alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD STOW

,

Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Cr. ID. No. 1910001001 ) ) ) )

Submitted: May 1, 2023

Decided: May 17, 2023

On Defendant’s Motion for Post

- Conviction Relief

DENIED

On Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel

DENIED

ORDER

JOHNSTON, J.

On July 6, 2021, Ronald Stow (“Defendant”) pled guilty to four counts of

D ealing in C hild P ornography, and one count of S ex O ffender U nlawful S exual

C onduct A gainst a C hild. Defendant was sentenced on October 1, 2021. On

August 12, 2022, Defendant reques ted transcripts of his sentencing hearing. The

Court granted Defendant’s request and sent the sentencing transcript to Defendant

on September 22, 2022. Defendant filed the instant Motion for Postconviction

Relief, together with a Motion for Appointment o f Counsel, on April 20, 2023.2

“ A motion for postconviction relief may not be filed more than one year

after the judgment of conviction is final

. . . .” 1 “A judgment of conviction is

final

. . . [30 days after the Court imposes sentence] if the defendant does not file a

direct appeal.” 2 Delaware Superior Court Rule 61(e)(3) states:

The judge may appoint counsel for an indigent movant ’ s first timely postconviction motion and request for appointment of counsel if the motion seeks to set aside a judgment of conviction that resulted from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere only if the judge determines that: (i) the conviction has been affirmed by final order upon direct appellate review or direct appellate review is unavailable; (ii) the motion sets forth a substantial claim that the

movant received ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to the plea of guilty or nolo contendere; (iii) granti ng the motion would result in vacatur of the judgment of conviction for which the movant is in custody; and (iv) specific exceptional circumstances warrant the appointment of counsel.

The Court finds Defendant’s Motion for Post

- Conviction Relief untimely.

Thus, Rule 6 1 (e)(3) also is not satisfied. While this is Defendant’s first post

conviction motion, it is not timely. The Court imposed Defendant’s sentence on

October 1, 2021. The judgment of conviction became final on October 31, 2021.

Defendant di d not file his motion for post

- conviction relief until April 20, 2023

—

nearly six months after the one

- year deadline. 3

1 Del. Super. Ct. R. 61(i)(1).

2 Del. Super. Ct. R. 61(m)(1).

3 The Court sent Defendant his sentencing transcript on September 22, 2022. Defendant had approximately one month after receiving his sentencing transcript to submit his Motion for Post

Conviction Relief in a timely manner. One month is more than enough t ime to submit the3

The Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Post

- Conviction Relief.

The Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Mary M. Johnston The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

motion in a timely fashion. Instead, Defendant submitted his motions almost six months after

the one

- year deadline

.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6885 Liquid chemical sterilants/high level disinfectants. ( a ) *Identification.* A liquid chemical sterilant/high level disinfectant is a germicide that is intended for use as the terminal step in processing critical and semicritical medical devices prior to patient use. Critical devices make contact with normally sterile tissue or body spaces during use. Semicritical devices make contact during use with mucous membranes or nonintact skin.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). Guidance on the Content and Format of Premarket Notification (510(k)) Submissions for Liquid Chemical Sterilants/High Level Disinfectants, and user information and training.
[65 FR 36325, June 8, 2000]
O LEM/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460 

## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)

*** Proposed Site *** Apri l 2016 

### DORADO GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION Dorado, Puerto Rico

 **Site Location :**  The Dorado Ground Water Contamination s ite is locate d in a mixed residential/commercial/industrial area in the

m unicipality of Dorado, Puerto Rico. Dorado is situated along the northern coast and to the west of San Juan.

 **Site History:** The site consists of a n area of ground water containing organic based solvents
, but the contamination cannot be clearly attributed to any specifi c source or sources. Ground water wells are the primary suppliers to the two active public water supply systems, Maguayo and Dorado Urbano, which are operated in Dorado by Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). Wells in the Maguayo and Dorado Ur bano systems have been contaminated since the 1980s. Some wells have been closed either temporarily or permanently due to the presence of these solvents

.

G round water is contaminated with organic based solvents
, primari ly tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), which are commonly used in commercial and industrial operations such as dry cleaning and metal degreasing.  **Site Contamination/Contaminants:**

 **Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment :**  The contaminated wells withdraw water from the upper aquifer of the North Coast Limestone Aquifer System. The upper aquifer is the principal source of fresh ground water in Dorado and historically has been the principal source of public and industrial water use in the region. The ground water contamination affects drinking water supply wells in the Maguayo and Dora do Urbano public water systems, which are the source of drinking water for more than 67,000 people.  **Response Activities (to date):** Some wells have been closed temporarily or perman ently due to contamination. T he Super Aqueduct is used to supplement the water supply to the extent possible.

 **Need for NPL Listing:** The c ommonwealth of Puerto Rico referred this site to the EPA. Other federal and state cleanup programs were evalua ted
, but are not viable at this time

. The EPA received a l etter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

[The d escription o

f the s ite (release) i s bas ed on information available at t he t ime t he s ite w as e valuated with the H RS. T he de scription may change as addi tional i nformation is gat hered on the s ources and extent o f c ontamination. Se e 56 FR 5600, F ebruary 11, 1991, or

s ubsequent FR n o tices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regar ding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1

- 888

- 42

- ATSDR or 1

- 888

- 422

- 8737.
# C_2015026EN.01004601.xml

| 26.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/46

---

Action brought on 10 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-108/14)

(2015/C 026/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to credit the applicant’s pension rights in the context of the transfer of those rights to the European Union pension scheme pursuant to the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions relating to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that Article 9 of the general implementing provisions relating to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

| — | set aside the decision of 16 January 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union pursuant to the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011 in relation to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of 16 January 2014 to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those pension rights to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union pursuant to the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011 in relation to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.5800 External nasal splint. ( a ) *Identification.* An external nasal splint is a rigid or partially rigid device intended for use externally for immobilization of parts of the nose.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 874.9.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 9, 1986, as amended at 52 FR 32111, Aug. 25, 1987; 59 FR 63009, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38801, July 25, 2001]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KIM A. PRATER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu—1; 1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1)

Submitted: November 18, 2010 Decided: December 1, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Kim A. Prater, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kim A. Prater appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Prater, Nos. 

1:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu-1; 1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. June 18, 

2010). 

Prater also appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Prater has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.2500 Microtiter diluting and dispensing device. ( a ) *Identification.* A microtiter diluting and dispensing device is a mechanical device intended for medical purposes to dispense or serially dilute very small quantities of biological or chemical reagents for use in various diagnostic procedures.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 25046, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38791, July 25, 2001]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7858 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7858

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a Medicare 
   incident to modifier for mental health services furnished through 
               telehealth and other telehealth services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Telehealth Enhancement for Mental 
Health Act of 2024'' or the ``TELEMH Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICARE INCIDENT TO MODIFIER FOR MENTAL 
              HEALTH SERVICES FURNISHED THROUGH TELEHEALTH AND OTHER 
              TELEHEALTH SERVICES.

    Section 1834(m) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(10) Required use of modifiers in certain instances.--Not 
        later than January 1, 2026, the Secretary shall establish 
        requirements to include a code or modifier, as determined 
        appropriate by the Secretary, in the case of claims for 
        telehealth services under this subsection that are billed 
        incident to a physician's or practitioner's professional 
        service.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7858

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a Medicare 
   incident to modifier for mental health services furnished through 
               telehealth and other telehealth services.
```
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2900 Patient transducer and electrode cable (including connector). ( a ) *Identification.* A patient transducer and electrode cable (including connector) is an electrical conductor used to transmit signals from, or power or excitation signals to, patient-connected electrodes or transducers.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Analytical Method to Calculate Effective Elastic Properties of General Multifunctional Honeycomb Cores in Sandwich CompositesSandwich composite structures are ideal configurations in which to incorporate additional functionality beyond load-carrying capabilities. The inner core-walls can be layered to incorporate other functions such as power storage for a battery. In this work we investigate an assemblage of analytical tools to compute effective properties that allow complex layered core architectures to be homogenized into a single continuum layer. This provides a great increase in computational efficiency to numerically simulate the structural response of multifunctional sandwich structures under applied loads. We present a coupled analytical method including an extensive numerical verification of the accuracy of this method.Document ID20190025271Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSather, Erik*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Krishnamurthy, Thiagaraja*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredMay 22, 2019Publication DateApril 1, 2019Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2019-220275NF1676L-32943L-21020Funding Number(s)WORK_UNIT: 975105.09.23Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Technical ReviewSingle ExpertAvailable DownloadsNameType20190025271.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 700.35 Cosmetics containing sunscreen ingredients. ( a ) A product that includes the term “sunscreen” in its labeling or in any other way represents or suggests that it is intended to prevent, cure, treat, or mitigate disease or to affect a structure or function of the body comes within the definition of a drug in section 201(g)(1) of the act. Sunscreen active ingredients affect the structure or function of the body by absorbing, reflecting, or scattering the harmful, burning rays of the sun, thereby altering the normal physiological response to solar radiation. These ingredients also help to prevent diseases such as sunburn and may reduce the chance of premature skin aging, skin cancer, and other harmful effects due to the sun when used in conjunction with limiting sun exposure and wearing protective clothing. When consumers see the term “sunscreen” or similar sun protection terminology in the labeling of a product, they expect the product to protect them in some way from the harmful effects of the sun, irrespective of other labeling statements. Consequently, the use of the term “sunscreen” or similar sun protection terminology in a product's labeling generally causes the product to be subject to regulation as a drug. However, sunscreen ingredients may also be used in some products for nontherapeutic, nonphysiologic uses (e.g., as a color additive or to protect the color of the product). To avoid consumer misunderstanding, if a cosmetic product contains a sunscreen ingredient and uses the term “sunscreen” or similar sun protection terminology anywhere in its labeling, the term must be qualified by describing the cosmetic benefit provided by the sunscreen ingredient.
( b ) The qualifying information required under paragraph (a) of this section shall appear prominently and conspicuously at least once in the labeling in conjunction with the term “sunscreen” or other similar sun protection terminology used in the labeling. For example: “Contains a sunscreen—to protect product color.”
[64 FR 27693, May 21, 1999]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Export-Import Bank of the United States

# ACTION:

Notice of a Partially Open Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

# Time and Place:

Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

# Open Agenda Items:

Item No. 1 Revision of Eximbank's Environmental Procedures and Guidelines consistent with the Bank's Carbon Policy.

Item No. 2 Expanding Eligibility for Short Term Products.

# Public Participation:

The meeting will be open to public observation for Items No. 1 & 2 only.

# For Further Information:

For further information, contact: Office of the Secretary, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571 (202) 565-3957.

Jonathan J. Cordone,

Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 2010-4943 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6690-01-M
# C_2014329EN.01001002.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-365/14)

2014/C 329/13

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler

Applicants:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91.

1

---