to publish results through normal publication channels.
( d ) The article shall include an acknowledgement that the project was supported, in whole or in part, by a DOE award, and specify the award number, but state that such support does not constitute an endorsement by DOE of the views expressed in the article.
[60 FR 5841, Jan. 31, 1995, as amended at 79 FR 76046, Dec. 19, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1950

JOHN LASCHKEWITSCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cv-00632-D)

Submitted: February 26, 2018 Decided: March 12, 2018

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John B. Laschkewitsch, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Marshall Jarrell, ROBINSON 

BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Misty A. Murray, HINSHAW 

& CULBERTSON LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John B. Laschkewitsch appeals the district court’s orders granting the motion to 

compel arbitration, confirming the arbitrator’s award, and denying the motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Laschkewitsch v. Transamerica Life 

Ins. Co., No. 5:14-cv-00632-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2015; Sept. 21, 2016; July 17, 2017). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
FILED

December 23, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JUNE 1997 SESSION

DONALD WAYNE HOLT, )

) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9702-CR-00059

Appellant, )

) JOHNSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. LYNN W. BROWN,

HOWARD CARLTON and ) JUDGE

STATE OF TENNESSEE )

)

Appellees. ) (Habeas corpus)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

KENNETH F. IRVINE, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP

606 W. Main St., Suite 350 Attorney General & Reporter

P.O. Box 84

Knoxville, TN 37901-0084 SANDY R. COPOUS

Asst. Attorney General

 450 James Robertson Pkwy.

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

DAVID CROCKETT

District Attorney General

Route 19, Box 99

Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

JOHN H. PEAY,

Judge
1

The petitioner also claims in his petition that the indictment was not signed by the district

attorney general. However, this issue has not been briefed and is therefore waived. Tenn. Crim. App.

R. 10(b). Moreover, the copy of the indictment included in the record contains the signature of Guy R.

Dotson, who was the district attorney general of Rutherford County at the time. This issue merits no

further discussion.

2

O P I N I O N

The petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 18,

1996, alleging that his 1991 conviction for aggravated rape is void because it is based

upon an invalid indictment. Specifically, he claims that the indictment fails to allege the

necessary mens rea element and that his conviction must therefore be reversed and

dismissed pursuant to this Court’s opinion in State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr., No. 01C01-

9508-CC-00267, Wayne County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed June 20, 1996, at Nashville).1

The court below summarily dismissed the defendant’s petition, finding that it fails to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. The defendant now appeals. We affirm the

judgment below.

In Hill, this Court held that an indictment for aggravated rape alleging that

the defendant had “unlawfully sexually penetrate[d]” the victim was insufficient because

it did not allege a culpable mental state. However, our Supreme Court has overruled this

Court’s decision in Hill, holding that aggravated rape “is committable only if the principal

actor's mens rea is intentional, knowing, or reckless. Thus, the required mental state may

be inferred from the nature of the criminal conduct alleged.” State v. Hill, __ S.W.2d __

(Tenn. 1997) (footnote omitted).

In this case, the petitioner was also charged with aggravated rape, the

indictment alleging that he “unlawfully did sexually penetrate and cause bodily injury to”

the victim. Under our Supreme Court's analysis in Hill, this indictment is adequate. This
3

issue is therefore without merit.

The judgment below is affirmed.

_________________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

______________________________

CURWOOD WITT, Judge
#### JOHNSON, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

July 1, 1914.)

Action by Ellsworth J. Johnson against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### WARTELS v. AUGENBLICK et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department,

January 29, 1915.)

Action by Aaron Wartels against Samuel Augenblick and others, impleaded, etc.

L. S. Lewkowitz, of New York City, for appellant. S. J. Block, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### § 915.27 Alternate members.

An alternate member of the committee, during the absence or at the request of the member for whom he is an alternate, shall act in the place and stead of such member. In the event of the death, removal, resignation, or disqualification of a member, his alternate shall act for him until a successor for such member is selected and has qualified. In the event both a member and his alternate are unable to attend a committee meeting, the chairman may designate any alternate who is present and who is not serving for any member to serve in such absent member's place and stead: *Provided,* That only grower alternate members may be so designated to serve for grower members and only handler alternate members may be so designated to serve only for handler members.

[19 FR 3439, June 11, 1954. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 35 FR 16627, Oct. 27, 1970]
226 So.2d 773

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Henry P. HARRIS.

No. 50156.

Oct. 10, 1969.

In re: Franz Joseph Baddock applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and/or other relief.

Writs refused. There is no showing that a hearing and ruling in this case has been had in the lower court.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 473 

Condemning the racist remarks of William Bennett. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Condemning the racist remarks of William Bennett. 

Whereas William J. Bennett hosts a radio program, ‘‘Morning in America’’, which airs on approximately 115 radio 

stations with an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners; 

Whereas on September 28th, 2005, Mr. Bennett said on his 

radio program, ‘‘But I do know that it’s true that if you 

wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole 

purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.’’; and 

Whereas Mr. Bennett’s remarks are outrageous and blatantly 

racist: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 
2 

•HRES 473 IH 

1 (1) condemns the comments made by William 

2 J. Bennett on his radio program, ‘‘Morning in 

3 America’’, as outrageous racism of the most bigoted 

4 and ignorant kind; and 

5 (2) condemns all manifestations and expres6 sions of racism and ethnic intolerance. 

Æ
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 950 

To require a report and assessment regarding Department of Homeland 

Security responses to terrorist threats to Federal elections, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require a report and assessment regarding Department 

of Homeland Security responses to terrorist threats to 

Federal elections, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Security for the Ad5 ministration of Federal Election from Terrorists Interven6 tion Act of 2017’’ or the ‘‘SAFETI Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 950 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECU2 RITY RESPONSES TO TERRORIST THREATS 

3 TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS. 

4 (a) SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.—Not 

5 later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

6 this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 

7 to the Comptroller General of the United States and Con8 gress a report on actions taken by the Department of 

9 Homeland Security relating to terrorist threats to the in10 tegrity of elections for Federal office held in 2016. 

11 (b) GAO ASSESSMENT.—The Comptroller General of 

12 the United States shall, upon receipt of the report re13 quired pursuant to subsection (a), conduct an assessment 

14 of the effectiveness of Department of Homeland Security 

15 actions described in such report and include recommenda16 tions for improvements as the Comptroller General deter17 mines appropriate. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.21 Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments.

All licensing and regulatory actions subject to this subpart require an environmental assessment except those identified in § 51.20(b) as requiring an environmental impact statement, those identified in § 51.22(c) as categorical exclusions, and those identified in § 51.22(d) as other actions not requiring environmental review. As provided in § 51.22(b), the Commission may, in special circumstances, prepare an environmental assessment on an action covered by a categorical exclusion.

[54 FR 27870, July 3, 1989]
§ 15.41 When a claim may be compromised. ( a ) The NRC may compromise a claim not in excess of the monetary limitation if it has not been referred to DOJ for litigation.
( b ) Unless otherwise provided by law, when the principal balance of a debt, exclusive of interest, penalties, and administrative costs, exceeds $100,000 or any higher amount authorized by the Attorney General, the authority to accept the compromise rests with the DOJ. The NRC will evaluate the compromise offer, using the factors set forth in this part. If an offer to compromise any debt in excess of $100,000 is acceptable to the NRC, the NRC shall refer the debt to the Civil Division or other appropriate litigating division in the DOJ using a CCLR. The referral must include appropriate financial information and a recommendation for the acceptance of the compromise offer. DOJ approval is not required if the compromise offer is rejected by NRC.
[67 FR 30322, May 6, 2002]
Editorial Note on Part 32
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 32.11 Introduction of byproduct material in exempt concentrations into products or materials, and transfer of ownership or possession: Requirements for license. An application for a specific license on Form NRC-313 authorizing the introduction of byproduct material into a product or material owned by or in the possession of the licensee or another and the transfer of ownership or possession of the product or material containing the byproduct material will be approved if the applicant: ( a ) Satisfies the general requirements specified in § 30.33 of this chapter; *provided, however,* that the requirements of § 30.33(a)(2) and (3) do not apply to an application for a license to introduce byproduct material into a product or material owned by or in the possession of the licensee or another and the transfer of ownership or possession of the product or material containing the byproduct material, if the possession and use of the byproduct material to be introduced is authorized by a license issued by an Agreement State;
( b ) Provides a description of the product or material into which the byproduct material will be introduced, intended use of the byproduct material and the product or material into which it is introduced, method of introduction, initial concentration of the byproduct material in the product or material, control methods to assure that no more than the specified concentration is introduced into the product or material, estimated time interval between introduction and transfer of the product or material, and estimated concentration of the radioisotopes in the product or material at the time of transfer; and
( c ) Provides reasonable assurance that the concentrations of byproduct material at the time of transfer will not exceed the concentrations in § 30.70 of this chapter, that reconcentration of the byproduct material in concentrations exceeding those in § 30.70 is not likely, that use of lower concentrations is not feasible, and that the product or material is not likely to be incorporated in any food, beverage, cosmetic, drug or other commodity or product designed for ingestion or inhalation by, or application to, a human being.
[30 FR 8192, June 26, 1965, as amended at 49 FR 19625, May 9, 1984; 72 FR 58487, Oct. 16, 2007]
222 So.2d 69

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Earl MITCHELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 49876.

May 19, 1969.

In re: Earl Mitchell applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 83 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 83 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 1016.13 Protection of Restricted Data in storage. ( a ) Persons who possess Restricted Data pursuant to an Access Permit shall store the Restricted Data classified matter when not in use in a locked storage container or DOE-approved vault to which only persons with appropriate access authorization and a need to know the information contained have access. Storage containers used for storing classified matter must conform to U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) standards and specifications.
( b ) Each permittee shall change the combination on locks of his safekeeping equipment whenever such equipment is placed in use, whenever an individual knowing the combination no longer requires access to the repository as a result of change in duties or position in the permittee's organization, or termination of employment with the permittee or whenever the combination has been subjected to compromise, and in any event at least once a year. Permittees shall classify records of combinations no lower than the highest classification of the classified matter authorized for storage in the safekeeping equipment concerned.
[82 FR 41506, Sept. 1, 2017]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Edelstein, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on October 3, 1979, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Fein, Bloom and Carro, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Rufus Lee, Petitioner, v. County Court of Erie County et al., Respondents.

Petition unanimously granted to the extent stated in the memorandum and judgment directed in favor of petitioner in accordance therewith, without costs. Memorandum: In this article 78 proceeding in the nature of prohibition petitioner seeks to vacate an order and warrant of Erie County Court adjudging him in contempt of court because of his refusal to answer questions propounded to him by Dr. Di Francesco in a purported examination under section 660 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and petitioner seeks *inter alia*to prohibit and restrain the Erie County Court and District Attorney from compelling him to answer questions during such examination. Sections 659 and 660 require that when a court having jurisdiction of the person of a defendant indicted for a felony orders such defendant to be examined to determine the question of his sanity, the examination must *886be conducted by two qualified psychiatrists designated by the Director of Community Health Services. There is no authority for examination by a single psychiatrist. Dr. Di Francesco and Dr. Yost were designated to exanliile petitioner on February 5, 1969. Dr. Yost resigned on February 17, 1969 and thereafter on April 18, 1969 before another psychiatrist had been designated to fill the vacancy Dr. Di Francesco asked petitioner questions which he refused to answer. The order and warrant adjudging him in contempt of court for such refusal must be vacated because the attempted examination by a single psychiatrist lacked legal authority. The Erie County Court and the Judges thereof and Honorable Michael F. Dillon, the District Attorney of Erie County should be prohibited and restrained from compelling petitioner to answer questions propounded to him in the course of any attempted competency examination by a single psychiatrist. (Proceeding to restrain respondents from compelling petitioner to answer questions in competency proceeding.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 466 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 466

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
   States Postal Service should issue a semipostal stamp relating to 
                          Alzheimer's disease.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2005

 Mr. Markey (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. 
Boozman) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
   States Postal Service should issue a semipostal stamp relating to 
                          Alzheimer's disease.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should, under authority of section 416 
of title 39, United States Code, and regulations implementing such 
section--
            (1) provide for the issuance of a semipostal stamp--
                    (A) to promote public awareness of Alzheimer's 
                disease; and
                    (B) to provide a convenient way for members of the 
                public to help fund medical research relating to 
                Alzheimer's disease; and
            (2) provide that the amounts becoming available from the 
        sale of such stamp be transferred to the National Institutes of 
        Health under arrangements designed to carry out the purposes of 
        this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA BURKETT, Administratrix of the )

Estate of JEREMY BURKETT, deceased )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) 1: 06-CV-00775-DRB

)

TIMOTHY EUGENE McCRAY and )

S.E. LUMBER COMPANY )

)

Defendants. )

)

TIMOTHY EUGENE McCray )

)

Third-Party Plaintiff. )

)

V. )

)

SOUTHERN GENERAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY. )

)

Third-Party Defendant. )

JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

COMES NOW the Third-Party Plaintiff Timothy Eugene McCray and ThirdParty Defendant Southern General Ins. Co., in the above referenced cause, by and

through their counsel of record, and move the Court for an order dismissing all claims

by the Third-Party Plaintiff against Southern General Ins. Company with prejudice.

In support of this motion, the parties would show unto the Court that a settlement has

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 42 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
been entered into by and between the Third-Party Plaintiff and Southern General Ins.

Company.

s/David W. Rousseau

David W. Rousseau

Attorney for the Timothy E. McCray

OF COUNSEL:

David Woodham Rousseau, Esq. 

211 W Adams Street

Dothan, AL 36303-4401

rousseaulaw@graceba.net

s/Cindy L. Self 

Cindy L. Self (SEL035)

Attorney for Southern General Ins. Co.

OF COUNSEL:

LAMAR, MILLER, NORRIS, HAGGARD & CHRISTIE, P.C.

501 Riverchase Parkway East

Suite 100

Birmingham, Alabama 35244

(205) 326-0000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 8, 2006 I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing

to the following: 

David Jerome Harrison 

PO Box 994 

Geneva, AL 36340 

davidjharrison@centurytel.net

Christoffer Peter Bolvig, III 

Hall Conerly & Bolvig PC 

1400 Financial Center

505 North 20th Street 

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 42 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
Birmingham, AL 35203-2626

peter.bolvig@hallconerly.com

Bill Mudd, Esq. 

505 20 Street North th

Birmingham, AL 35203

billmudd@mhsolaw.com

Randolph H. Phillips, Esq. 

609 Pine Avenue

P.O. Box 2303

Albany, GA 31702

rhplaw@bellsouth.net

Tommy Ray Scarbrough, Esq. 

119 S Foster Street

Suite 101

Dothan, AL 36301

trsllc@graceba.net

s/ Cindy L. Self

Of counsel

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 42 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
Editorial Note on Part 61
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 61 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 61.9a Completeness and accuracy of information. ( a ) Information provided to the Commission by an applicant for a license or by a licensee or information required by statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license conditions to be maintained by the applicant or the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all material respects.
( b ) Each applicant or licensee shall notify the Commission of information identified by the applicant or licensee as having for the regulated activity a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. An applicant or licensee violates this paragraph only if the applicant or licensee fails to notify the Commission of information that the applicant or licensee has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety or common defense and security. Notification shall be provided to the Administrator of the appropriate Regional Office within two working days of identifying the information. This requirement is not applicable to information which is already required to be provided to the Commission by other reporting or updating requirements.
[52 FR 49372, Dec. 31, 1987]