alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 114 (Monday, June 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32654-32655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission

June 9, 1998.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2731-020.
    c. Date Filed: May 27, 1998.
    d. Applicant: Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Weybridge Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On Otter Creek, which discharges into Lake Champlain, 
in the towns of Weybridge and New Haven, Addison County, Vermont.

[[Page 32655]]

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Timothy J. Oakes, Kleinschmidt Associates, 33 
West Main Street, Strasburg, PA 17579, (717) 687-2711.
    i. FERC Contact: Jack Duckworth (202) 219-2818.
    j. Comment Date: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    k. Description of Project: The existing project consists of: (1) a 
30-foot-high, 302.6-foot-long concrete gravity dam consisting of: (a) 
two spillway sections, a 150-foot-long west spillway section topped 
with 6 foot-high hinged steel flashboards and one 20-foot-wide, 10-
foot-high Taintor gate; and a 116-foot-long east spillway section 
topped with an automatically inflated rubber weir; (2) a 1.5-mile-long, 
62 acre impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 174.3 
feet; (3) a powerhouse integral with the dam containing a single 
turbine generator with an installed capacity of 3.0 MW; (4) 
transmission facilities; and (5) appurtenant facilities.
    The applicant states that the average annual generation is 
approximately 14,000 megawatthours. The applicant is not proposing any 
changes to the existing project works.
    1. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the 
VERMONT STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER (SHPO), as required by 106, 
National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
    m. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's 
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes 
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to 
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the 
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person 
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 
days from the issuance date of this notice and serve a copy of the 
request on the applicant.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15795 Filed 6-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2348

To repeal the prohibitions against political recommendations relating to Federal employment and United States Postal Service employment, and

for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 2 (legislative day, JULY 20), 1994

Mr. SIMON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To repeal the prohibitions against political recommendations

relating to Federal employment and United States Postal

Service employment, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST POLITI4 CAL RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO FED5 ERAL EMPLOYMENT AND UNITED STATES

6 POSTAL SERVICE EMPLOYMENT.

7 (a) FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT.—(1) Section 3303 of

8 title 5, United States Code, is repealed.
2

•S 2348 IS

1 (2)(A) The table of sections for chapter 33 of title

2 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out the item

3 relating to section 3303.

4 (B) Section 2302(b)(2) of title 5, United States Code,

5 is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(2) solicit or consider any recommendation or

7 statement, oral or written, with respect to any indi8 vidual who requests or is under consideration for

9 any personnel action unless such recommendation or

10 statement is based on the personal knowledge or

11 records of the person furnishing it and consists of—

12 ‘‘(A) an evaluation of the work perform13 ance, ability, aptitude, or general qualifications

14 of such individual; or

15 ‘‘(B) an evaluation of the character, loy16 alty, or suitability of such individual;’’.

17 (b) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE EMPLOY18 MENT.—(1) Section 1002 of title 39, United States Code,

19 is repealed.

20 (2) The table of sections for chapter 10 of title 39,

21 United States Code, is amended by striking out the item

22 relating to section 1002.

Æ
#### April M. Allyn, Respondent, v James J. Hanley, Jr, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 885]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated March 4, 2003, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made out a prima facie case that the plaintiffs injuries were not serious based on the affirmed reports of his expert orthopedist and neurologist, who examined the plaintiff and concluded that there was no disability *(see Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]).

The medical evidence submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Notably, the plaintiffs medical expert failed to adequately explain the 51⁄2-year-gap between the time of the plaintiffs medical treatment and the physical examination conducted by her medical expert *471
      *(see Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79, 84 [2000]). Furthermore, the plaintiff’s medical expert failed to indicate an awareness that the plaintiff was involved in at least four accidents subsequent to the subject motor vehicle accident. Therefore, any finding on his part that the plaintiffs current injuries were causally related to the subject accident was mere speculation *(see Ginty v MacNamara,*300 AD2d 624, 625 [2002]). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. 10-5117.

#### Jean Marc Desmarat, Petitioner v. Dale Artus, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 904, 131 S. Ct. 243,

178 L. Ed. 2d 162,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6200.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

AHMED AHMED,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2022-1347

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0752-21-0003-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before LOURIE, CHEN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

After the administrative judge dismissed his appeal for 

lack of jurisdiction, Ahmed Ahmed bypassed review by the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (which lacked a quorum at 

the time) and filed a petition for review at this court. The 

Board now moves to remand, so that it can consider the

jurisdictional issue in the first instance. The Board states 

Case: 22-1347 Document: 19 Page: 1 Filed: 08/25/2022
2 AHMED v. MSPB

that Mr. Ahmed does not oppose “subject to the preservation of all rights to appeal any and all currently pending 

issues in the instant action and/or any issues remanded 

pursuant to a remand in this action.” Mot. at 2. The court 

agrees that remand here could preserve party and judicial 

resources, and therefore grants the motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to the 

Board for additional proceedings consistent with this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 25, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 25, 2022

Case: 22-1347 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 08/25/2022
2017-0368.

#### Fifth Third Bank v. Matthews.

Montgomery App. No. 27124, 2017-Ohio-401. On appellants’ application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0259 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM196AD

AFM 3 - 140 -65, I2 --- UNDATED AFM 3 - 140 -65A, I2 --- UNDATED AFM 3 - 140 -65B, I2 --- UNDATED AFM 3 - 140 - 70A, I1 --- UNDATED

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Doc ket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
No. 09-10940.

#### Hunter R. Levi, Petitioner v. Department of Labor.

562 U.S. 856, 131 S. Ct. 122,

178 L. Ed. 2d 75,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6374.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 710.
No. 10-5935.

#### James Everett, Petitioner v. Jerome W. Walsh, Superin*327tendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.

562 U.S. 983, 131 S. Ct. 419,

178 L. Ed. 2d 326,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8160.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
No. 10-5837.

#### Eric Lee Spiwak, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 939, 131 S. Ct. 351,

178 L. Ed. 2d 227,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7153.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 319.
# DLA employees in national capital area 27% toward CFC goal

/ Published Nov. 18, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency employees in the national capital area are almost 27% toward reaching their 2022 Combined Federal Campaign goal of $300,000. By Nov. 15, employees had pledged just over $80,510 with eight weeks remaining in what’s regarded as the world’s largest workplace charity campaign.

“When people contribute to these organizations it allows charities to aid people that may be less fortunate. We never know when we may be on the receiving end and need help ourselves,” said Kendria Evans, DLA CFC campaign manager and staff support analyst for DLA Human Resources.

DLA Information Operations and DLA Logistics Operations are leading donations with $10,560 and $10,120 respectively. The director’s staff is in third place with $5,790. DLA has 2,302 potential donors in the NCA, but so far only 55 have donated.

CFC gives employees access to over 20,000 nonprofit charitable organizations throughout the world. Evans said she’s promoting one-time donations this year to target those who might not feel comfortable committing to regular payroll deductions.

“Even if someone donates just $5, that $5 can go a long way,” she said.

Keyworkers and coordinators are planning events to help employees learn more about CFC charities and inspire them to give. A Charity Fair is scheduled for Nov. 29 in the McNamara Headquarters Complex cafeteria. It will include at least half a dozen charities and a raffle for a gift basket. Other events will be announced through HQC Messenger.                     

This is Evans’ first-time leading CFC. Her favorite charities include the March of Dimes and those that assist mothers of premature babies.

DLA Director Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Skubic said DLA employees have a generous spirit of giving during the Oct. 27 kickoff.

“The act of giving is a hallmark of our society and our nation. Whether your donation goes to help your local community or a worldwide cause, you are creating positive, meaningful change for others,” she said.

Donors can support causes ranging from homeless veterans and endangered species to cancer research. Since it began in 1961, federal employees have raised over $8.6 billion for 8,000 charities.

Employees can donate by credit card or payroll deduction on a one-time or recurring basis at givecfc.org or the CFC Giving Mobile App on their cell phone. Both options are secure and allow users to search for specific charities or view a list of organizations that support specific categories by location. A hand icon appears next to charities needing volunteers.

Each week throughout the campaign will be dedicated to raising awareness for causes like ending hunger, environmental protection and human rights. For more information about donating, contact a keyworker or coordinator.
No. 09-11551.

#### Von Shear Adams, Petitioner v. Florida Parole Commission.

562 U.S. 887, 131 S. Ct. 219,

178 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6986.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# DLA Distribution employee awarded for packaging excellence

/ Published May 9, 2024
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa. , 
Antonio Neal, material process worker at Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, Europe, was awarded the 2024 National Institute of Packaging, Handling and Logistics Engineers Packaging Achievement Award. Neal received his award at a banquet May 8.

“We are so incredibly proud of Antonio and his achievement,” said Lt. Col. Kimberly Rembert, commander DLA Distribution, Europe. “It’s a wonderful thing to see our employees getting the recognition they deserve on such a level.”

Neal was nominated for the award by leaders from DLA Distribution, Europe, for his contributions to government and industry within the packaging, handling and logistics disciplines. The goal of NIPHLE is to improve communications between the U.S. military and industry in the logistics disciplines.

DLA Distribution, Europe, located in Germersheim, Germany, is DLA Distribution's largest distribution facility on the European continent and a forward deployed Theater Distribution Platform.
No. 10-5874.

#### Carlos Rodriguez, Petitioner v. Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs.

562 U.S. 940, 131 S. Ct. 354,

178 L. Ed. 2d 229,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7162.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, Third Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 71 App. Div. 3d 1346, 897 N.Y.S.2d 311.
No. 09-11273.

#### Manley Grey, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 871, 131 S. Ct. 171,

178 L. Ed. 2d 102,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7071.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 331.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Morales, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 432]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Raymond L. Bruce, J.), entered on or about November 18, 2015, which adjudicated defendant a level three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly assessed 10 points for unsatisfactory conduct while confined, based on defendant’s two recent tier III disciplinary infractions. These serious infractions were not remote in time, and the record fails to support defendant’s remaining arguments against this assessment. Defendant’s argument that the court improperly assessed 15 points for failure to accept responsibility is unpreserved and unavailing.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a downward departure *(see People v Gillotti,*23 NY3d 841 [2014]). There were no mitigating factors that were not adequately taken into account in the risk assessment instrument or that outweighed the seriousness of the underlying offense, which was committed against a child. The probative value of defendant’s low Static-99 score test is limited because that assessment does not take into account the nature of the sexual contact with the victim or the potential harm that could be caused by reoffense *(see People v Roldan,*140 AD3d 411, 412 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 904 [2016]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Kapnick, Webber and Oing, JJ.
164 A.3d 396

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL A. SALSANO, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 16, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
2016-0930.

#### State v. Banks-Harvey.

Warren App. No. CA2015-08-073, 2016-Ohio-2894. On the joint motion of appellee and amicus curiae, Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine, for divided oral-argument time scheduled for April 6, 2017. Motion granted. Amicus curiae shall share the time allotted to appellee.
No. 10-5734.

#### Jorge Luis Aranguren-Suarez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 936, 131 S. Ct. 340,

178 L. Ed. 2d 221,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7632.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 346 Fed. Appx. 557.
#### Vincent D. Fernandez, Respondent, v Toyota Lease Trust et al., Defendants. The Hartford, Workers’ Compensation Carrier, Nonparty Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 553]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fernando Tapia, J.), entered February 8, 2017, which, purportedly, granted plaintiff’s motion to equitably distribute the proceeds of a settlement between plaintiff and defendants by awarding plaintiff, his counsel and nonparty the Hartford $12,500 each, and amended order, same court and Justice, entered March 8, 2017, which addressed the Hartford’s cross motion, made before the prior order, by which the Hartford sought to enforce its lien in the amount of $22,408.27, as a Workers’ Compensation insurance carrier, and granted the cross motion only to the extent of recognizing the lien amount of $12,500, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the order and amended order vacated, and the matter remanded for an equitable apportionment between plaintiff and the Hartford of the actual litigation costs, including attorney’s fees, in the underlying action.

The court was without authority to arbitrarily divide the proposed settlement amount equally between plaintiff, plaintiff’s counsel and the Hartford, or to strike, waive or reduce any portion of the Hartford’s lien, beyond its share of the litigation expenses, including attorney’s fees, so that plaintiff could recover more. The court was authorized only to equitably divide the actual and demonstrable litigation costs and fees between plaintiff and the Hartford, reflecting the carrier’s total benefit *(see Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund,*60 NY2d 131, 138 [1983]; *Burns v Varriale,*9 NY3d 207, 213-214 [2007]; *Hammer v Turner Constr. Corp.,*39 AD3d *70S*[2d Dept 2007]; *436Workers’ Compensation Law § 29).

Concur—Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2010

p0518 

# Order

May 21, 2010

139984

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139984 COA: 285101 Lenawee CC: 07-012858-FC DOUGLAS EUGENE CAMP, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On May 11, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the applic ation for leave to appeal the September 17, 2009 judgment of the Co urt of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgme nt of the Court of Appeals because the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the defendan t consented to the mistrial declared by the
court. Where a defendant consents to a mi strial, double jeopardy considerations do not apply. United States v Dinitz , 424 US 600, 607; 96 S Ct 10 75; 47 L Ed 2d 267 (1976).
We REMAND this case to the Cour t of Appeals for considerati on of the issues raised by
the defendant but not addresse d by that court during its initial review of the case.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLOVUS M. SYKES, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

No. 14-70446 

Tax Ct. No. 18787-12L 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted April 19, 2018**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Clovus M. Sykes appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s summary judgment 

upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination to proceed with 

the proposed collection action for tax year 2008, and imposing a penalty under 26 

U.S.C. § 6673. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

APR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-70446 

Tax Court’s legal conclusions de novo. Severo v. Comm’r, 586 F.3d 1213, 1215 

(9th Cir. 2009). We review the imposition of penalties under § 6673 for abuse of 

discretion. Wolf v. Comm’r, 4 F.3d 709, 716 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly sustained the collection action against Sykes 

because he failed to raise any permissible issues or defenses at the collection due 

process (“CDP”) hearing. See 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(2) (listing issues that may be 

considered at the CDP hearing); § 6330(c)(2)(B) (taxpayer may raise at the CDP 

hearing challenges to the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability only if 

he or she did not receive a notice of deficiency). 

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing against Sykes a

$25,000 penalty under § 6673 for maintaining frivolous positions despite the Tax 

Court’s repeated warnings. § 6673(a)(1) (authorizing penalty not to exceed 

$25,000 where taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless); see Wolf, 4 F.3d at 

716 (concluding Tax Court was within its discretion in imposing penalties under § 

6673 against taxpayer who persisted in litigating frivolous positions following 

warning). We reject as unsupported Sykes’s contention that the 21-day safe-harbor 

provision set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 applies to the Tax Court’s 

imposition of penalties.

We reject as meritless Sykes’s contention that he was not required to pay 

taxes, because his argument is based on withholding provisions applicable only to 
3 14-70446 

foreign citizens. We also reject as meritless Sykes’s challenge to the 

Commissioner’s substitute for return.

Sykes’s motion to consolidate (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.