alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Miami Fort Sampling Episode Report No. 6560, July 11-16, 2010

Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims and Justification

Given the time allowed for review, Duke Energy is still evaluating the in formation contained in the draft report for CBI concerns. However, Miami Fort Units 7 and 8 are non-regulated generating units, meaning that they operate as competitive entities within the electrical power market. Consequently, Duke Energy wishes to protect the competitive positions of these generating units by asserting a CBI claim for information on the FGD and FGD wastewater treatment processes presented in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (pages 2-2 through 2-5) and Tables 3-11 and 3-12 (page 3-23 and 3-24) of the draft report. These portions of the report include proprietary information on process flow rates, pr ocess chemistry, and treatment chemical usage.

We request that the information be maintained as CBI for at least 5 years from the effective date of the final effluent guideline rulemaking, for whic h this report will be used. We believe that this period will protect Duke Energy’s proprietar y information until such time as competitors will be required to design and install FGD wastewater treatment systems to meet any requirements arising from the final rulemaking.

To the best of our knowledge, aside from USEPA, the information shown in these parts of the draft report have not been shared with a nyone beyond Duke Energy (and its confidential contractors). This information is not containe d in any publicly available information, including the Internet, databases, promoti onal publications, annual reports, or articles, and is not the kind of information that Duke Energy would customaril y release to the public. We are not aware of any means by which the public could access this in formation if maintained as CBI by USEPA. No governmental body other than USEPA has seen this information; consequently, none has made a determination as to its confidentiality.

Release of the information, claimed above by Duke Energy as CBI, would undermine Duke Energy’s competitive position because competi ng electric suppliers would have free and immediate access to information on FGD operations and wastewater treatment that has been developed by Duke Energy over years and at s ubstantial cost. By acquiring valuable Duke Energy information for free, competitors would be able to reduce their own costs and gain a competitive advantage against Duke Energy.

The information claimed as CBI has been subm itted on a mandatory basis. That is, it is information requested from Duke Energy by US EPA during and after the sampling event at

Miami Fort, and is information that would not otherwise have been disclosed to USEPA through other means (e.g., NPDES monitoring reports).
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

Per 45 CFR chapter XXI section 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for October 17, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.

                    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:                     *www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *cfastaff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated October 4, 2024, in Washington, DC.

Zakiya N. Walters,

Administrative Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-23596 Filed 10-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-P
EX-10.3(d)



 Exhibit 10.3(d) 

August 8, 2014 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 

522 Fifth Avenue, 13th Floor 
 New York, New York 10036 

 

	Re:	Ceres Managed Futures LLC: Amended Schedules 1 and 2 to the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement 


Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Pursuant to paragraph
13(c) of the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement dated November 12, 2013, as amended on March 1, 2014; April 7, 2014 and as further amended from time to time (the “Agreement”), between, among others, Ceres
Managed Futures LLC (“CMF”), the general partner of each of the limited partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto (each, a “Partnership,” and together, the “Partnerships”), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
(“MSSB”), CMF is hereby confirming that Schedules 1 and 2 to the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedules 1 and 2 attached hereto effective as of October 1, 2014. 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, by signing below MSSB hereby agrees to, acknowledges and accepts the amendment of
the Agreement, effective as of October 1, 2014. 







 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our discussions, kindly sign and
return to us a counterpart hereof (by mail, facsimile or email) as soon as possible. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
		
		 	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director
		
		 	EACH PARTNERSHIP LISTED ON SCHEDULE 1 HERETO
			
		 	By:	 	Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the general partner of each Partnership
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director


 Confirmed, accepted and agreed to: 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeremy Beal

	Name:	 	Jeremy Beal
	Title:	 	Executive Director


  
  Page
 2
 








 SCHEDULE 1 
  

					
	 PARTNERSHIP
	 	 STATE AND DATE OF

ORGANIZATION
	 	 EFFECTIVE DATE

	Managed Futures Premier Abingdon L.P.	 	New York; November 8, 2005	 	October 1, 2013


  
  Page
 3
 








 SCHEDULE 2 
  

			
	 PARTNERSHIP
	 	 ONGOING SELLING AGENT FEE

	Managed Futures Premier Abingdon L.P.	 	2.00% per year of the adjusted net assets of Class A Units and 0.75% per year of the adjusted net assets of Class D Units (computed monthly by multiplying the adjusted net assets of the Class A Units by 2.00% and the adjusted net
assets of the Class D Units by 0.75% and dividing the result thereof by 12).1 Class Z units will not be subject to an ongoing selling agent fee.

  

	1	Adjusted net assets are month-end Net Assets increased by that current month’s ongoing selling agent fee, management fee, the general partner’s administrative fee, the incentive fee accrued, other expenses and
any redemptions or distributions as of the end of such month. 


  
  Page
 4
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6582
CHARLES R. MAJOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCDC; PERNELL CROMER, Counselor; DAVID CRISP, Supervisor; EDDIE BRIGHT; RICHARD SMITH, Warden; BARNEY LLOYD; OFFICER WACKEL; DONALD DEASE, Administrator; TOM SMITH, Detective, Warden; MR. WRIGHT; MR. PRICE; MR. HESTER, Unit Manager; MR. ROGERS; LIEUTENANT GOMEORA; FOUR UNNAMED TURBEVILLE OFFICERS; DORIS EDWARDS, Counselor; SUPERVISOR HARRIS; PERRYOFFICIAL VISSOR; RICHARD ECKSTROM, South Carolina Treasurer; TURBEVILLE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-752-6-21AK) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Charles R. Major, Appellant Pro Se. James D. Brice, GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Charles R. Major appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Major v. SCDC , No. CA-97-752-6-21AK (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 1998). 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
# L_2012200EN.01001701.xml

| 27.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 200/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 200/17

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUCAP SAHEL NIGER/1/2012

of 17 July 2012

on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP Mission in Niger (EUCAP SAHEL Niger)

(2012/436/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2012/392/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union CSDP Mission in Niger (1) (EUCAP SAHEL Niger), and in particular Article 9(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Article 9(1) of Decision 2012/392/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUCAP SAHEL Niger mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Article 9(1) of Decision 2012/392/CFSP, the Council authorised the Political and Security Committee, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of political control and strategic direction of the EUCAP SAHEL Niger mission, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

| (2) | The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Colonel Francisco ESPINOSA NAVAS as Head of Mission of EUCAP SAHEL Niger, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Colonel Francisco ESPINOSA NAVAS as Head of Mission of EUCAP SAHEL Niger,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Colonel Francisco ESPINOSA NAVAS is hereby appointed Head of the European Union CSDP Mission in Niger (EUCAP SAHEL Niger) for a period of 12 months.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 17 July 2012.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

O. SKOOG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 48.

1

---
# L_2011102EN.01004401.xml

| 16.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 102/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/44

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 28 of 2 February 2011
  )

In the table of contents and on page 17, the title:

for:

‘Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus’,

read:

‘Council Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus’.

---
#### Estate of Stewart : Brazeau, Guardian *ad litem,*Appellant, vs. Stewart, Executrix, Respondent.

*September 14*—

October *11, 1955.*

*612For the appellant there was a brief by *Theo. W. Braseau,*attorney, guardian *ad litem,*and *Braseau & Braseau*of counsel, all of Wisconsin Rapids, and oral argument by *Theo. W. Braseau.*

For the respondent there was a brief and oral argument by *Raleigh Woolf*of Milwaukee.

Gehl, J.

The guardian *ad litem*challenges the court’s construction and contends that by virtue of the provisions of sec. 238.13, Stats., the grandchildren take under the terms of the will. The statute provides that:

> “When a devise or legacy shall be made to any child or other relation of the testator and the devisee or legatee shall die before the testator, leaving issue who shall survive the testator, such issue shall take the estate so given by the will in the same manner as the devisee or legatee would have done if he had survived the testator unless a different disposition shall be made or directed by the will.”

The statute would be applicable and would make the grandchildren eligible to take unless the provision of the will that the residue shall go for the benefit of testator’s children “living at the time of [his] death” renders it otherwise. The statute must be liberally construed and all doubts must be resolved in favor of its operation. *Will of Colman,*253 Wis. 91, 33 N. W. (2d) 237. It was enacted to remedy inequities of the common law and to provide for lineal descendants of a devisee or legatee the benefits which their parents would have derived had not death intervened. It was not designed, however, to nullify the right of a testator to select the objects of his bounty.

> “In determining the nature of an estate created by will, the will itself is to be first consulted and afterwards the statute. The operations should not be reversed.” *Will of Prasser,*140 Wis. 92, 94, 121 N. W. 643.

*613By its own terms the statute is made ineffective when “a different disposition shall be made or directed by the will.”

A “different disposition” is made by the will. In clear language testator gave the residue of his estate to those of his children living at the time of his death. Corrine Becker was not then living. There is nothing on the face of the will which may be read to mean that the testator meant otherwise, or to suggest that the word “children” used by him was not used in the ordinary sense to describe only immediate offspring. *Will of Scholl,*100 Wis. 650, 76 N. W. 616.

We agree with what was said by the Iowa court in *Estate of Phelps,*147 Iowa, 323, 326, 126 N. W. 328, with reference to antilapse statutes:

> “It is idle to say that wills could not be made but for the law, and that the statute in question became a part of the will. As we have already said, the aid of the statute cannot be, and never is, invoked where the intent of the will is manifest. The statute clearly cannot be ingrafted upon a will for the purpose of making uncertain the meaning of language that would otherwise be certain.”

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
SHARE

# Jeremy Busby

              -  Fact Sheets 
              -  Timeline of ORNL Science 
              -  Leadership Team 
              -  Interactive Map 
              -  Diversity 
              -  Organization 
              -  Who we are, aren't 
              -  Community Engagement 
              -  History 
              -  Honors and Awards 
              -  Environmental Protection 
              -  Quality (ISO9001) 
              -  Research Integrity 
              -  Working at ORNL 

Jeremy Busby

## Associate Laboratory Director for Isotope Science and Engineering

Dr. Busby is the Associate Laboratory Director for the Isotope Science and Engineering Directorate at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His technical contributions range from light water reactors to sodium reactors and space reactor systems as well as research in support of the ITER project.

Dr. Busby’s research has focused primarily on materials performance and development of materials for nuclear reactor applications. Over the course of his career, Dr. Busby has participated in materials research for space reactors, fusion machines, advanced fast reactors (including sodium, salt, and gas designs), and light water reactors.

In 2011, he was tasked with helping coordinate DOE’s response to the events at the Fukushima nuclear facility. In this role, he helped coordinate analysis coming from the US national laboratories and universities. This data and analysis were integrated with work from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, US industry partners, and most importantly, with colleagues in Japan.  Dr. Busby was awarded a Secretary of Energy Achievement Awards for “contributions to DOE’s response to Fukushima” in 2011. 

Dr. Busby was the lead for the Materials Aging and Degradation Pathway for the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability Research and Development program from 2009 to 2015.   In 2015, Dr. Busby became ORNL’s Director for the Materials Science and Technology Division, which is one of the largest organizations dedicated to materials research, both basic and applied.  From 2019 to 2022, he served as Division Director for the Nuclear Energy and Fuel Cycle Division at ORNL and was named Associate Laboratory Director for Fusion and Fission Energy Sciences Directorate in 2022.

The American Nuclear Society presented Dr. Busby with the Landis Young Member Achievement award in 2006 and, in 2007 he received the ORNL Early Career Award for Engineering Accomplishment for his leadership in the cast stainless steel effort.   In 2019, he was named as a Fellow of the American Nuclear Society.   He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences at the University of Michigan and has developed and taught his own graduate level course in materials degradation and performance for fission and fusion reactors.   He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Materials Science at Virginia Tech.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

SS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AIDEE LETICIA LOSOYA GARCIA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74811

Agency No. A096-061-235

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Aidee Leticia Losoya Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8

FILED

FEB 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SS/Research 2 07-74811

U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Losoya Garcia’s motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed ninety-one days after the BIA’s final order

of removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed

within ninety days of final order of removal), and Losoya Garcia did not show she

was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for

filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented

from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with

due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 275 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 275

                    For the relief of Suchada Kwong.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1999

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of Suchada Kwong.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SUCHADA KWONG.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Suchada Kwong shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Suchada Kwong enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant 
visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed with 
appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Suchada Kwong, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```