alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 71.115 Control of purchased material, equipment, and services. ( a ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to assure that purchased material, equipment, and services, whether purchased directly or through contractors and subcontractors, conform to the procurement documents. These measures must include provisions, as appropriate, for source evaluation and selection, objective evidence of quality furnished by the contractor or subcontractor, inspection at the contractor or subcontractor source, and examination of products on delivery.
( b ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall have available documentary evidence that material and equipment conform to the procurement specifications before installation or use of the material and equipment. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall retain, or have available, this documentary evidence for the life of the package to which it applies. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall assure that the evidence is sufficient to identify the specific requirements met by the purchased material and equipment.
( c ) The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall assess the effectiveness of the control of quality by contractors and subcontractors at intervals consistent with the importance, complexity, and quantity of the product or services.
§ 52.59 Criteria for renewal. ( a ) The Commission shall issue a rule granting the renewal if the design, either as originally certified or as modified during the rulemaking on the renewal, complies with the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations applicable and in effect at the time the certification was issued, provided, however, that the first time the Commission issues a rule granting the renewal for a standard design certification in effect on July 13, 2009, the Commission shall, in addition, find that the renewed design complies with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.150.
( b ) The Commission may impose other requirements if it determines that: ( 1 ) They are necessary for adequate protection to public health and safety or common defense and security;
( 2 ) They are necessary for compliance with the Commission's regulations and orders applicable and in effect at the time the design certification was issued; or
( 3 ) There is a substantial increase in overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the new requirements, and the direct and indirect costs of implementing those requirements are justified in view of this increased protection.
( c ) In addition, the applicant for renewal may request an amendment to the design certification. The Commission shall grant the amendment request if it determines that the amendment will comply with the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations in effect at the time of renewal. If the amendment request entails such an extensive change to the design certification that an essentially new standard design is being proposed, an application for a design certification must be filed in accordance with this subpart.
( d ) Denial of renewal does not bar the applicant, or another applicant, from filing a new application for certification of the design, which proposes design changes that correct the deficiencies cited in the denial of the renewal.
[72 FR 49517, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 28147, June 12, 2009]
EXHIBIT 23.2


Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


The Board of Directors


Clearway Energy, Inc.:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements Numbers 333-206061 and 333-190071 on Form S-8, and Numbers 333-224684, 333-212096, 333-205140, 333-204589 on Form S-3 of Clearway Energy, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2019, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of DGPV HoldCo 3 LLC, as of December 31, 2018, and the related consolidated statement of operations, members’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related notes (collectively, the financial statements), which report appears in the Form 10-K/A of Clearway Energy, Inc. dated March 29, 2019.





(signed) KPMG LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


March 28, 2019
#### Karin L. Brey *v.*Harry F. Brey

*Hans C. F. Wriedt,*in support of the petition.

Decided June 27, 1984

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 1 Conn. App. 397, is denied.
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.

§ 61.84 Criminal penalties. ( a ) Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides for criminal sanctions for willful violation of, attempted violation of, or conspiracy to violate, any regulation issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the Act. For purposes of section 223, all the regulations in part 61 are issued under one or more of sections 161b, 161i, or 161o, except for the sections listed in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The regulations in part 61 that are not issued under sections 161b, 161i, or 161o for the purposes of Section 223 are as follows: §§ 61.1, 61.2, 61.4, 61.5, 61.6, 61.7, 61.8, 61.10, 61.11, 61.12, 61.13, 61.14, 61.15, 61.16, 61.20, 61.21, 61.22, 61.23, 61.26, 61.30, 61.31, 61.50, 61.51, 61.54, 61.55, 61.58, 61.59, 61.61, 61.63, 61.70, 61.71, 61.72, 61.73, 61.83, and 61.84.
[57 FR 55077, Nov. 24, 1992]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1305

DESPINA NEUPH LUCAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:23-cv-00033-D-BM)

Submitted: August 27, 2024 Decided: August 29, 2024

Before KING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Despina Neuph Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1305 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Despina Neuph Lucas appeals the district court’s order granting the Social Security 

Administration’s motion to dismiss her complaint. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Lucas v. Soc. Sec. 

Admin., No. 2:23-cv-00033-D-BM (E.D.N.C. Mar. 28, 2024). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1305 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr206-MHT

)

ALETHIA ADRIANNE SCOTT )

NOTICE OF INTENT TO CHANGE PLEA

COMES NOW the Defendant, Alethia Adrianne Scott, by and through undersigned

counsel, Kevin L. Butler, and notifies the Court of her intent to change her previously entered

plea of not guilty to guilty. Defendant waives her right to plead in front of a district judge and

consents to do so before a magistrate judge.

Dated this 18 day of October 2006. th

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 44 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

V. ) CR. No.: 2:06cr206-MHT

)

ALETHIA ADRIANNE SCOTT )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 18, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

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

following: 

Christopher A. Snyder, Esquire

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. Butler

KEVIN L. BUTLER

First Assistant Federal Defender

201 Monroe Street, Suite 407

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 834-2099

Fax: (334) 834-0353

E-mail: kevin_butler@fd.org

AZ Bar Code: 014138

Case 2:06-cr-00206-MHT-CSC Document 44 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 712
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 712 appear at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023.

§ 712.10 Designation of HRP positions. ( a ) HRP certification is required for each individual assigned to, or applying for, a position that: ( 1 ) Affords access to Category I SNM or has responsibility for transportation or protection of Category I quantities of SNM;
( 2 ) Involves nuclear explosive duties or has responsibility for working with, protecting, or transporting nuclear explosives, nuclear devices, or selected components;
( 3 ) Affords access to information concerning vulnerabilities in protective systems when transporting nuclear explosives, nuclear devices, selected components, or Category I quantities of SNM; or
( 4 ) Is not included in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section but affords the potential to significantly impact national security or cause unacceptable damage and is approved pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The Manager or the HRP management official may nominate positions for the HRP that are not specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section or that have not previously been designated HRP positions. All such nominations must be submitted to and approved by either the NNSA Administrator, his or her designee, the Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security or the appropriate Lead Program Secretarial Officer, or his or her designee.
( c ) Before nominating a position for designation as an HRP position, the Manager or the HRP management official must analyze the risks the position poses for the particular operational program. If the analysis shows that more restrictive physical, administrative, or other controls could be implemented that would prevent the position from being designated an HRP position, those controls will be implemented, if practicable.
( d ) Nothing in this part prohibits contractors from establishing stricter employment standards for individuals who are nominated to DOE for certification or recertification in the HRP.
[83 FR 18200, Apr. 26, 2018, as amended at 88 FR 41292, June 26, 2023]
Rupprecht Law P. A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

July 2, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Intelligent Imagery, LLC (Docket FAA-2015-0878). MPTOM and Reasons Why Granting This 

Petition Will Benefit the Public.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Intelligent Imagery, LLC has confidentially submitted on July 2, 2015 its motion picture and TV 

operating manual to 333exemptions@faa.gov.

REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Petitioner intends to produce picture and video content. If the petitioner does not have the 

option of using the Petitioner’s UA, the only other way to obtain the aerial footage is by using manned 

aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals on the ground. There are no pilots on 

board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the public on the ground in 

case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors, providing redundancy, while most 

manned aircraft have only one engine.

Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet 

enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the 

public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution.
2

In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust 

which affects the environment while the UA of the petitioner are electric and do not produce any 

emission. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there 

was an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less chance of individuals being injured from an 

explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less 

damage in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter 

crash.

Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than manned aircraft. Thus, the public benefits 

because the danger of a mid-air collision is lessened.

If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.
PGI 219.705-4 Reviewing the subcontracting

plan.

When reviewing the subcontracting plan, contracting officers may use the document entitled “DoD

Checklist for Reviewing Subcontracting Plans.” The document is available at

http://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/.

Parent topic: PGI 219.705 Responsibilities of the contracting officer under the subcontracting

assistance program.
**Wyoming**

**Wyoming 05 Big Horn**
**Mississippi**

**Mississippi 01 Monroe**
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 80838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32319]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA-11908, AA-11915, AA-11916, AA-11917, AA-11909, AA-11913, AA-11914; 
LLAK-962000-L14100000-HY0000-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
the Bureau of Land Management will issue an appealable decision to The 
Aleut Corporation. The decision will approve the conveyance of only the 
surface estate in certain lands pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act. The lands are located on the Near Islands, west of 
Adak, Alaska, and aggregate 66.01 acres. Notice of the decision will 
also be published four times in the Anchorage Daily News.

DATES: Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by 
the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable 
efforts have been expended, parties who fail or refuse to sign their 
return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the decision by 
regular mail which is not certified, return receipt requested, shall 
have until January 24, 2011 to file an appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.

Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements 
of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their 
rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05646e2b6769682b666a6b73607c646b666045646e2b6769682b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b1a1055191716551814150d1e021a15181e3b1a1055191716551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may contact the Bureau of Land 
Management by calling the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Dina L. Torres,
Land Transfer Resolution Specialist, Branch of Preparation and 
Resolution.
[FR Doc. 2010-32319 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 50.52 Combining licenses.

The Commission may combine in a single license the activities of an applicant which would otherwise be licensed severally.
#### In the Matter of Andrew Terjesen, Appellant, v Donna Terjesen, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 714]

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Porzio, J.), dated May 6, 2005, which sustained the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Castaldi, S.M.) dated February 7, 2005, granting his petition for a downward modification of child support, vacated the order dated February 7, 2005, and reinstated a prior order of the same court (Castaldi, S.M.) dated October 20, 2004, directing him to pay weekly child support in the sum of $247.08.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts, by deleting from the penultimate paragraph thereof the amount $2,447.08 and substituting therefor the amount $247.08; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly sustained the mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order granting his petition for a downward modification of his child support obligation. A court may modify a child support order derived from a stipulation of settlement that is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce upon a showing of an unreasonable and unanticipated change in circumstances justifying the modification *(see Matter of Davis v Davis,*13 AD3d 623 [2004], *lv denied*5 NY3d 746 [2005]). “[Although a loss of employment can constitute a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification of child support,” the father failed to “present competent proof that his change in circumstance was not of his own making . . . , or that he thereafter ‘used his best efforts to obtain employment commensurate with his qualifications and experience’ ” *(Matter of Heyward v Goldman,*23 AD3d 468, 469 [2005] [internal citations omitted], quoting *Matter of D’Altilio v D'Altilio,*14 AD3d 701 [2005]).

Furthermore, the Family Court properly rendered a decision on the mother’s objections without the aid of a hearing transcript, since the Family Court reviewed the Support Magistrate’s findings of fact, which summarized the testimony at the hearing *(see Matter of Cook v Bornhorst,*230 AD2d 934 [1996]; *Matter of Smith v Smith,*197 AD2d 830 [1993]).

We note that the order on appeal contains a scrivener’s error, *706and states that the Support Magistrate’s order dated October 20, 2004, directs the father to pay $2,447.08 in weekly support, when that order in fact directs the father to pay $247.08 in weekly support. We therefore modify the order on appeal accordingly. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Beermont Corp., Appellant, v. Paul Yager, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Greene County, granting respondent’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss appellant’s complaint for failure to prosecute. While ordinarily respondent’s failure to serve by registered or certified mail (CPLR 3216, subd. [b], par. [3]) his demand to file a note of issue might require a denial of the instant motion (see *Leichter*v. *Murphy,*32 A D 2d 811), we find no merit in this contention under the circumstances present in this ease. Undeniably appellant received the demand and was in no way prejudiced as to a substantial right by service by ordinary mail, and thus the irregularity should be disregarded (CPLR 2001). It is also significant that this issue was not even presented to the trial court (see *Baker*v. *Topping, 15*A D 2d 193, 196, mot. for Iv. to app. den. 11 N Y 2d 644). Furthermore, even assuming appellant’s affidavit in opposition reveals a meritorious cause of action it fails to reveal a justifiable excuse for the delay as required by CPLR 3216 (subd. [b], par. [3]; subd. [e]) (e.g., *Abare*v. *Moore,*27 A D 2d 147). Here the sole justification for the delay is appellant’s attorney’s busy schedule during the 45-day period following respondent’s demand. It is well settled, *590however, that “ excuses for avoidable delay are insufficient which merely lay the delay at the door of plaintiff himself, his lawyer of record, trial counsel, other associated counsel, or employees of any of the lawyers ” *(Sortino•*v. *Fisher,*20 A D 2d 25, 29). In addition the nearly five years delay between respondent’s demand for the bill of particulars and the appellants compliance therewith could be considered by the court (Practice Commentary by Professor David W. Siegel, McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 7'B, CPLR 3216, C3216:25, p. 933). Accordingly, the court properly exercised its discretion *(Salvaggio*v. *California Packing Co.,*12 A D 2d 557) and its determination should be affirmed. Order affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 167 

Supporting the designation of the week of February 26 to March 4, 2017, 

as ‘‘National Spinal CSF Leak Awareness Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT (for himself and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of the week of February 26 to 

March 4, 2017, as ‘‘National Spinal CSF Leak Awareness Week’’. 

Whereas spinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, also known as 

intracranial hypotension, is an important, disabling, 

underdiagnosed but treatable cause of new onset headache; 

Whereas cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) bathes and supports the 

brain and spinal cord; 

Whereas when the connective tissue known as dura that holds 

CSF in around the spinal cord has a hole or tear, the 

result is a loss of CSF volume; 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 167 IH 

Whereas the most common symptom is a disabling positional 

headache that is worse when upright and improved when 

lying down; 

Whereas spinal CSF leaks may cause a wide range of symptoms and serious complications, including stroke, dementia, Parkinsonism, coma, and even death; 

Whereas the causes of spinal CSF leaks include those that 

arise from trauma or medical procedures, as well as those 

that occur spontaneously; 

Whereas the diagnosis is often missed or delayed due to low 

awareness by health care providers, contributing to additional suffering; 

Whereas the sensitivity of diagnostic imaging is currently inadequate to confirm the diagnosis and/or locate the leak 

in many cases, which impacts treatment options and outcomes; 

Whereas current treatment options are limited to epidural 

patching procedures and a range of neurosurgical procedures; 

Whereas the incidence and prevalence of this disorder has 

been challenging to study due to underdiagnosis; 

Whereas funding for research of this disorder is lacking; and 

Whereas greater awareness and understanding of this disorder are vital to ensure the diagnosis, treatment, and 

best possible outcomes for patients: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National Spi3 nal CSF Leak Awareness Week’’; and 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 167 IH 

1 (2) recognizes the importance of understanding 

2 the impact of this disorder. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS