alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 7016

CLINTON D. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Kayzon Ru , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SGT. JOHNSON, City of Conway Police Department Officer; ALLAN G. HUGGINS, II, City of Conway Police Department Officer; LT. ANDERSON, J. Reuben Long Detention Employee; OFFICER COSTELLO, J. Reuben Long Detention Employee; OFFICER STRICKLAND; OFFICER FOUTZ , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Sherri A. Lydon , District Judge. ( 4:20

- cv - 01664

- SAL )

Submitted : January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Clinton D. Johnson, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Leslie A. Cotter, Jr. , Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani , RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA , Columbia, South Carolina; J.W. Nelson Chandl er , CHANDLER & DUDGEON LLC , Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing two defendants for failure to effect service upon on them, and award ing summary judgment to the remaining defendants on
Johnson’s claims alleged in his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues r aised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Johnson’s informal brief and other appellate filings do not challenge the bas e s for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordi ngly, we affirm. 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.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Verification and Validation of Selected Fire Models for Nuclear Power Plant Applications (NUREG-1824)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595) (10/19R) Standard Document(80.49 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595) Overview(642.42 KB)

Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595) CPPE(24.49 KB)

Pest Management Conservation System (Ac.) (595) Network Diagram(70.03 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2124 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2124

   To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify a regulation 
   regarding denied boarding on an aircraft, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2017

  Ms. Schakowsky (for herself and Mr. Krishnamoorthi) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of Transportation to modify a regulation 
   regarding denied boarding on an aircraft, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bumping on Overbooked Airplanes 
Requires Dealing Fairly Act'' or the ``BOARD Fairly Act''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF DENIED BOARDING ON AN AIRCRAFT.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify part 250 of 
title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, to ensure that an air carrier--
            (1) may not refuse to transport a passenger holding a 
        confirmed reserved space on a flight to provide a seat for 
        another passenger, regardless of whether such passenger is an 
        employee of an air carrier;
            (2) negotiates and solicits a volunteer to relinquish his 
        or her space before boarding the aircraft; and
            (3) if necessary, continues to increase the amount of 
        compensation offered until a volunteer willingly accepts the 
        offer in exchange for relinquishing a confirmed reserved space.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act restricts the 
ability of an air carrier to remove a passenger for safety or security 
reasons.
                                 <all>
```
# Monitoring Well (No.) (353) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Monitoring Well (No.) (353) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Monitoring Well (No.) (353).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Monitoring Well (No.) (353) (9/2020) Standard Document(73.23 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Monitoring Well (No.) (353) Overview(242.25 KB)

Monitoring Well (No.) (353) CPPE(24.12 KB)

Monitoring Well (No.) (353) Network Diagram(76.96 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
Swanson. Brian (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Cathy Gulliford <cathygullifordl@aol.com> 

Monday, August 13, 2012 9:11 AM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

airline choice 

I travel back and forth from Phoenix, AZ. to Brainerd at least twice a year. 

Being able to use a Delta connected carrier makes a big difference to me in terms of cost and convenience. 

Also having the use of a sky bridge definetly helps with the carry on luggage issue. 

I urge you to pick SkyWest as the Brainer feeder for those reasons. 

Cathy Gulliford 

cathygulliford1 @aol.com 

1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     The undersigned executive officer of Pittsburgh Financial Corp. (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securitites Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                                             /s/ Michael J. Kirk
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Name: Michael J. Kirk
                                             Title: Executive Vice President and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer


Date: August 14, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2004273EN.01001001.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Larino — Sezione Distaccata di Termoli — by order of that court of 8 July 2004 in criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Placanica

(Case C-338/04)

(2004/C 273/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Larino — Sezione Distaccata di Termoli (Larino District Court, Termoli section, Italy) of 8 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 6 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of criminal proceedings against Massimiliano Placanica on the following question:

‘Does the Court of Justice consider Article 4(4a) of Law No 401/89 to be compatible with the principles enshrined in Articles 43 et seq. and 49 of the EEC Treaty concerning the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide cross-border services, having regard to the difference between the interpretation emerging from the decisions of the European Court of Justice (in particular the judgment in Gambrelli) and the decision of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sezione Uniti in Case No 23271/04? In particular, the Court is requested to rule on the validity of the legislation referred to in the indictment and under which Massimiliano Placanica is charged in Italy’.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2137 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2137

   To direct the President to treat a harmful algal bloom caused by 
   certain activities of the Federal Government as an emergency for 
   purposes of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                Assistance Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2017

   Mr. Mast introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the President to treat a harmful algal bloom caused by 
   certain activities of the Federal Government as an emergency for 
   purposes of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
                Assistance Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Do No Harm Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS CAUSED BY CORPS 
              OF ENGINEERS WATER TRANSFERS.

    (a) Treatment as Emergency.--Notwithstanding section 501 of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. 5191), the President shall treat the impacts to State waterways 
and coastal estuaries of a harmful algal bloom conveyed downstream as a 
result of a water transfer carried out by the Corps of Engineers within 
such State as an emergency for purposes of title V of such Act.
    (b) Emergency Assistance.--The President, in consultation with the 
affected State, shall exercise any authority under section 502 or 503 
of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 
(42 U.S.C. 5192, 5193) that the President determines is necessary to 
address an emergency described in subsection (a), including exercising 
debris-removal authority under section 502(a)(5) of such Act to remove 
toxic algal biomass and muck.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffPerformance Budget/Congressional Budget Justification (NUREG-1100)

# Performance Budget: Fiscal Year 2006 (NUREG-1100, Volume 21)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Overview

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1100, Volume 21 (PDF - 1.97 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published**: February 2005

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Overview

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Performance Budget submitted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) supports the implementation of its Strategic Plan. The NRC's proposed FY 2006 budget is $702 million, which represents an increase of $32 million over the FY 2005 budget. This budget reflects $567 million from fees assessed to NRC licensees, resulting in a net appropriation of $135 million.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 28, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2025
          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2002

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 28, 2022
No. 90-6223.

#### Williams *v.*Miller et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.
# C_2004300EN.01001802.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/18

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 12 October 2004

in Case C-60/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co. KG v José Filipe Pereira Félix (1)

1

(Article 49 EC - Restrictions on freedom to provide services - Undertakings in the construction sector - Subcontracting - Obligation on an undertaking to act as guarantor in respect of the minimum remuneration of workers employed by a subcontractor)

(2004/C 300/36)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-60/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 14 February 2003, in the proceedings between Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co. KG and José Filipe Pereira Félix — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 5 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, interpreted in the light of Article 49 EC, does not preclude, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, a national system whereby, when subcontracting the conduct of building work to another undertaking, a building contractor becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who has waived benefit of execution, for the obligation on that undertaking or that undertaking's subcontractors to pay the minimum wage to a worker or to pay contributions to a joint scheme for parties to a collective agreement where the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker after deduction of tax, social security contributions, payments towards the promotion of employment or other such social insurance payments (net pay), if the safeguarding of workers' pay is not the primary objective of the legislation or is merely a subsidiary objective.

---

(1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 13154]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5267]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Proposed Collection; Comments Request

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and Humanities.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a 
preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and 
federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or 
continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(A)]. This program 
helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired 
format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed 
information collection of: National Endowment for the Arts Panelist 
Profile Form. A copy of the current information collection request can 
be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address 
section of this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
ADDRESSES section below within 60 days from the date of this 
publication in the Federal Register. The NEA is particularly interested 
in comments which:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity 
of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond.

ADDRESSES: Kathy Plowitz-Worden, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 620, Washington, DC 20506-0001, telephone 
(202) 682-5691 (this is not a toll-free number), fax (202) 682-5049.

     Dated: February 29, 2012.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2012-5267 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
#### Estate of Gilford: Gilford and others, Appellants, vs. Huth, Executor, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Coleman & Barry*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Samuel B. Perlson*and *H. S. Winnecour,*both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Working Safely with Nuclear Gauges  (NUREG/BR-0133, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0133, Revision 2 (PDF - 2.00 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**February 1996

**Prepared by:** Office of Public Affairs and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Introduction

This booklet is the result of a cooperative effort between the Office of Public Affairs and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, both of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This document was largely adapted from the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada publication "Working Safely with Nuclear Gauges."

This publication contains guidelines on the proper handling and use of fixed and portable nuclear gauges, and provides background information about radiation for people who use and work around this equipment. It is intended to provide information to gauge licensees for use in their user training programs. Information may be added or deleted to fit their specific training programs as needed.

Much of this information, particularly that on radiation, is not usually found in the standard operating manuals for nuclear gauges. As a result, you may be unsure about the possible dangers from radiation, and uneasy about using or working near gauges that contain a radioactive source. After reading this booklet, you should be able to work confidently and safely around nuclear gauges.

Remember that this booklet is meant only as a general guide. For step-by-step instructions and complete regulations, it is best to check your operating manual and the license that NRC or the Agreement State issued you for the specific gauge you are using.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021