alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30905]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-250/251-LR; ASLBP No. 01-786-03-LR]


Florida Power and Light Company Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 
3 and 4; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28710 (1972), and Sections 
2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721, and 2.772(j) of the 
Commission's Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following 
proceeding:

Florida Power and Light Company
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4

    This Board is being established pursuant to a notice published in 
the Federal Register (65 FR 60693 (Oct. 12, 2000)) and the Commission's 
November 28, 2000 order referring intervention petitions for a hearing 
(CLI-00-23, 52 NRC ---- (Nov. 28, 2000)). The proceeding involves an 
application by the Florida Power and Light Company to renew the 
operating licenses for its Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, 
pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR part 54. The renewed licenses, if 
granted, would authorize the applicant to operate those units for an 
additional twenty-year period.
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001.
Dr. Charles N. Kelber, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001
    All correspondence, documents and other materials shall be filed 
with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR Sec. 2.701.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 2000.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 00-30905 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1899

___________ Oscar Guthrie, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the M.D. Reed, Warden, Cummins Unit, * Eastern District Arkansas Arkansas Department of Correction; * Jonathan Robinson, Teacher, * [UNPUBLISHED] Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction (originally sued as J. * Robertson); B. Glover, Principal, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; A.J. Hall, Major, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; D. Harris, Lt., * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; J. Robertson, Kitchen * Supervisor, Cummins Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; A.D. * Bradberry, Assistant Warden, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Justine Minor, Hearing Officer, * Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction (originally sued as * Justine Minnor); Louis Walls, * Correctional Office, Cummins Unit, * Arkansas Department of Correction * (originally sued as “L A Walls”), *1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 25, 2000 Filed: September 11, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. OscarGuthrie, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For reversal appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that enforcement of a prison grooming regulation does not violate his constitutional rights. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
This court has repeatedly upheld similar challenges to prison grooming regulations, see Campbell v. Purkett , 957 F.2d 535, 536-37 (8th Cir. 1992); Dunavant
v. Moore , 907 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1990), and Guthrie’s complaint did not allege any facts that would distinguish this case from the line of cases upholding hair and beard restrictions, see Iron Eyes v. Henry , 907 F.2d 810, 814 (8th Cir. 1990) (preventing prisoners from concealing contraband and alleviating confusion in prisoner-3-

identification are valid penological interests justifying prison hair-length policy, althoughcontraband had never been found in any inmate’s hair, and identification fears
were hard to credit in light of prison’s lax approach to photographing inmates). Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Guthrie’s “Motion for Issuing a Restriction Order” is denied. A true copy.
Attest:
CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News Tag:
  Feb. 14, 2019 Toward a More Lethal, Flexible, and Resilient Joint Force: Rediscovering the Purpose of JPME II JFSC Faculty, Charles Davis and Frederick R. Kienle published "Toward a More Lethal, Flexible, and Resilient Joint Force: Rediscovering the Purpose of JPME II" in Joint Forces Quarterly. Published JFQ 92, 22 Jan 2019.
 Feb. 14, 2019 Relevancy to the Joint Force The  Institutional Research, Assessment, and Accreditation Division (IRAAD) within Joint Forces Staff College, National Defense University conducted a thorough review of Geographic Combatant Command, Functional Combatant Command, and JPME-II student feedback and have published it's analysis on JFSC's "Relevancy to the Joint Force", published Sept 2017.
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30589]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA); Membership of the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

ACTION: Notice of membership of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 
Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 
The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). 
The Performance Review Board shall provide fair and impartial review of 
Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and make 
recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to 
the Director, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of service for the appointees of the 
DTRA PRB is on or about November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. DIAL-ALFRED, Civilian Personnel 
Office, (703) 767-5811, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Fort Belvoir, 
Virginia 22060-6201.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
officials appointed to serve as members of the DTRA PRB are set forth 
below.

PRB Chair: Robert P. Bongiovi, Major General, USAF
Mr. Robert L. Brittigan
Mr. Myron K. Kunka
    The following DTRA officials will serve as alternate members of the 
DTRA PRB, as appropriate.
Mr. Douglas M. Englund
Mr. Michael K. Evenson
Mr. Joe P. Golden
Mr. Richard L. Gullickson
Dr. Don A. Linger
Mr. Clifton B. McFarland
Mr. Clifton B. McFarland
Mr. Vayl S. Oxford
Mrs. Joan Ma Pierre
Dr. I. Gary Resnick
Dr. Michael J. Shore
Ms. Ann Bridges Steely
Dr. Leon A. Wittwer

    Dated: November 27, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-30589 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
```
#### SCOTT v. STATE.

No. 20837.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1940.

James F. DeLoney, of Nacogdoches,' for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the County Court of Nacogdoches County on a charge alleging ’that on the 27th day of May, 1939, he unlawfully possessed for sale an alcoholic beverage, and his fine was assessed at $200.

The appellant lived in a rented room of a house owned a:nd occupied by Rosie Lee McKnight. Officers secured a. searqh, warrant and found six 32-ounce bottles of beer in the smoke-house out behind the dwelling in a tub on ice. The distance from the house is not stated. They searched the premises by authority of a search warrant, alleging it to be the property of the appellant.

The sheriff testified that he did not know who owned the property, but he searched it because he “had several complaints about Luther Scott bootlegging out there”.' When the officers searched the house they, failed to find any beer or whisky in the room occupied by the appellant or in ány other portion of the residence. Appellant was in the house when it was searched. There were other parties present, and in the yard, but the only evidence of the appellant’s connection with it is that the officers saw him there and his testimony that he had a room rented there. ■ The evidence connecting appellant with the beer found in the smoke house was materially strengthened before the jury by the statement of the sheriff that he “had several complaints about Luther Scott bootlegging out there;”. The deputy sheriff also volunteered the statement that he “was jumping the defendant up about bootlegging out there”. Neither of these statements were admissible against the appellant. The first is the rankest hearsay, and the second is the act and conduct of the deputy sheriff based on his own conclusion for some undisclosed reason. There is nothing else in the evidence which would in the remotest degree indicate that the appellant had *40been selling beer, and certainly the finding of the beer in the smoke-house, shown to be in charge of another and with which the evidence fails to connect the appellant in any manner, is insufficient to support the conviction. *,*

The case is reversed and remanded.
Exhibit
32.2


CERTIFICATION
BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of
Numerex Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan B. Catherall, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates
and periods covered by the Report.




This certificate is being furnished
solely pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of
the Report or as a separate disclosure document, and may not be disclosed,
distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically
required by law.




May
      8, 2008
            /s/Alan B. CatherallAlan
      B. CatherallChief
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          11,347                   6,447
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,206                   5,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                       932                     451
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                       1,592,625                 776,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,345                  25,754
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,668,789                 806,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000                       0
<COMMON>                                           399                     263
<OTHER-SE>                                     774,158                 453,998
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,668,789                 806,649
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,822                  52,432
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,962                  36,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,075                   7,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,455                  16,338
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  8,908                     111
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,547                  16,227
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .68                     .73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .68                     .72
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT   11


                              FINE HOST CORPORATION
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings




                                                  Three Months Ended
                                              March 26,        March 27,
                                                 1997            1996


Income applicable to Common Stock          $     848                259
Stock warrant accretion                         ----             (1,040)
                                           _________          _________
Net income (loss) available to Common
      Stockholders                         $     848         $     (781)

Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding                          7,630,390          2,048,200
Average convertible Preferred shares
      outstanding                           -----               939,297
Assumed conversion of:
      Warrants                              -----               442,870
      Options                                288,031             80,024
      Subordinated Notes                      32,618              ----
                                           _________          _________
Average number of shares of Common Stock
      outstanding assuming full dilution   7,951,039          3,510,391

Net income (loss) per share assuming 
      full dilution                    $         .11      $       (.22)


                                     <PAGE>
#### The UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. John H. FRANKLIN, Appellee.

No. 8559.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 27, 1940.

Frederic W. Johnson and Joseph M. LeMense, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.

E. L. Mikesell, of Dayton, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, ' HAMILTON, . and ARANT, Circuit Judges.

*943PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard upon transcript of record, briefs and argument of counsel, and it appearing to the Court that there was substantial evidence that the appellee, John H. Franklin, became totally and permanently disabled during the life of the war risk insurance policy sued on, and that there is no reversible error upon the record, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the order of the District Judge be, and the same is, in all things, affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 138

To ensure equal treatment for playa lakes, prairie potholes, vernal pools,

pocosins, and other special wetlands under Federal wetland delineation

criteria.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. COMBEST introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Public Works and Transportation, and Agriculture

A BILL

To ensure equal treatment for playa lakes, prairie potholes,

vernal pools, pocosins, and other special wetlands under

Federal wetland delineation criteria.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wetlands Delineation

5 Fairness Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that—

8 (1) new Federal wetland delineation criteria are

9 currently being developed to address concerns raised
2

•HR 138 IH

1 by the implementation of the Federal Manual for

2 Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands;

3 (2) the proposed changes to the delineation cri4 teria are intended to increase the fairness of wetland

5 determinations and to reduce erroneous wetland de6 terminations;

7 (3) the proposed changes allow several cat8 egories of lands, such as playas or playa lakes, prai9 rie potholes, vernal pools, and pocosins, to be held

10 to different delineation requirements; and

11 (4) these different delineation requirements are

12 inequitable and unjustified.

13 (b) PURPOSES.—It is the purpose of this Act to pro14 vide for the equal treatment of all lands under Federal

15 wetland delineation criteria.

16 SEC. 3. EQUAL TREATMENT.

17 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Federal wetlands delineation

18 criteria regarding wetland hydrology shall apply uniformly

19 to all areas, including areas that may be known as playas,

20 playa lakes, prairie potholes, vernal pools, and pocosins.

21 (b) WETLAND HYDROLOGY DEFINED.—For purposes

22 of this section, the term ‘‘wetland hydrology’’ means the

23 number of consecutive days that an area must be inun24 dated or saturated with water.
3

•HR 138 IH

1 SEC. 4. APPLICATION.

2 This Act shall apply to wetland delineation criteria

3 promulgated or adopted after January 1, 1992.

Æ
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Amendment to Tribal-State Compact.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department                               ( print page 76279)                            of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Amended Tribal-State Compact for Regulation of Class III Gaming between the Coquille Indian Tribe and the State of Oregon which was executed on November 15, 2000.                     

# DATES:

This action is effective December 6, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

Dated: November 27, 2000.

Kevin Gover,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 00-31026 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P