alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 835.405 Receipt of packages containing radioactive material. ( a ) If packages containing quantities of radioactive material in excess of a Type A quantity (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) are expected to be received from radioactive material transportation, arrangements shall be made to either: ( 1 ) Take possession of the package when the carrier offers it for delivery; or
( 2 ) Receive notification as soon as practicable after arrival of the package at the carrier's terminal and to take possession of the package expeditiously after receiving such notification.
( b ) Upon receipt from radioactive material transportation, external surfaces of packages known to contain radioactive material shall be monitored if the package: ( 1 ) Is labeled with a Radioactive White I, Yellow II, or Yellow III label (as specified at 49 CFR 172.403 and 172.436-440); or
( 2 ) Has been transported as low specific activity material (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) on an exclusive use vehicle (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4); or
( 3 ) Has evidence of degradation, such as packages that are crushed, wet, or damaged.
( c ) The monitoring required by paragraph (b) of this section shall include: ( 1 ) Measurements of removable contamination levels, unless the package contains only special form (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) or gaseous radioactive material; and
( 2 ) Measurements of the radiation levels, if the package contains a Type B quantity (as defined at 10 CFR 71.4) of radioactive material.
( d ) The monitoring required by paragraph (b) of this section shall be completed as soon as practicable following receipt of the package, but not later than 8 hours after the beginning of the working day following receipt of the package.
( e ) Monitoring pursuant to § 835.405(b) is not required for packages transported on a DOE site which have remained under the continuous observation and control of a DOE employee or DOE contractor employee who is knowledgeable of and implements required exposure control measures.
[63 FR 59683, Nov. 4, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 31926, June 8, 2007]
#### § 824.5 Investigations.

The Director may conduct investigations and inspections relating to the scope, nature and extent of compliance by a person with DOE security requirements specified in § 824.4(a) and (b) and take such action as the Director deems necessary and appropriate to the conduct of the investigation or inspection, including signing, issuing and serving subpoenas.
§ 611.203 Eligibility. In order to be eligible for an award, an applicant must be either— ( a ) An automobile manufacturer that can demonstrate an improved fuel economy as specified in paragraph (b) of section 611.3, or
( b ) A manufacturer of a qualifying component.
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20793

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JULIAN ESPARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(CR H 87 1, CA H 95 295)

April 12, 1996

Before JOHNSON, DUHE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Julian Esparza appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. There is no merit to Esparza’s claim

that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to call an expert

witness or to challenge the testimony of certain witnesses. Cf. Johnson v. Scott, 68 F.3d 106, 111

(5th Cir. 1995), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 16, 1996) (No. 95-7530) and Alexander v.

McCotter, 775 F.2d 595, 602 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Esparza’s remaining issues are procedurally barred. See United States v. Drobny, 955

F.2d 990, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1992). 

We do not address Esparza’s arguments that his counsel failed to prepare a defense for
2

trial, consult with Esparza, present Esparza’s version of the facts, investigate the facts, interview

witnesses, review the Government’s evidence, impeach the Government’s witnesses, and object to

the documentary evidence because they are all raised for the first time in Esparza’s reply brief. 

See United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 1379, 1386 (5th Cir.), cert. Denied, 493 U.S. 932 (1989).

AFFIRMED.
# EUR-Lex - 31986D0540 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31986D0540

**86/540/EEC: Commission Decision of 4 November 1986 concerning the implementation by Spain of certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector pursuant to Council Directive 83/515/EEC (Only the Spanish text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 319 , 14/11/1986 P. 0075 - 0075 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 4 November 1986

concerning the implementation by Spain of certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector pursuant to Council Directive 83/515/EEC

(Only the Spanish text is authentic)

(86/540/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 83/515/EEC of 4 October 1983 concerning certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector (1), and in particular Article 7 (1) thereof,

Whereas the Spanish Government has adopted an aid scheme in connection with measures involving the temporary or permanent reduction of production capacity in the fisheries sector; whereas, on 13 May and 18 August 1986, it communicated particulars of the aid scheme in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 83/515/EEC;

Whereas, in accordance with Article 7 of the said Directive, the Commission has considered whether, having regard to their compatibility with the Directive and to the other structural measures existing or planned in the fisheries sector, the measures contemplated fulfil the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community;

Whereas this Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries Structures,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The measures adopted by Spain in order to implement an aid scheme in connection with the measures involving the temporary or permanent reduction of production capacity in the fisheries sector fulfil the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain.

Done at Brussels, 4 November 1986.

For the Commission

António CARDOSO E CUNHA

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 290, 22. 10. 1983, p. 15.
(March 24, 1970)

#### In the Matter of Dionysios Spyros Spyropoulos, Petitioner.

On the court’s own motion, its decision dated January 19, 1970 [33 A D 2d 916] is further amended to read as follows: “ Application by petitioner for admission to the Bar of the State of New York without examination, on the ground that he was admitted to practice as an attorney in Greece or Patras. Application denied. Petitioner’s practice of law in Greece or Patras does not constitute the practice of law in a foreign country whose jurisprudence is based upon the principles of the English common law, within the meaning of paragraph (a) of subdivision (1) of Rule VII of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for Admission of Attorneys and Counselors-at-Law [22 NYCRR 527.1(a)].” Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31979R0309 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31979R0309

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 309/79 of 16 February 1979 amending Regulation (EEC) No 316/68 as regards the marking of fresh cut flowers **

*
Official Journal L 042 , 17/02/1979 P. 0021 - 0021 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0177 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 24 P. 0093 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 10 P. 0177 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 15 P. 0155 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 15 P. 0155 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 309/79 of 16 February 1979 amending Regulation (EEC) No 316/68 as regards the marking of fresh cut flowers

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 234/68 of 27 February 1968 on the establishment of a common organization of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas experience has shown that the special provisions relating to the marketing of fresh cut flowers set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 316/68 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1155/76 (3), do not correspond to modern marketing practices;

Whereas therefore the said Annex I should be amended accordingly;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Live Plants,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the second indent of Chapter VII (Marking), paragraph D of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 316/68, the word "(optional)" is added.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 March 1979.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 February 1979.

For the Commission

Finn GUNDELACH

Vice-President (1)OJ No L 55, 2.3.1968, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 71, 12.3.1968, p. 8. (3)OJ No L 130, 19.5.1976, p. 26.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 666 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to observe a 60-second 

moment of silence in the House for those killed by gun violence in 

the United States on the next legislative day after any such individual 

dies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2017 

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

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

observe a 60-second moment of silence in the House 

for those killed by gun violence in the United States 

on the next legislative day after any such individual 

dies. 

1 Resolved, That rule XIV of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘7. There shall be a 60-second moment of silence in 

5 the House for victims of firearm homicide in the United 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 666 IH 

1 States on the next legislative day after any such individual 

2 dies.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
05/18/201 1 17;5 5 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S g|001/00 2



### ^..^K'SPORTATIO M 

## U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATION^ T OFrRATiOM S Offic e of Hearing s Washington,D.C . /.. n m2 Q A ^ ^ 0 1 

## j\€!^'L- f & I V 'i ZD BEARIN G r^CKE ^ Comlu x Aviatio n Service s LL C FA A DOCKE T NO . CP*no t ye t assigned * (ET R20 lO'GL-11-0109 ) (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) Aclrainislraliv e La

w Judg e *ny l ye l assigned * 

## WITHDRAWA LO FCOMPLAIN T Th e undersigne dAgenc y Attorne y doc s hereb y withdra w th e complain t file di n th e matte r captione dabov e andrequest s ihal th e cas e b e dismissed . Th e matte r ha s bee n settle dbetwee n th e partie s an dacompromis e orde r issued . Respectfull y filedthi s 12 * da y o f Ma y 2011 .

Chri s G . Zura ( Senio r Attorney " Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Great Lake s Region , AGL-7 K 230 0 Eas t Devo n Avenu e De s Plaines , I

L 6001 8 Phone : (847)294-771 3 Fax : (847)294-749 805/19/201 1 17:5 G FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S @l002/00 2



## Certificat e o

f Servic e I hereb y certif

y that th e foregoin g Withdrawal o f Complain t

ha s been maile dthi s 12^

^ da y o f Ma y 2011 , b y Certifie dMail , Return Receip t Requested , to : Original an dOn e Copy : Hearin g Docket , Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Aileniion : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbe r Wright Buildin g - Suite 2W100 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 On e Cop y to : Mr . Jaso n Dickstein , Esq . 223 3 Wisconsi n Avenue , NW , Suite50 3 Washington , D C 2000 7 Telephone : (202 ) 628-677 6 Fax : (202 ) 628-894 8 Date dthi s 12"'da y ofMa y 2011 .

ramm y Gardne r Legal Technician FA A Grea

t Lake s
#### § 800.302 Loan limitation.

The Secretary may limit the loan by written notice to the borrower to those amounts, if any, already disbursed under the loan, if the Secretary has determined that the borower has failed to comply with a material term or condition set forth in the loan agreement.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 412 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the President 

should disapprove of the report of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission containing its recommendations for the closure and 

realignment of military installations in the United States unless the 

President is convinced that implementation of such recommendations 

will not adversely affect the homeland security of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2005 

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

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the President should disapprove of the report of the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission containing its recommendations for the closure and realignment of military installations in the United States unless 

the President is convinced that implementation of such 

recommendations will not adversely affect the homeland 

security of the United States. 

1 Resolved, That it is sense of the House of Representa2 tives that the President should— 

3 (1) require the Secretary of Homeland Security 

4 to evaluate the possible effects of the 2005 base clo-
2 

•HRES 412 IH 

1 sure and realignment process on the homeland secu2 rity of the United States; and 

3 (2) disapprove of the 2005 report of the De4 fense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 

5 containing its recommendations for the closure and 

6 realignment of military installations in the United 

7 States unless the President is convinced that imple8 mentation of such recommendations will not ad9 versely affect the homeland security of the United 

10 States and the homeland security missions of the 

11 Department of Homeland Security and the Armed 

12 Forces. 

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0478

_____________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF 

L.H.,

A Youth in Need of Care. 

________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

________________________________________________

On motion of counsel for Appellant Mother,

IT IS ORDERED that the Appellant Mother is granted an extension of time

until Friday, January 8, 2021 to file and serve the opening brief on appeal. No

further extensions will be granted for the opening brief.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Page 1 of 1

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 16 2020

11/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0478
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PRINCE DAVIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 308 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 SEPTEMBER 9, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-10315

Non-Argument Calendar

 

D. C. Docket No. 06-01350-CV-T-27-MAP 

LORENE YOUNG,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CARGILL JUICE NORTH AMERICA, INC., 

f.n.a. Cargill Citro-America, Inc., 

Defendant-Appellee

Cross Claimant,

KC CROMWELL, INC., 

f.n.a. Spartan Premier, Inc., 

d.b.a. Citrus Force Staffing, 

Defendant

Cross Defendant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida 

________________________

(September 9, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

 This is a personal injury case. The district court granted defendant

summary judgment on the ground that defendant was plaintiff’s statutory employer

and entitled to immunity from suit pursuant to Florida’s Workers’ Compensation

Act. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the “intentional tort” exception to such

immunity applies and that material issues of fact remain to be litigated regarding

that exception. We disagree, and therefore affirm. The intentional tort exception

does not apply for the reasons stated in the district court’s December 15, 2008

order granting appellee summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED.

2
#### In the Matter of the Final Accounting of Lincoln Rochester Trust Company of Rochester, as Committee of Eleanor L. Lattimore, an Incompetent, Respondent. Owen W. Lattimore et al., Appellants; Joanna A. Spear et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and facts in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, with costs to all parties filing briefs, payable out of the estate. Memorandum: The incom*881petent died on October 17, 1966 leaving a will dated August 19, 1960 by which she bequeathed all the securities and uninvested principal cash in her agency account at Security Trust Company to appellants. On September 25, 1961 she was adjudged incompetent and petitioner-respondent was appointed committee of her property. She was cared for in a hospital for five years prior to her death and the expenses of her hospital care exceeded the income from her estate by about $101,000. The judgment appealed from charges this amount proportionately against the agency account and the rest of her estate. The agency account' was opened on October 17, 1957 by delivering to the agent securities received by the incompetent from the estate of her deceased sister, as one of her sister’s heirs and next of kin and as assignee of the other heirs and next of kin to be administered in accordance with her sister’s will which had been denied probate in Massachusetts because it had not been witnessed by three persons as required by the laws of that State. The will gave her a life estate and gave the remainder to appellants. She informed the agent that the securities constituted a trust fund to go to her cousin Owen Lattimore on her death in accordance with the will of her sister which had been denied probate. In order that the terms of the will might be carried out the other heirs had waived their claims in her favor and she was carrying out its terms as an unorthodox executor. She further informed the agent that the trust fund in its care was to go directly to Owen and Eleanor Lattimore and informed appellants that she was making a will giving the agency account to them that she was honor bound not to use any of the principal in the agency account. The evidence establishes that the agency account was a trust fund from which the income was to be paid to the incompetent for life and the remainder was to be paid to appellants with no right for the incompetent to invade the principal. *(Brown*v. *Spohr,*180 N. Y. 201.) The evidence also establishes that the incompetent would not have used any part of the agency account principal had she been of sound mind. *“*The court acts for the incompetent in reference to his estate as it supposes the incompetent would have acted if he had been of sound mind” *(Matter of Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.,*181 App. Div. 642, 646, affd. 225 N. Y. 666; *Empire Trust Co.*v. *Fell,*271 N. Y. 72; *Matter of Flagler,*248 N. Y. 415; 59 A. L. R. 649), and, therefore, no part of the expense of the incompetent’s care should be charged against the agency account. (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court judicially settling accounts of committee.) Present.— Goldman, P. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
§ 431.344 Test procedure for measuring and determining energy efficiency of compressors. ( a ) *Scope.* This section is a test procedure that is applicable to a compressor that meets the following criteria: ( 1 ) Is an air compressor;
( 2 ) Is a rotary compressor;
( 3 ) Is not a liquid ring compressor;
( 4 ) Is driven by a brushless electric motor;
( 5 ) Is a lubricated compressor;
( 6 ) Has a full-load operating pressure greater than or equal to 75 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and less than or equal to 200 psig;
( 7 ) Is not designed and tested to the requirements of the American Petroleum Institute Standard 619, “Rotary-Type Positive-Displacement Compressors for Petroleum, Petrochemical, and Natural Gas Industries;”
( 8 ) Has full-load actual volume flow rate greater than or equal to 35 cubic feet per minute (cfm), or is distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower greater than or equal to 10 horsepower (hp); and
( 9 ) Has a full-load actual volume flow rate less than or equal to 1,250 cfm, or is distributed in commerce with a compressor motor nominal horsepower less than or equal to 200 hp.
( b ) *Testing and calculations.* Determine the applicable full-load package isentropic efficiency (ηisen,FL), part-load package isentropic efficiency (ηisen,PL), package specific power, maximum full-flow operating pressure, full-load operating pressure, full-load actual volume flow rate, and pressure ratio at full-load operating pressure using the test procedure set forth in appendix A of this subpart.
[82 FR 1102, Jan. 4, 2017]
H. Res. 636 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 30, 2017. 

Resolved, That until otherwise provided by the House, 

the authority of the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary shall be exercised by the minority 

member of the Committee who, prior to the adoption of this 

resolution, ranked immediately below the ranking minority 

member. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-28,344-37

EX PARTE MARCUS ANTHONY GREEN, AKA MARKUS ANTONIUS GREEN,

Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. D-1-DC-01-904200-W IN THE 167TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of practicing medicine without a license and sentenced to forty

years’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Green v. State, 137

S.W. 3d 356 (Tex. App. — Austin May 27, 2004) (pet. ref’d). Applicant filed this application

for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this

Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

In the instant application, Applicant alleges that his conviction violates the prohibition on

double jeopardy, that his conviction was obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and

seizure, and that he was denied due process and equal protection. Additionally, Applicant claims
2

that he was improperly denied release to discretionary mandatory supervision.

This Court has previously cited Applicant for abuse of the writ because Applicant

continues to raise grounds that were previously rejected on the merits or that should have been

raised in previous applications. When an applicant has been cited for abuse of the writ, we will

not consider the merits of the grounds in subsequently-filed applications unless the applicant

shows that the factual or legal basis of those grounds was unavailable in a previously filed

application. This Court has reviewed Applicant's claim that he was improperly denied release to

discretionary mandatory supervision and has determined that it is without merit. Therefore, it is

denied. Applicant's remaining claims are barred from review; as such, they are dismissed. Tex.

Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 § 4. 

Filed: April 27, 2022

Do not publish