alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

-------------------------------------------
          OMB APPROVAL

-------------------------------------------
OMB Number             3235-0063
Expires:           June 30, 1997
Estimated average burden
hours per response       1711.00
-------------------------------------------

                                  UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

                                    FORM 10-K

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934.  [FEE REQUIRED]

For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001
                          ------------------

                                       or

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934.  [NO FEE REQUIRED]

For the transition period from _____________________ to ________________________


Commission file number  333-72621-06
                       -------------


Oakwood Mortgage Investors, Inc. OMI TRUST 2000-D
-------------------------------------------------
                   (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

        North Carolina                                   56-6578066
 ------------------------------                     --------------------

 State or other jurisdiction of             (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 incorporation or organization


         c/o Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.
         Attention:  Lawrence Rossiter
         MAC N 9311-161
         Sixth Street & Marquette Minneapolis, Minnesota                   55479
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
         (Address of principal executive offices)                     (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code   (612) 667-3529
                                                    ---------------

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:  None
                                                            -----

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None
                                                            -----

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such
filing requirements for the past 90 days. [X] Yes [_] No

     Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item
405 of Regulation S-K ((S) 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and
will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive
proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this
Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC Staff Proposes $55,000 Fine Against U.S. Enrichment Corporation for Security Violations at Paducah Plant

----

----

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-107

December 9, 1997

**NRC STAFF PROPOSES $55,000 FINE AGAINST U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION FOR SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT PADUCAH PLANT**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000 fine against the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland, for failing to maintain adequate security for certain classified information at its uranium enrichment plant located near Paducah, Kentucky.

The corporation operates the Paducah plant under a lease from the Department of Energy, the owner and previous operator. Effective March of this year, regulatory authority over plant operations was transferred from the Department of Energy to the NRC. The facility uses a gaseous diffusion process to enrich uranium hexafluoride gas in the uranium-235 isotope, so that the material can be used as nuclear fuel in civilian nuclear power plants.

During an NRC inspection from July through September, inspectors reviewed five instances where classified material was found by plant staff either outside the restricted area or accessible to individuals who did not have security clearance.

In August, NRC inspectors were informed that a restricted drawing kept in the engineering department was accessible to anyone who visited the department. Also, classified drawings and a videotape were found by plant staff in a trailer outside the security area of the plant. These restricted materials may have been in the trailer for a number of years.

Two weeks later, plant staff initiated an effort to identify and restrict classified material within the security portion of the facility. However, the corporation did not take any actions to retrieve restricted material from outside of the plant's secured area.

Subsequently, in September classified drawings and an operational procedure outside of the security area were found being used by individuals who did not have proper security clearance.

In a letter to the corporation, NRC's Regional Administrator, A. Bill Beach said:

"The NRC is concerned about [your] deficiencies regarding control of classified matter and its failure to grasp and define the breadth of the issue in a timely manner. While the actual security consequences appear to be minimal in this case, the violation represents a significant regulatory concern because of the potential for compromise of classified matter considered to be significant (i.e., the classified matter was accessible to uncleared personnel)."

The U.S. Enrichment Corporation has until January 9 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the corporation may request a hearing.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
MEMORANDUM TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0290

FROM: Sharon Nizich, US EPA

SUBJECT: Discussion with Kohler Company

DATE: September 3, 2015

A discussion was held today with Kohler Company to discuss the quenching process for Clay
Ceramics Tunnel kilns.

Attending:

Research Triangle Institute:
Kristi n Sroka Gabrielle Raymond Tom Holloway

US EPA: Sharon Nizich Keith Barnett

Kohler: Mike Cassidy, Ko hler Wisconsin
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Zachary McDaniel, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 00102

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 115th District Court of Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F14915 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chi ef Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Zachary McDaniel, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 11, 20 19 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1283** 

HEPHZIBAH BATES , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. BERNADETTE BATES THOMPSON , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:14

- cv - 00065

- REP )

Submitted : May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judg es.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court ’ s order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Bates v. Thompson , No. 3:14

- cv - 00065

- REP (E.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94771-94772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27934]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

[[Page 94772]]

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 475 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-467, K2025-464.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27934 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
No. 82-1038.

#### Michaels, Trustee of Marin Motor Oil, Inc. *v.*Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee; and *1207Marin Motor Oil, Inc., et al. *v.*Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee.

No. 82-1094.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 689 F. 2d 445.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50542

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PURNELL ELLIOTT WILLIAMS, also known as Pernell Elliott Williams,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-237-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Purnell Elliott Williams appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, for 

possessing a firearm following a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of 

domestic violence. In his sole appellate argument, he contends that the 

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) 

because the Government failed to prove the requisite domestic relationship 

between him and the victim of his 2010 Texas assault. Although proof of a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50542 Document: 00514374129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2018
No. 17-50542

2

domestic relationship is necessary for the federal firearm conviction, the 

underlying misdemeanor offense need not have a domestic relationship as an 

element. United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 418, 421-29 (2009). The record 

contains sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude 

that Ronnessa Williams, the assault victim, was Williams’s wife at the time of 

the incident. See United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007); 

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 17-50542 Document: 00514374129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2018
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 

No. 01-11360

Summary Calendar

 

DOUGLAS R. LOVING,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLIE HANSFORD; HUROWIC WALKER;

NFN ANDERSON, Warden; NFN MOONYHAM,

Assistant Warden; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE-INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;

WINDHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT/TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; ROACH UNIT PRISON; 

NFN SEHORN, Mailroom Supervisor,

 Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:00-CV-156

__________________________________________

March 1, 2002

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas R. Loving, Texas prisoner #611599, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Loving contends that the district court erred in
2

denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint and in dismissing his claims against Anderson

and Sehorn. 

A party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive

pleading is served. FED. R. CIV. 

P. 15(a). Loving was therefore entitled to amend his complaint without leave of court, and the

magistrate judge (“MJ”) erred in denying his motion to amend. This error, however, was

harmless, as Loving’s motion to amend sought not to modify or supplement his allegations, but

only to provide exhibits supporting his original complaint. The MJ’s consideration of those

exhibits in formulating his report and recommendation effectively provided Loving the action

requested in his motion to amend.

Loving has failed to argue on appeal, and has thus abandoned, his claims against all

defendants other than Sehorn and Anderson. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). With respect to his claims against Sehorn and Anderson, an allegation that the

defendants violated a prison rule, without more, is insufficient to set forth a claim of a

constitutional violation. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). The

district court thus did not err in dismissing Loving’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and

for failure to state a claim. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 9 , 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00247

- CV

MARGARET STONE , Appellant

V.
JEFFREY C. STONE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 387th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11

- DCV

- 190152

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from an order disqualifying counsel. Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992)2

(orig. proceedin g). This appeal is not from a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order.

On April 19, 2013 , notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless any party filed a

response w ithin ten days showing meritorious grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 29, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 778 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-476, K2025-473.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27954 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41505 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LUIS GERARDO CASAREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09

- CR

- 2897

- 4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Gerardo Casarez, federal prisoner # 55129

- 279, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana and he was sentenced to 73 months of imprisonment. He now appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, arguing , inter alia, that the district court erred by failing to afford him the opportunity
to review and comment on the § 3582(c)(2) addendum to the presentence report

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED Novem ber 8, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41505 Document: 00513750894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2016No. 15

- 41505

2 that was reviewed by the district court in its cons ideration of his motion. Casarez contends that he did not receive n otice of the § 3582(c)(2) addendum until after he reviewed arguments set forth in the Government ’s brief in the instant appeal . He further argues that the district court’s reasons for den ying his motion were inadequate and do not allow meaningful appellate review. A district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans , 587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009). In the order denying relief, t he district court expressly acknowledged that it considered Casarez’s motion, the relevant policy statements of the Guidelines, and the sentencing factors of § 3553(a). See Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). The district court was not required to expressly refer to specific § 3553(a) factors or provide more specific reasons in support of its determination that a reduction was not
warranted. United States v. Henderson , 636 F.3d 713, 718 (5th Cir. 2011). However, Casarez was entitled to an opportunity to review and comment on the § 3582(c)(2) addendum prior to the district court’s ruling , s ee United States
v. Mueller , 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir.1999) , and the record does not suggest that he was provided th is opportunity. Also, o n this record, this court cannot determine whether any error was harmless. See id. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings. We express no opinion on the disposition of Casarez’s motion on remand. Cas a rez’s motion s for expedited ruling and to supplement the record on appeal are DENIED. Case: 15-41505 Document: 00513750894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2016
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Contact : Directory : J3

# J3 Operations Directorate

Directory Links

                          -  J0 Special Staff   
                          -  J1 Manpower and Personnel   
                          -  J2 Intelligence   
                          -  J3 Operations   
                          -  J4 Logistics   
                          -  J5 Strategic Planning & Policy   
                          -  J6 Communications Systems   
                          -  J7 Training and Exercises Directorate   
                          -  J8 Requirements and Resources Directorate   
                          -  Joint Interagency Task Force - West   

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector GeneralAccessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Flickr
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
No. 90-5817.

#### Ruloff *v.*Department of Veterans Affairs et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.