alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has determined that the renewal of the National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration by 15 U.S.C. 633. This determination follows consultation with the Management Secretariat, General Services Administration. 

*Name of Committee:*                     National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board.                 

*Purpose and Objective:*                     The goals and objectives of the Board are to advise, counsel, and confer with the Associate Administrator, Office of Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) in carrying out her/his duties. The scope of the Board's activities covers the entire SBDC program.                 

*Balanced Membership Plans:*                     The board consists of nine members. Every effort is made to select board members who are known to be familiar and sympathetic with small business needs and problems.                 

*Duration:*                     Continuing.                 

*Responsible SBA Officials:*                     Wilma Goldstein, Acting Associate                           ( print page 2977)                        Administrator, Office of Small Business Development Centers, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.                 

Meredith Davis, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 08-142 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
* 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. 97-41114

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ARTURO PARRA-TORRES,

also known as Juan Tapia-Torres,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-97-CR-141-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 10, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Arturo Parra-Torres appeals his sentence for unlawfully

entering the United States after having been previously deported. 

Parra-Torres argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced

pursuant to Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), based upon his prior

commission of an aggravated felony, because the charging

indictment did not mention the prior aggravated felony

conviction. His argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s

decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, ___ U.S. ___,

1998 WL 126904, at *3, *8 (U.S. Mar. 24, 1998).
No. 

-2-

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6286** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ADEWALE JOHNSON ALADEKOBA, a/k/a Jay Johnson, a/k/a Orlando Percival McGregory, a/k/a Wally , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. ( 1:93

- cr - 00018

- WMN

- 3; 1:12

- cv - 000924

- WMN )

Submitted : July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Adewale Johnson Aladekoba, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Adewale Johnson Aladekoba seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider its order denying his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) moti on as successive and unauthorized . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the cons titutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the disposi tive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aladekoba has not made the requisite showin g. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Aladekoba ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or3 successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. A. § 22 55(h ) (West Supp. 2013)
. Aladekoba ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befor e th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
|   | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2)  | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: June 29, 2010 | By:    | /s/ David P. Lieberman                                                                       |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | David P. Lieberman                                                                           |
|                 |   | Acting Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
Use of Co-worker Data

in Dose Reconstruction:

Savannah River Site Example

James W. Neton, PhD, CHP

Associate Director for Science 

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

November 2014

Redondo Beach, CA
Summary of Internal 

Co-worker Model Calculations

(1) Urine Data

(2) OPOS Urine Data

(3) 50th and 84th 

Percentile Urine Data

(4) 50th and 84th 

Percentile Intake Rates

(GM and GSD of intake rates)

(5) Person-specific Intakes and Doses

(6) Probability of Causation
Bioassay Distribution for a Single Year

GM

84th percentile
Generate Distribution for Each Year

1955

2007
SRS Plutonium Urinalysis Data

Table A-3. 50th- and 84th-percentile urinary excretion rates of plutonium gross

alpha, 1955 to 2007 (dpm/d).

Effective bioassay date 50th percentile 84th percentile No. of employees

7/1/1955 0.0273 0.068 203

7/1/1956 0.0106 0.050 314

7/1/1957 0.0263 0.056 312

7/1/1958 0.0371 0.061 286

7/1/1959 0.0307 0.085 337

7/1/1960 0.0188 0.080 350

7/1/1961 0.0074 0.028 367

7/1/1962 0.0430 0.073 39

7/1/1963 0.0049 0.028 338

7/1/1964 0.0134 0.054 327

7/1/1965 0.0295 0.060 414

7/1/1966 0.0291 0.064 376

7/1/1967 0.0240 0.068 355

7/1/1968 0.0147 0.053 384

7/1/1969 0.0272 0.134 279

7/1/1970 0.0295 0.121 266

7/1/1971 0.0144 0.055 339

7/1/1972 0.0320 0.091 358

7/1/1973 0.0235 0.073 356

7/1/1974 0.0244 0.076 369

7/1/1975 0.0194 0.073 341

7/1/1976 0.0093 0.054 394

7/1/1977 0.0240 0.077 389

7/1/1978 0.0168 0.071 260

7/1/1979 0.0173 0.034 357

7/1/1980 0.0360 0.078 312

7/1/1981 0.0150 0.054 408

7/1/1982 0.0122 0.043 406

7/1/1983 0.0109 0.048 296

7/1/1984 0.0163 0.055 267
Savannah River Pu Coworker Model (Type M)

Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake rates (line) compared with 

bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, 1955–1990, type M. 

Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake rates (line) 

compared with bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, 1991–2007, type M. 
Savannah River Pu Coworker Model (Type M) –cont.

Predicted plutonium bioassay results calculated using IMBA-derived plutonium intake rates (line) compared with 

bioassay results (dots), 50th percentile, all intake periods, type M. 

Summary of plutonium type M intake rates (dpm/d) and dates 

Years

1955–1990

50%

1.77

84%

5.103

GSD

2.88

Adj GSD

3.00

95% 

10.8

1991–2007 0.930 2.542 2.73 3.00 5.67
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5636 

AN ACT 

To designate additions to the Flatside Wilderness on the 

Ouachita National Forest, 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, 
2 

•HR 5636 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flatside Wilderness 

3 Enhancement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO FLATSIDE WILDERNESS. 

5 Section 3(d) of Arkansas Wilderness Act of 1984 

6 (Public Law 98–508; 98 Stat. 2349) is amended by insert7 ing ‘‘and certain land in the Ouachita National Forest, 

8 which comprise approximately 640 acres, as generally de9 picted as ‘Recommended Wilderness Area’ on the map ti10 tled ‘Flatside Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness 

11 Area’, dated September 6, 2018’’ after ‘‘1984’’. 

12 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS ADDITION. 

13 The wilderness addition created under section 2 shall 

14 be known as the Bethune Woods-Flatside Wilderness. Any 

15 reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or 

16 other record of the United States to such portion of the 

17 Flatside Wilderness shall be deemed to be a reference to 

18 the Bethune Woods-Flatside Wilderness. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5636 

AN ACT 

To designate additions to the Flatside Wilderness 

purposes. on the Ouachita National Forest, and for other
A95A0122.

#### HUNDLEY et al. v. GREENE et al.

(472 SE2d 570)

Decided June 18, 1996.

*Eugene D. Butt,*for appellants.

*Husby, Myers & Stroberg, Roland H. Stroberg, Cook, Noell, Tolley & Wiggins, Edward D. Tolley, Ronald E. Houser,*for appellees.

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

In *Hundley v. Greene,*218 Ga. App. 193 (461 SE2d 250), we reversed a decision of the superior court in which the superior court held it had no authority to review an arbitration award even though the arbitration award was not supported by any evidence and was thus outside the authority of the arbitrator, which we deemed to extend only so far as to rule within the evidence. However, in *Greene v. Hundley,*266 Ga. 592 (468 SE2d 350), the Supreme Court reversed our decision in *Hundley.*Accordingly, the decision of the superior court that it had no authority to review an arbitration award for supporting evidence, even though such award is not supported by any evidence and is outside the evidence and outside the authority of the arbitrator, is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beasley, C. J, McMurray, R J., Pope, P. J., Andrews, Johnson, Blackburn, Smith and Ruffin, JJ., concur.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

t1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

145124

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145124

COA: 307697

Kent CC: 08

- 011617

- FC

ELLIS MILLS, III,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
ABRWH 

Work Group on TBD-6000 

April 26, 2013 

10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, Teleconference 

Conference Phone: 1-866-659-0537 

Participant Code: 9933701# 

AGENDA 

1. Welcome and roll call 

2. GSI 

a. Presentation of DCAS April 2013 White Paper. 

b. SC&A review 

c. Public comments 

d. Work Group discussion/recommendations 

3. Baker Brothers 

a. DCAS responses to SC&A review points 

b. SC&A comments 

c. Petitioner comments 

d. Work Group discussion/recommendations 

4. Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co. 

a. SC&A review 

b. DCAS status of responses 

5. Simonds Saw and Steel 

a. DCAS responses to SC&A review 

b. SC&A comments 

c. Public comments 

d. Work Group discussion/recommendations 

6. Adjourn
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 104

Red Lion Richland Hanford House

George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99352

Phone: 509-946-7611 Fax: 509-943-8564

Teleconference Phone: 866-659-0537, Participant Code: 9933701#

LiveMeeting Link: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/cdc/join?id=48H6RN

Meeting ID: 48H6RN Entry Code: ABRWH

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

NOTE: All times in Pacific Time 

8:00 a.m. – 8:50 a.m. Ethics Training Mr. Chris Cox, HHS, Board 

Members & DFO

*Public Meeting Begins*

9:00 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Welcome and Introduction Dr. James Melius, Chair

9:15 a.m. – 9:35 a.m. NIOSH Program Update Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH 

9:35 a.m. – 9:55 a.m. DOE Program Update Dr. Patricia Worthington, DOE

9:55 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. DOL Program Update Mr. Frank Crawford, DOL

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Sufficient Accuracy/Coworker 

Dose Modeling

Dr. James Melius, SEC Issues 

Work Group (WG) Chair

Dr. James Neton, NIOSH

11:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Kansas City Plant Work Group 

Update on SEC Petition

Ms. Josie Beach, Work Group 

Chair

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Board Work Session Dr. James Melius, Chair

1
3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Hanford SEC Petition (1984-

1993; Richland WA)

Dr. Sam Glover, NIOSH

Dr. James Melius, WG Chair

SEC Petitioner(s):

4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Public Comment

5:30 p.m. Adjourn for Day 1

Thursday, March 26, 2015

NOTE: All times in Pacific 

Time

8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Welcome and Introduction Dr. James Melius, Chair

8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. Dow Chemical Corporation 

SEC Petition (1947-1957; 

Pittsburgh, CA) 

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 

NIOSH

SEC Petitioner(s):

10:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Uranium Refining AWEs WG 

Review of DuPont Deepwater 

Works Site Profile (Deepwater 

NJ)

Dr. Henry Anderson, WG 

Chair

10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Grand Junction Operations 

Office SEC Petition (1975 –

2010; Grand Junction CO)

Dr. James Neton, NIOSH

SEC Petitioner(s)

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Idaho National Laboratory 

SEC Petition (1949-1970; 

Scoville ID)

Dr. Tim Taulbee, NIOSH 

SEC Petitioner(s)

3:00 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. SEC Petitions Status Update Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 

NIOSH

3:15 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Board Work Session Dr. James Melius, Chair

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

2
July 31, 2009 

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary 

Department of Health and Human Services 

200 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20201 

Dear Madam Secretary: 

Enclosed for your information is a document that summarizes three (3) 

reports submitted previously to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board). The 

Board conducts independent reviews of selected radiation dose 

reconstructions completed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health (NIOSH) in accordance with the requirements of the Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The Purpose of the Board’s 

review process is to advise you on the “scientific validity and quality of dose 

estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the 

compensation program.” 

This report was prepared by the Board’s Subcommittee on Dose 

Reconstruction and was approved by the full Board at its May 12, 2009, 

meeting in Amarillo, Texas. The Board believes that this review process or 

audit, which is carried out with the assistance of the Board’s Technical 

Support Contractor, Sanford Cohen and Associates (SC&A), has been an 

effective means of improving the NIOSH dose reconstruction program over 

the past several years. 

This current report includes an executive summary that provides a brief 

overview of the findings that emerged from the audits reported to the 

Secretary to date. The main body of the report delineates in more detail the 

types of cases reviewed; the various findings and their impact on 

compensation decisions; the demographics of the cases reviewed; and a 

summary of the types of changes that have resulted from the review process. 

We hope you will find this information useful and informative. 

 Sincerely, 

 [Signature on file] 

 Paul L. Ziemer 

 Chairman, ABRWH 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

(513) 533-6825

CHAIRMAN:

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.

 Lafayette, Indiana

MEMBERS:

Josie Beach

 Richland, Washington 

Bradley P. Clawson

 Rexburg, Idaho

Michael H. Gibson

 Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon

 Salem, New Hampshire

James E. Lockey, M.D.

 Cincinnati, Ohio

James M. Melius, M.D., Ph.D.

 Albany, New York

Wanda I. Munn

 Richland, Washington

John W. Poston, Sr., Ph.D.

 College Station, Texas

Robert W. Presley

 Seymour, Tennessee

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.

 Elysian, Minnesota

Phillip Schofield

 Bosque Farm, New Mexico

STAFF:

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:

Theodore M. Katz, MPA

 Atlanta, Georgia

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT :

Zaida Burgos

 Atlanta, Georgia
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SAWAND PALMER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv73-RH/WCS

LEE I. PETERS, JR. et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER FOR TRANSFER

This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, ECF No. 4. No objections have been filed. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is ACCEPTED and adopted as the court’s

opinion. This case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle

District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. The clerk must take all steps necessary

to effect the transfer.

SO ORDERED on April 13, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dong Fang Minerals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A-1 for the period ended July 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Jian Hong Liu, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 17thday of November, 2008.                                                                                                                
|   

JIAN HONG LIUJian Hong Liu, President, Principal Executive Officer,Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officerand Treasurer.














---