alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 1 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 2 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 3 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 4 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 5 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 6 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 7 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 8 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 9 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 10 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 11 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 12 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 13 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 14 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 15 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 16 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 17 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 18 of 19

USDC IN/ND case 2:14-cv-00232-PPS   document 1-2   filed 07/08/14   page 19 of 19
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27993-27994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12971]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Uranium Recovery Facilities: Availability of Staff Technical 
Position on Effluent Disposal at Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 27994]] 


SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the 
availability of ``Staff Technical Position on Effluent Disposal at 
License Uranium Recovery Facilities.'' This Staff Technical Position 
(STP) is a NRC staff guidance document that provides guidance and 
discusses the technical and regulatory basis for review and evaluation 
of proposals for disposal of liquid waste at licensed uranium recovery 
facilities, including conventional mills and in situ leach facilities. 
The STP is primarily intended to guide NRC staff reviews of site-
specific proposals for disposal of liquid waste, but it can also be 
used by licensees and applicants for preparation of such proposals.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the STP on effluent disposal at licensed uranium 
recovery facilities may be requested by writing to: Dr. John H. Austin, 
Chief, Performance Assessment and Hydrology Branch, Division of Waste 
Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mailstop 
7-D-13 TWFN, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555, 
or by calling (301) 415-7252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Dr. Latif S. Hamdan, Performance 
Assessment and Hydrology Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office 
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Mailstop 7-D-13 TWFN, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 
415-6639.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons interested in commenting on the STP 
on effluent disposal at licensed uranium recovery facilities may 
provide written comments to Chief, Performance Assessment and Hydrology 
Branch, Mail Stop TWFN 7-D-13, Division of Waste Management, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Comments received will be considered 
in any future revisions of the STP. There is no date set for expiration 
of the comment period.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May, 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John H. Austin,
Chief, Performance Assessment and Hydrology Branch, Division of Waste 
Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 95-12971 Filed 5-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Nicholas DiMONDA, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-10796.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01791-RL-CAN document 1 filed 08/15/14 page 1 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01791-RL-CAN document 1 filed 08/15/14 page 2 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01791-RL-CAN document 1 filed 08/15/14 page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12483]



[[Page 27089]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 5 and 6 June 1995.
    Time of Meeting: 1200-1700, 5 June 1995; 0800-1700, 6 June 1995.
    Place: Atlanta, GA.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board's Logistics and Sustainability 
Subgroup will meet for discussions focused on current doctrine, 
missions, functions, force structures and modules, and technologies 
reference ``Army Logistical Support to Operations Other Than War.'' 
These meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with 
Section 552b(c) of Title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (1) 
thereof, and Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). The 
classified and unclassified matters to be discussed are so 
inextricably intertwined so as to preclude opening any portion of 
these meetings. The ASB Administrative Officer, Sally Warner, may be 
contacted for further information at (703) 695-0781.
Sally A. Warner,
Administrative Officer, Army Science Board,
[FR Doc. 95-12483 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 v. 

DARRON A. WEBB (01) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:14-CR-091 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

Now before the Court is a letter from the Defendant Darron A. Webb, in which he 

requests a sentence reduction under the retroactive amendment to the drug quantity tables, and 

requests appointment of counsel. However, Mr. Webb is ineligible for such a reduction for at 

least two different reasons. First, Mr. Webb was already sentenced using the revised version of 

the Guidelines Manual, so he has already received the benefit of the across-the-board reduction 

to the drug quantity tables. His sentencing was on April 16, 2015, and as indicated in the 

Presentence Report, the 2014 Guidelines Manual, which incorporates the drug quantity 

amendments, was used to calculate his advisory guideline sentencing range. Mr. Webb’s base 

offense level was therefore 28 instead of 30, as it would have been prior to the amendment. Thus, 

having already received the benefit of this amendment, Mr. Webb is entitled to no further 

reduction in his sentence on that basis. 

Second, Mr. Webb is ineligible for any reduction under § 3582(c)(2) because he entered a 

binding plea agreement, which the Court accepted. In his plea agreement, Mr. Webb agreed to a 

sentence of imprisonment of 10 years, and the Court was bound to sentence Mr. Webb to that 

term if it accepted his plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). “A defendant who agrees to 

a specific sentence in a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) generally is not eligible to receive 

a reduced sentence under § 3582(c)(2) because that statute does not grant relief for sentences 

based not on a guidelines range, but on an agreed term.” United States v. Scott, 711 F.3d 784, 
2 

787 (7th Cir. 2013). Mr. Webb falls in that category, and is therefore not eligible for any 

reduction under § 3582(c)(2). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mr. Webb’s motion for a sentence reduction and for 

appointment of counsel. [DE 88]. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: June 10, 2015 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7700

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD MCLEOD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:01-cr-00042-F-1)

Submitted: March 15, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald McLeod, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, 

Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald McLeod, Jr., appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. McLeod, 

No. 7:01-cr-00042-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 23, 2010). 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
#### ZAMPINO v. BRUCKNER et al.

(Supreme •Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Pasquailo Zampino against John A. Bruckner and another.

No opinion. Motion granted, with $10 costs. Order filed.
#### Prakash MELWANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRST USA BANK, N.A., Also Known as Bank One, Delaware, N.A., Defendant-Appellee. Prakash Melwani, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., AKA Citi Cards, AKA Sony Card, Defendant-Appellee. Prakash Melwani, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AT & T Universal Card, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 03-7806-CV, 03-7807-CV, 03-7813-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 28, 2004.

*756Prakash Melwani, New York, New York, for Appellant, pro se.

Noah A. Levine, Wilmer Cutler Pickering LLP, New York, NY, for Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., for Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and Bank One, Delaware, N.A., for Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., for Appellees.

Present: NEWMAN, KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, and KOELTL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable John G. Koeltl, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgments of the District Court are AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Prakash Melwani, *pro se,*appeals from the judgments of the district court dismissing his complaints against defendant-appellees Bank One, Delaware, N.A., and Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (the “Banks”).1 The parties’ familiarity with the facts is assumed. In brief, appellant alleged that, in their reports to credit bureaus, the Banks unlawfully attributed to him debts owed on credit cards of which he was an authorized user but not an account holder or co-signer. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Regulation B of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 12 C.F.R. pt. 202, requires a creditor that furnishes credit information to a credit bureau to designate accounts to reflect the participation of both spouses if the primary account holder’s spouse is “permitted to use or is contractually liable on the account.” *See*12 C.F.R. § 202.10. In reporting this credit information, the creditor is not required to “distinguish between accounts on which the spouse is an authorized user and accounts on which the spouse is a contractually liable party.” 12 C.F.R. pt. 202, Supp. I (official staff interpretations to § 202.10). This regulation preempts any inconsistent state laws. *See*12 C.F.R. § 202.11.

Appellant conceded in the district court that he is married to the primary account holder of the credit card accounts at issue. Because, under Regulation B, the Banks were thus required to report appellant’s participation on the accounts, they may not be held liable for doing so. We have considered all of appellant’s arguments and find them to be without merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the district court are hereby AFFIRMED.

1

. The Banks were misidentified in appellant's pleadings as First USA Bank, N.A., Citi Cards, and AT & T Universal Card.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-89-TLS 

)

CALVIN L. MILLER )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 54], filed on May 19, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 54] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on June 3, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Janice S. HAAGENSEN, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, et al.

No. 12-964.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of rehearing denied.
Order entered November 26 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01205
- CV JALIA STEPHENS, Appellant

V. ROSELAND ESTATES, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Caus e No. CC
- 14
- 03495
- D



### O RDER By postcard dated November 19, 2014, we advised Appellant that the reporter’s record in the above case is overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within 30 days of the date of the notice. The court reporter has now advised us that no party has contacted her to request the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Appellant to file within ten days of the date of this order (1) notice that Appellant has requested preparation of the reporter’s record; and, (2) w ritten verification that appellant has paid or made arrange ments to pay the reporter’s
fee or written documentation that appellant has been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We notify appellant that if we receive verification that no request for the record has been made as required by this order or that she has not paid for or madearrangements to pay for the record as required by this order , we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3 (c).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to all parties and to Cora L. Hough, Official Court Reporter of County Court at Law No. 4 and to the Honorable Ken Tapscott, Presiding Judge of Dallas County C ourt at Law. No. 4.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 1 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 2 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 3 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 4 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 5 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 6 of 7

USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00172-TLS-RBC   document 1-1   filed 06/09/14   page 7 of 7
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13056]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act

AGENCY: Notice is hereby given that the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) has received a waste management permit application from Mr. Skip 
Novak, owner and operator of the Pelagic (a 54-foot steel sloop), for 
management of materials and wastes for camping and climbing activities 
in the Antarctic Peninsula, submitted to NSF pursuant to regulations 
issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application on or before June 29, 
1995. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the 
Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert S. Cunningham or Peter R. Karasik at the above address or (703) 
306-1031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NSF's Antarctic Waste Regulation, 45 CFR 
Part 671, requires all U.S. citizens and entities to obtain a permit 
for the use or release of banned substances or designated pollutants in 
Antarctica, and for the release of waste in Antarctica. NSF has 
received a permit application under this Regulation which covers 
materials and waste management associated with two planned expeditions 
per year by the Pelagic, which accommodates a total of eight people on 
board, for camping and climbing activities along the Antarctic 
peninsula. The permit applicant is: Mr. Skip Novak, PELAGIC, 92 
Stachell Lane, Hamble, Hampshire, S031 4HL ENGLAND. The proposed 
duration of the permit is from December 27, 1995 through December 26, 
2000.

Activity for Which Permit Requested

    The PELAGIC is planned to make two 35-day trips per year to the 
Antarctic Peninsula. Passengers will be making one to two day outings 
on shore at various landing locations and will be using gasoline or 
kerosene in camping stoves during camping and climbing trips. All 
garbage including food wastes, plastics, tins, and bottles will be 
packed out of Antarctica and returned to South America on the ship. 
Conditions of the permit will include requirements to avoid Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific 
Interest (SSSIs), educate participants with the requirements of the 
Antarctic Conservation Act (ACA), report on the removal of materials 
and any accidental releases, and manage human waste in accordance with 
antarctic waste regulations.
Robert S. Cunningham,
NEPA Compliance Manager, Office of Polar Programs, National Science 
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 95-13056 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Group Exhibit 1

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00073-RLM-JEM document 3 filed 12/04/14 page 1 of 3
Group Exhibit 1

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00073-RLM-JEM document 3 filed 12/04/14 page 2 of 3
Group Exhibit 1

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00073-RLM-JEM document 3 filed 12/04/14 page 3 of 3
Order entered January 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00142-CV

DARREN MELTON, Appellant

V.

601 JEALOUSE, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06444-B

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 21, 2020 second motion for an extension of time 

to file his brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion as follows. We SUSPEND the deadline 

for appellant’s brief pending this Court’s resolution of appellee’s motion to dismiss. Appellant 

shall file any response to appellee’s motion by January 31, 2020.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Building Cooperation for 

Orderly Cross-Border Resolution

December 6, 2018
2

Key Message

 Resolution preparedness for global financial 

institutions needs international cooperation. 

 Outreach is multifaceted (institution-specific, bilateral and 

multilateral).

 Home and host authorities need to have confidence in official 

processes as well as the firms’ processes and capabilities.

 Information sharing through formal arrangements supports mutual 

trust.

 Transparency and mutual understanding of resolution planning will 

serve as a stabilizing force in times of stress.
3

Building Cooperation:

International Engagement

Institution-Specific

 Crisis Management Groups (CMGs)

o Cooperation Agreements (CoAgs)

 Institution-Specific Strategic Plans

Bilateral

 FDIC-European Commission (EC) Working Group

 U.S.-European Union (EU) Financial Regulatory Forum

 U.S.-UK Financial Regulatory Working Group

Multilateral

 Trilateral Principal Level Exercise (TPLE)

 Financial Stability Board (FSB)

o Resolution Steering Group (ReSG)

o Effects of Reform Review

 International Monetary Fund
4

Building Cooperation: 

Strategy, Resources & Information

 Understanding home resolution strategies and 

firms’ resources and capabilities increases hosts’ 

confidence to cooperate.

 Sharing information supports home-host 

cooperation.

Reducing likelihood of ring-fencing
Building Cooperation: 

Balancing Resources Cross-Border 

5

“To enable cooperation and avoid a destabilizing seizure of assets 

by host regulators, I would submit that all jurisdictions must find a 

balance of flexibility for the parent bank and certainty for local 

stakeholders. Flexibility, or the ability to allocate capital and 

liquidity to different parts of the group on an as-needed basis, 

helps to meet unexpected demands on resources and reduces 

the risk of misallocation and inefficient use of resources. Certainty, 

or the local prepositioning of capital and liquidity to ensure a firm 

can satisfy local claimants under stressful conditions, helps to 

promote cooperation in the context of a cross-border resolution 

and avoid incentives for more drastic action by host authorities.” 

Source: Quarles, Randal K, Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System. “Trust Everyone--But Brand Your Cattle: Finding the Right Balance in 

Cross-Border Resolution.” Remarks at the Harvard Law School Program on International Financial 

Systems. Cambridge, Massachusetts. May 16, 2018.
6

 Multilateral efforts to promote cooperation

 FSB Annual Report to G-20

 Effects of Reforms: 2020 review of Too Big To Fail Policies

 Cross-country reviews of technical implementation of TLAC 

standard and resolution planning

 Ongoing FSB country peer reviews of resolution frameworks

 IMF Financial Sector Assessment Program (U.S. 2020 review)

 Transparency Developments

 Other jurisdictions’ initiatives on resolution plan transparency

 FSB industry and stakeholder outreach events

 Public consultations and publications

New Developments Ahead