alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 52.33 Duration of renewal.

Each renewal of an early site permit may be for not less than 10, nor more than 20 years, plus any remaining years on the early site permit then in effect before renewal.
UN PUBLISHED
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 un published 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 22 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
§ 904.11 Lay off of energy. ( a ) If any Contractor determines that it is temporarily unable to utilize Firm Energy or Excess Energy, Western will, at the Contractor's request, attempt to lay off the Firm Energy or Excess Energy the Contractor declares to be available for lay off, pursuant to the provisions for lay off of energy specified in the Contract.
( b ) If Western is unable to lay off such energy, or if the Contractor fails to request Western to attempt to lay off the energy, the Contractor will be billed for the Firm Energy or Excess Energy that was available to the Contractor but could not be delivered to the Contractor or sold to another customer.
( c ) In the event that Western must lay off the Firm Energy or Excess Energy at a rate lower than the effective Firm Energy rate, the Contractor will be billed for the difference between the amount that Western would have received at the then existing Firm Energy rate, including the appropriate Lower Basin Development Fund Contribution Charge, and the amount actually received.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7016

CHARLES T. HOYE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; 

GARY L. BASS, Reg. Administrator, Virginia Department of 

Corrections, Central Regional Office; SAMUEL V. PRUETT, 

Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center; I. T. GILMORE, 

Assistant Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center; R. W. 

MARTIN, EBP/Reentry Manager, Coffeewood Correctional Center; 

D. GOURDINE, Inst. Pgms. Mgr. (IPM), Coffeewood Correctional 

Center; L. D. MOORE, Food Service Admin., Coffeewood 

Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:14-cv-00124-MFU)

Submitted: December 29, 2015 Decided: January 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Charles T. Hoye, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Charles T. Hoye appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoye v. 

Clarke, No. 7:14-cv-00124-MFU (W.D. Va. May 27, 2015). 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
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Stephen L. Brown,  as Chief  Executive  Officer of Franklin  Capital
Corporation (the "COMPANY") certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "REPORT")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated:  May 14, 2004                      /s/ Stephen L. Brown
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Stephen L. Brown
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Franklin  Capital  Corporation  and will be  retained  by Franklin
Capital  Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 538 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 538

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      November 9, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2862) making 
appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
## United States Court of App eals
F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 13 68

__ __ __ __ __ _ Jo e S. W es le y , *
* App el la nt , * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s * Dis tri ctCo ur t fo r th e Eas te rn v. * Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s. * Cro th al l Se rv ic es Grou p, * [UNPUBLISHED]
* App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 5, 2 01 1 Fi le d: Octo be r 11 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re LOKEN, BYE, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Jo e S. W es le y ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary 1 jud gm en t in hi s em

pl oym en t-d is cri m in at io n act io n, an d th e su bs eque nt de ni al of hi s
m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n. In it ia ll y , we no te th at W es le y ’s no ti ce of ap pe al is ti m el y
on ly as to th e or de r de nyin g reco ns id erat io n, se e Hug gi ns v. Fed Ex Gro un d Pack ag e Sy s., In c., 56 6 F.3 d 77 1, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (co ur t i s o b l ig at ed to co ns id er juri sd ic ti on su a sp on te whe n th ere is in di cat io n th at it is la ck in g) , be cau se hi s m ot io n
was fil ed twen ty-ni ne da y s aft er th e en try of jud gm en t, an d th us di d no t to ll th e ti m e

The Hon or ab le Su sa n W eb be r Wr i g ht , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s.to ap pe al th e u nd erl y in g gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, se e Fed

. R. App

. P. 4( a)(4 ). Fi nd in g no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e de ni al of reco ns id erat io n un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro ced ur e 60 (b ), se e Arn ol d v. W oo d, 23 8 F.3 d 99 2, 99 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (Ru le 60 (b ) m ov an t m

us t de m on st rat e ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces jus ti fy in g su ch rel ie f), we affi rm th e d is tri ctco ur t. We als o d en y W es le y ’s m ot io n fo r rem an d.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

- 2

-
§ 7.16 Annual comprehensive review. ( a ) The Chairman of the Commission shall conduct an annual comprehensive review of the activities and responsibilities of each NRC advisory committee to determine whether the committee— ( 1 ) Is carrying out its purposes or, consistent with the provisions of applicable statutes, its responsibilities should be revised.
( 2 ) Should be merged with another advisory committee.
( 3 ) Should be terminated.
( b ) The comprehensive review required by paragraph (a) of this section shall include consideration of such information regarding the committee as is required for the Commission's annual report to the GSA Secretariat pursuant to § 7.17(a) and such other information as may be requested from the Committee by the NRC Advisory Committee Management Officer. The results of such review shall be included in the annual report to the GSA Secretariat.
( c ) If, as a result of the review required by this section, the Commission determines that an advisory committee is no longer needed, the committee shall be terminated; except that in the case of an advisory committee established by an Act of Congress or the President, the committee's termination shall be recommended to the President or the Congress, as the case may be.
[54 FR 26948, June 27, 1989, as amended at 67 FR 79842, Dec. 31, 2002]
Warsaw , 9 * December , 200 9 CIVI L AVIATIO

N OFHCE O FTH E REPUBLI

C O FPOLAN D AI RTRANSPOR

T DEPARTMEN

T 

### iiiiiiiiiniiii i mil l II I III 00000016620 2

ULC-LER-2/0850-0002/01/09 Mr . Pau l Gretc h Director , Offic e o f

Internationa l Aviatio n Offic e of th e Assistan t

Secretar y Fo r Aviatio n an d Internationa l Affair s U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea r Mr . Gretch , Th e Civi l Aviatio n Offic e of th e Republi c o

f Polan d hereb y confirm s tha t th e Government o f Polan d woul d accord reciprocal treatmen t to an y U.S-designate d airlin e request s comparabl e t o th e pendin g reques t of Polski e Lini e Lotnicz e "LOT " S.A . (LO T Polis h Airlines ) date d 4 * December 200 9 (concernin g flight s o n POS-JFK-PO S route ) t o operate sevent h freedo mcharte r

flight s t o th e Unite d State s fromathir d country .

Sincerel y yours , Ann aKolma s Actin g Directo r Ai r Transpor t Departmen t Civi l Aviatio n Offic e o

f th e Republi c of

Polan d

ul . Marcin aFlis a2,02-24 7 Warszaw a- tel. : +482 2 52 0 7 4 3 5 (7436 , 7437) , fax ; +482 2 52 0 743 8

Internet : http://www.ulc.gov.pl ; email : dgca@ulc.gov.p l
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0295 SAT Date: 3/3/2015 Print Date: 7/20/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 ?1

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG OVERLOAD
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0295 FATE:
S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 °C (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E) BP > 400 °C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0-99 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = low - v.strong PBT Potential: P3B?*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - rapid

Health : Health Summary: Expect poor absorption via all routes ( p che m /analog). Concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for poorly soluble particulates.

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value *
daphnid

_ chronic value *

algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class = p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic *

SARs SAR Class TSCA New Chemcial Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00695-WKW-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/07/2006 Page 3 of 3
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 568 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3936) to protect consumers 

from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels during energy emergencies, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2005 

Ms. HERSETH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3936) to protect 

consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels 

during energy emergencies, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 

2 resolution the House shall without intervention of any 

3 point of order consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3936) 

4 to protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and 

5 other fuels during energy emergencies, and for other pur6 poses. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 

7 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final 

8 passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 

9 of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the 
2 

HRES 568 IH 

1 chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 

2 on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to recom3 mit. 

Æ
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2015 - 5914 Directorate ID : 2014 - SW - 056 - AD Helicopter Model: Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 33 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to detect corrosion and prevent failure of the main rotor hub torsion bar, loss of a main rotor blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 7,020 torsion bar replacement Labor per Helicopter ( 8 work hours X $85 f

or inspection ) $680 per inspection cycle Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $680 per inspection cycle Total U . S . Fleet Cost $22,440 per inspection cycle Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Ye s ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Pro ject Engineer : Robert Grant
§ 710.2 Scope. ( a ) The procedures outlined in this part apply to determinations of eligibility for access authorization or eligibility to hold a sensitive position for: ( 1 ) Employees (including consultants) of, and applicants for employment with, contractors and agents of the DOE;
( 2 ) Access permittees of the DOE and their employees (including consultants) and applicants for employment;
( 3 ) Employees (including consultants) of, and applicants for employment with, the DOE; and
( 4 ) Other persons designated by the Secretary of Energy.
( b ) To the extent the procedures in this part apply to determinations of eligibility for access to classified information or special nuclear material, they shall also apply to determinations of eligibility to hold a sensitive position, except as specifically noted.
[89 FR 59595, July 23, 2024]
2007-2133.

#### State v. Jackson.

Clermont App. No. CA2006-07-050, 2007-Ohio-914. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Pfeifer, J., dissents.
# EUR-Lex - 31980R1440 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31980R1440

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 1440/80 of 30 May 1980 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand - member countries of the Association of the South-East Asian Nations **

*
Official Journal L 144 , 10/06/1980 P. 0001 - 0001 Finnish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 9 P. 0182 Greek special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 20 P. 0209 Swedish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 9 P. 0182 Spanish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 13 P. 0003 Portuguese special edition Chapter 11 Volume 13 P. 0003 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 1440/80 of 30 May 1980 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand - member countries of the Association of the South-East Asian Nations

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 113 and 235 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [1],

[1]OJ No C 85, 8.4.1980, p. 83.

Whereas the conclusion of the cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand - member countries of the Association of the South-East Asian Nations, appears necessary for the attainment of the aims of the Community in the sphere of external economic relations ; whereas certain forms of economic cooperation envisaged by the Agreement exceed the powers of action specified in the sphere of the common commercial policy,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand - member countries of the Association of the South-East Asian Nations, is hereby approved on behalf of the Community.

The text of the Agreement is annexed to this Regulation.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall give the notification provided for in Article 8 of the Agreement [2].

[2]The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 May 1980.

For the Council

The President

G. ZAMBERLETTI
# EUR-Lex - 31985R0631 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31985R0631

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 631/85 of 12 March 1985 amending for the third time Regulation (EEC) No 32/82 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds for beef and veal **

*
Official Journal L 072 , 13/03/1985 P. 0024 - 0024 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 18 P. 0130 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 34 P. 0009 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 18 P. 0130 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 34 P. 0009 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 631/85

of 12 March 1985

amending for the third time Regulation (EEC) No 32/82 laying down the conditions for granting special export refunds for beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Article 18 (6) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 32/82 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2304/82 (3), defines the conditions for granting special export refunds in the beef and veal sector; whereas, to prevent any substitution from occurring, it is stipulated that the products in question may not be subjected to the operations provided for in 2, 3 and 4 of Article 4 (5) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 798/80 of 31 March 1980 laying down general rules on the advance payment of export refunds and positive compensatory amounts in respect of agricultural products (4), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1663/81 (5);

Whereas, however, for reasons of commercial practice, it is appropriate to permit the wrapping of the products in question on condition that the identification mark or seal on each product remains clearly visible from the outside of the wrapping so as to prevent any substitution;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Beef and Veal,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following is added to the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 32/82:

'However, the competent authorities may authorize the wrapping of the products on condition that the identification mark or seal on each product, referred to in Article 3 (2), still remains visible'.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

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

Done at Brussels, 12 March 1985.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 148, 28. 6. 1968, p. 24.

(2) OJ No L 4, 8. 1. 1982, p. 11.

(3) OJ No L 246, 21. 8. 1982, p. 9.

(4) OJ No L 87, 1. 4. 1980, p. 42.

(5) OJ No L 166, 24. 6. 1981, p. 9.