alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 594.308 Person.

The term *person* means an individual or entity.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined t hat this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10415

(Summary Calendar)

TONY FITZGERALD COLE,

Pl aintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH WADLEY, EL AL.,

Defendants,

KENNETH WADLEY,

Defendant-Appellee.

.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-117-C)

November 6, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tony Fitzgerald Cole, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 (d), no w § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(I), and the denial of his motions for a default judgment against

Defendant Wadley and for service of process on him, as well as the denial of his motion for t he

appointment of counsel. His claim asserted various violations of 42 U.S.C. § 19832

by prison officials of the Texas Department of Corrections, Amarillo, Texas.

Cole’s appeal from the denial of his motion for a default judgment is precluded from review

by this court under the law of the case doctrine. Cole v. Wadley

, et al, No. 96-10315 (5th Cir. June

5, 1996) (unpublished); Chevron U.S.A., I nc. V. Traillour Oil Co. , 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir.

1993). The law of the case doctrine generally precludes the reexamination of issues d ecided on

appeal, either by the district court on remand or by the appellate court itself on subsequent appeal.

Chevron

, 987 F.2d at 1150. Cole’s argument that the district court erred when it dismissed Defendant

Wadley for failure to obtain service of process pertains to a nonfinal order which is not reviewable

by this court. See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co.

, 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay,

Inc. v. United States Army

, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981). His appeal from that order is

DISMISSED.

Cole further appeals the refusal of the district court to appoint counsel for him. However, a

civil rights complainant d o es no t have an automatic right to the appointment of counsel. U lmer v.

Chancellor

, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Moreover, absent exceptional circumstances, a trial

court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaint iff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Id. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to

appoint counsel. As to the remaining issues Cole raises, we have reviewed the record and Cole’s brief

and AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons adopted by and set forth

by the district court. Cole v. Wadley, et al.

, No. 1:95-CV-117 (N.D. Tex. Dec 28, 1995; April 4,

1996).

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         244,301
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,095
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               306,396
<PP&E>                                       1,951,883
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,366,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 891,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     891,965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   891,965
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,265
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,554
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

Department of Public Health 

Environmental Protection Division 

Air Management Services 

InterOffice Memo 

To: File 

From: Kassahun Sellassie 

Date: Nov 13, 2014 

Subject: 1997 8-Hour RACT Analysis for Exelon Generating Company - Southwark Station 

Introduction: 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas implement reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) controls on all major sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Philadelphia County is part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City moderate ozone 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This document presents the findings of the reevaluation of 

NOx RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for this facility 

Company Description: 

Exelon (formerly PECO) - Southwark Station owns and operates an electric utility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Equipment currently used at the facility includes four simple cycle combustion turbines. The facility was owned by 

PECO Energy Company at the time of the 1-hour RACT plan approval, but changed to ownership to Exelon in 

October 2000. 

Applicability for NOx and VOC RACT: 

Exelon - Southwark Station is a major source of NOx due to having potential NOx emissions greater than 100 tons 

per year, the major source threshold in Philadelphia County that is applicable to NOx RACT for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. They are not a major source of VOC, due to having potential VOC emissions not greater than 50 

tons per year, the major source threshold in Philadelphia County that is applicable to VOC RACT for the 1997 8-

hour ozone. 

Process Descriptions: 

Exelon - Southwark Station currently has four combustion turbines rated 15.5 MW. All units burn #2 oil. These are 

the only NOx emission sources at the facility. 

NOx RACT Analysis for the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard: 

Each combustion turbine accepted a 5% annual capacity factor in the 1-hour RACT determination dated July 11, 

2001 and is covered under the presumptive RACT limitations of 25 PA Code Section 129.93(c)(5). Therefore, the 

combustion turbines are covered by Pennsylvania’s presumptive RACT. No further analysis is needed for 8-hour 

RACT. 

Conclusions and Recommendations: 

It is recommended that the 1-hour ozone RACT determination dated July 11, 2001 still be considered to represent 

NOx RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the Exelon - Southwark Station. 

1/9/15

Edward Wiener, Chief of Source Registration Date
# C_2005174EN.01001201.xml

| 14.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/12

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.3696 — E.ON/MOL)

(2005/C 174/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 July 2005, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference COMP/M.3696 — E.ON/MOL, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1049 Brussels

---
HomeBrazil

# Brazil

224 items

        -    TIAS  		Brazil (97-424) – Mutual Cooperation Agreement for Reducing Demand, Preventing Illicit Use and Combatting Illicit Production and Trafficking of Drugs	  April 24, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		Brazil (12829) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the Earth Sciences	  January 31, 1997 
        -    TIAS  		Brazil (12820) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Flight of the Humidity Sounder for Brazil (HSB) Instrument on NASA’s Earth Observing System PM-1 Spacecraft	  December 5, 1996 
        -    TIAS  		Brazil (12879) – Agreement Replacing Annexes I and II to the Air Transport Agreement of March 21, 1989, as Amended	  April 1, 1996 

previous page1…212223

Back to Top
# C_2005156EN.01000401.xml

| 28.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3810 — Investcorp/Polyconcept)

(2005/C 156/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 May 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3810. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3810. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
### Graphic-locator method in geologic mapping

By: David J. VarnesTommy L. FinnellEdwin V. Post

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1081A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 555.502 Effect of license or other authorization. ( a ) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by OFAC, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.
( b ) No regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license is issued by OFAC and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any other part of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license specifically refers to such part.
( c ) Any regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license authorizing any transaction prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property that would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.
( d ) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to supersede the requirements established under any other provision of law or to relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization from another department or agency of the U.S. government in compliance with applicable laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of that department or agency. For example, exports of goods, services, or technical data that are not prohibited by this part or that do not require a license by OFAC nevertheless may require authorization by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, or other agencies of the U.S. government.
( e ) No license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
( f ) Any payment relating to a transaction authorized in or pursuant to this part that is routed through the U.S. financial system should reference the relevant OFAC general or specific license authorizing the payment to avoid the blocking or rejection of the transfer.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6583

JOSEPH LEE GARRETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-670-R) Submitted: August 17, 1999 Decided: September 2, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Lee Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Lee Garrett seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Garrett v. Angelone , No. CA-98- 670-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 1999). We deny Garrett’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Marshall Islands

70 items

        -    Report  		Marshall Islands	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Marshall Islands	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Marshall Islands	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Marshall Islands	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Marshall Islands	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Marshall Islands	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Marshall Islands (13-319) – Agreement Protocol on Maritime Surveillance and Interdiction Activities	  March 19, 2013 
        -    TIAS  		Marshall Islands (08-805) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation in Maritime Surveillance and Interdiction Activities	  August 5, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Marshall Islands (04-1124) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation to Suppress the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Their Delivery Systems, and Related Materials by Sea	  November 24, 2004 
        -    TIAS  		Marshall Islands (04-0501.7) – Agreement Concerning Procedures for the Implementation of the United States Economic Assistance Provided in the Compact of Free Association	  May 1, 2004 

previous page1…4567next page

Back to Top
#### Arquimides ALBELO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Christopher ARTUZ, Superintendent, Department of Correctional Services, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 98-2569.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 20, 2001.

Terence L. Kindlon, Kindlon & Shanks, Albany, NY, Arquimides Albelo, Storm-ville, NY, pro se.

Thomas B. Litsky, Ass’t Sol. Gen., N.Y., NY, for appellee.

Present KEARSE, LEVAL, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was submitted by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Kaplan’s Order dated October 24, 1997. No evidentiary hearing as to the affiant’s state of mind was required in light of the statement to the court by defense counsel that he had decided during trial, for tactical reasons that he explained, not to call the affiant as a defense witness.

We have considered all of the contentions advanced by petitioner and his attorney on this appeal, and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
# Czech Republic

101 items

        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Inaugural United States-Czech Republic Cyber Dialogue	  March 18, 2024 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with Czech Foreign Minister Lipavský	  March 13, 2024 
        -    DipNote  		Shaping the Future of Nuclear Security	  March 4, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement Endorsing Principles for 6G: Secure, Open, and Resilient by Design	  February 28, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Prague, Czech Republic: International School of Prague: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 23, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary Pyatt’s Travel to Prague and the Munich Security Conference	  February 12, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		The United States Joins Multinational Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 to Support Global Climate and Energy Security Goals	  December 2, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Uzra Zeya’s Remarks at the IRFBA Ministerial Evening Reception	  Uzra ZeyaNovember 28, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Uzra Zeya’s Remarks at the Panel Session Announcing the IRFBA Ministerial Inter-Faith Football Exhibition Match	  Uzra ZeyaNovember 28, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to the Czech Republic and Moldova	  November 27, 2023 

123…11next page

Back to Top
#### § 501.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice.

The information collection requirements in subparts C and D have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)) and assigned control number 1505-0164. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.
#### § 136.405 What are the minimum standards of character for individuals placed in, or applying for, a position that involves regular contact with or control over Indian children?

The minimum standards of character shall mean a benchmark of moral, ethical, and emotional strengths established by character traits and past conduct to ensure that the individual is competent to complete his/her job without harm to Indian children. In order to protect Indian children, the IHS has established minimum standards of character requiring completion of a satisfactory background investigation that ensures that no individuals who have been found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any felonious offense or any of two or more misdemeanor offenses under Federal, State, or Tribal law involving crimes of violence; sexual assault, molestation, exploitation, contact, or prostitution; crimes against persons; or offenses committed against children, are placed in positions involving regular contact with or control over Indian children.