alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Berg v. Levenberg

(No. 2)

*Sidney B. Berg,*for plaintiff.

*William K. Ravetz,*for defendant.

April 21, 1959.

Flood, P. J.,

We do not see how we can grant the prayer of plaintiff’s motion. He asks us to grant him leave to file his complaint for commissions *800due (1) as reflected by audit and partial verification thus far in the amount of $10,622.48, and (2) on estimated sales of $400,000, because of missing charge accounts and C. O. D. ledger books, and partial disclosure of other accounts.

As to (1) he can of course file such a complaint, without leave of court, on information and belief. As to (2) his remedy would seem to be to request an account, as he may do under Pa. R. C. P. 1021. This rule clearly gives him the right to ask for a verdict as to the part of his claim which he is then in a position to prove, and an accounting as to the balance.

We take it from his brief that plaintiff may be asking us for an adjudication in advance of trial on the merits of his case because of defendant’s alleged refusal to comply with Julge Bok’s order to allow the inspection of his books. He cites 4 Goodrich-Amram Civ. Pract. §4019 (a) -7, to the effect that when defendant refuses to produce its sales records, the court may find that the sales made by plaintiff and the commissions due him are as he claims. Assuming that this might be so on a flat refusal to produce records, it seems to us obviously inappropriate where defendant produces voluminous sales records, even though they are incomplete, if defendant has a plausible explanation for their nonproduction. We think this case should take the ordinary course, and that plaintiff should seek an account for such amounts as he cannot prove on the basis of his inspection of the books.

Plaintiff is in effect, if we understand his argument correctly, asking us to decide an action for accounting on depositions. Our Common Pleas Rule *1038 sets forth the method in which such a question should be decided. We think that a disposition of such matters on deposition in.advance of trial would be an unwise procedure and we are not disposed to adopt it.

The motion is dismissed.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KING, STEPHENS , and BAKER , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Lucas R. PASSA Missile Technician Third Class (E

- 4), U.S. Navy Appellant

No. 202000041

Decided: 22 July 2020
Appeal from the United States N avy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary
Military Judges : Kimberly J. Kelly (arraignment) Chad T emple (trial)
Sentence adjudged 13 December 2019 by a general court

- martial convened at Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton, Washington , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 18 months
, and a bad

- conduct discharge.
For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Scott Stoebner , JAGC, USN
For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.United States v. Passa , NMCCA No. 202000041 Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________
This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________

PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of
error, we have determined that the findings and sentence a re correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGE R A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
# Certified Productions Inc. Operation Guidelines and Protocols

Contents

Safety

• We will not operate UAS in a manner that presents undue risk to persons o r property on the surface or to manned aircraft in flight or on the ground

.

• We will ensure UAS will be piloted by individuals who are properly trained and competent to operate the vehicle or its systems. We will also insure that all pilots are qualified licensed airmen with the FAA and know and understand aeronautical charts.

• All outdoor flights will be conducted with a spotter

• We will ensure UAS flights will be conducted only after a thorough assessment of risks associated with the activity. This risks assessment will include, but is not limited to:

• Weather conditions relative to the performance capabil ity of the system

• Identification of normally anticipated failure modes (lost link, power plant failures, loss of control, etc) and consequences of the failures

• Crew fitness for flight operations

• Overlying airspace, compliance with aviation regulations as a ppropriate to the operation, and off

- nominal procedures

• Communication, command, control, and payload frequency spectrum requirements

• Reliability, performance, and airworthiness to established standards

• Conduct safety meeting with all production crew member s and cast involved with the flight of the day.

Professionalism

• We will comply with all federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, covenants, and restrictions as they relate to UAS operations.

• We will operate our systems as responsible members of the aviation community.

• We will be responsive to the needs of the public.

• We will cooperate fully with federal, state, and local authorities in response to emergency deployments, mishap investigations, and media relations.

• We will establish contingency plans f or all anticipated off

- nominal events and share them openly with all appropriate authorities.

Respect

• We will respect the rights of other users of the airspace.

• We will respect the privacy of individuals.

• We will respect the concerns of the public as the y relate to unmanned aircraft operations.

• We will support improving public awareness and education on the operation of UAS.
§ 140.35 Sanctions. ( a ) Any person who fails to comply with: ( 1 ) Any provision of the Act;
( 2 ) Any regulation in this subchapter; or
( 3 ) Any order issued under the Act or the regulations in this subchapter by the Commandant, a District Commander, or an Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, after notice of the failure and after expiration of any reasonable period allowed for corrective action, shall be liable for a civil penalty for each day of the continuance of the failure.
( b ) Any person who knowingly and willfully: ( 1 ) Violates any provision of the Act;
( 2 ) Violates any regulation in this subchapter designed to protect health, safety, or the environment;
( 3 ) Violates any order of the Commandant, District Commander, or Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, issued under the Act or the regulations in this subchapter that is designed to protect health, safety, or the environment;
( 4 ) Makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report, or other document filed or required to be maintained under the Act or the regulations in this subchapter;
( 5 ) Falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method of record required to be maintained under this Act or the regulations in this subchapter; or
( 6 ) Reveals any data or information required to be kept confidential by the Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $100,000, or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both. Each day that a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section continues, or each day that any monitoring device or data recorder remains inoperative or inaccurate because of any activity described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, constitutes a separate violation.
( c ) Whenever a corporation or other entity is subject to prosecution under paragraph (b) of this section, any officer or agent of the corporation or entity who knowingly and willfully authorized, ordered, or carried out the prescribed activity shall be subject to the same fines or imprisonment, or both, as provided for under paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) The penalties prescribed in this section are concurrent and cumulative and the exercise of one does not preclude the exercise of the others. Further, the penalties prescribed in this section are in addition to any other penalties afforded by any other law or regulation.
[CGD 78-160, 47 FR 9376, Mar. 4, 1982, as amended by CGD 96-052, 62 FR 16703, Apr. 8, 1997]
#### Peckham Road Corporation, Appellant, v Town of Putnam Valley et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted March 4, 1996;

decided May 2, 1996

*868Motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it is made with respect to defendants Town of Putnam Valley, Town of Putnam Valley officials, Wagon Productions, Inc. and Larry and Mark Tarnofsky, dismissed upon the ground that, as to those defendants, the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied. Motion for clarification of this Court’s January 11, 1996 order denied. *[See,*87 NY2d 912.]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 50486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20687]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
Board of Scientific Counselors, National Human Genome Research 
Institute.
    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Human Genome Research Institute, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual 
investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National 
Human Genome Research Institute.
    Date: September 26-27, 2011.
    Time: September 26, 2011, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 50, Fifth Floor 
Conference Room, 50 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Time: September 27, 2011, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 50, Fifth Floor 
Conference Room, 50 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Claire Kelso, Intramural Program Specialist, 
Division of Intramural Research, Office of the Scientific Director, 
National Human Genome Research Institute, 50 South Drive, Building 
50, Room 5222, Bethesda, MD 20892-8002, 301 435-5802, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2d4e414c445f486d43454a5f4403434445034a425b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ffcf3fef6edfadff1f7f8edf6b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 9, 2011.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-20687 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOSE HIPOLITO CRUZ DIAZ, a/k/a Pirana,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:05-cr-00393-DKC-9; 8:14-cv-01725-

DKC)

Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Hipolito Cruz Diaz, Appellant Pro Se. Chan Park, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Hipolito Cruz Diaz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Diaz 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 780.1006 In or about a home.

Whether the work of an employee is being performed “in or about a home,” so that he may be considered a homeworker, must be determined on the facts in the particular case. In general, however the phrase “in or about a home” includes any home, apartment, or other dwelling place and surrounding premises, such yards, garages, sheds or basements. A convent, orphanage or similar institution is considered a home.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

NANCY A. RUSH,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, 

District Judge. (1:10-cv-00006-IMK)

Submitted: November 23, 2011 Decided: December 15, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory H. Schillace, SCHILLACE LAW OFFICE, Clarksburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United 

States Attorney, Alan G. McGonigal, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Nancy A. Rush appeals from the district court’s order 

awarding summary judgment to the United States in its action to 

collect on student loans that Rush executed. See United States 

v. Rush, No. 1:10-cv-00006-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 22, 2011). 

Rush contends that issues of material fact remain such that a 

reasonable jury could conclude that she repaid the loans. 

Specifically, while she does not recall receiving documentation 

that she had satisfied the loan obligations, she “assum[es]” and 

“guess[es]” that she repaid the loans prior to the alleged 

default. She also contends that a former employee of the 

originating bank attested that she had never been in default 

during his employment; that the originating bank approved other 

loans to her, which would not have occurred had she defaulted; 

and that the guaranty agency’s cessation of garnishment efforts 

evidences her repayment of the loans.

Rush’s contentions are not persuasive. The United 

States has submitted documents certified by the United States 

Department of Education and other evidence showing her default. 

In the face of these records, Rush’s unsubstantiated and 

equivocal assertion that she repaid the loans does not create an 

issue of material fact. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). The former employee’s statement 

does not justify reversal because he left the bank before the 
3

default and would not know whether Rush defaulted. So too with 

respect to Rush’s other loans, as the record indicates that they 

were executed before the default. Finally, the guaranty 

agency’s cessation of garnishment efforts does not create an 

issue of material fact. Undisputed evidence shows that the 

agency ceased collection activities not because Rush had repaid 

the loans, but because it assigned the loans to the Department 

of Education. Subsequently, the Department undertook its own 

collection efforts. 

Accordingly, we affirm. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                                            183
<SECURITIES>                                   31,228
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               32,608
<PP&E>                                         29,610
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24,926
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           8,769
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           20
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,393
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41,867
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  293
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                9,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                263
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,665)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)
        


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

          -  Docket No. 50-335-LA; ASLBP No. 11-911-01-LA-BD01]

                    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations,                     *see, e.g.,*10 CFR 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following proceeding:                

## Florida Power & Light Company (St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1)

                    This proceeding involves a license amendment request by Florida Power & Light Company to increase, from 2,700 megawatts thermal to 3,020 megawatts thermal, the licensed core power level for St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, which is located in St. Lucie County, Florida. In response to a “Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, and Opportunity for a Hearing” published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 9, 2011 (76 FR 33,789), a hearing request was submitted by Thomas Saporito on behalf of Saprodani Associates.                

The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

William J. Froehlich, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Dr. Kenneth L. Mossman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August 2011.

E. Roy Hawkens,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 2011-20952 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P