alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 183 (Friday, September 19, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21922]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 52-011]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Availability of 
Errata Sheet for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for an 
Early Site Permit (ESP) Application at the Vogtle Electric Generating 
Plant Site

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) has published an errata sheet for NUREG-1872, ``Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at 
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site.'' The site is located on the 
southwest side of the Savannah River in eastern Burke County, Georgia. 
A notice of availability (NOA) of the final EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on August 21, 2008 (73 FR 49496).
    The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the errata 
sheet for NUREG-1872, ``Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for 
an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 
Site,'' Volumes 1 and 2, is available for public inspection in the NRC 
Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike (First Floor) Rockville, Maryland 20852 or from the 
Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), and will also be placed 
directly on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov. ADAMS is accessible 
from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the 
Public Electronic Reading Room). The ADAMS accession number for the 
errata sheet is ML082550040. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or 
who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS 
should contact the PDR reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 
or 1-301-415-4737 or online at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/contact-pdr.html. In addition, the following public library in the vicinity of 
the Vogtle ESP Site has agreed to make the errata sheet available for 
public inspection: Burke County Library, 130 Highway 24 South, 
Waynesboro, GA 30830.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Notich, Environmental Projects 
Branch 1, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New 
Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001. Mr. Notich may be contacted by telephone at 301-415-3053 or by e-
mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86ebe7f4eda8e8e9f2efe5eec6e8f4e5a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3ded2c1d89ddddcc7dad0dbf3ddc1d09dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of September 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scott Flanders,
Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office of New 
Reactors.
[FR Doc. E8-21922 Filed 9-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered November 1 6 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00039
- CV
TRACEY B. THOMPSON , Appellant

V. MARTIN F. GAINES , Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 19
- 09781

O RDER After appellant questioned the accuracy of the reporter’s record, we ordered
the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if the record a ccurately disclosed what oc curred in the trial court

. The trial court held the hearing on September 23, 2022, and , as recited in an order signed November 14, 2022, found that no evidence was presented regarding any inaccu racies or omissions . Accordingly, the appeal shall proceed o n the reporter’s record as filed May 6, 2022

.W ith the issu e regarding the reporter’s record now addressed, we ORDER

appellant to file her brief on the merits no later than December 15, 2022.
/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
P ETRAS ET AL ., A PPELLEES , V . O HIO C ONCRETE C ONSTRUCTION C OMPANY ET AL .; 1 T OWER C ITY D EVELOPMENT , I NC . ET AL ., A PPELLANTS . 2 [Cite as Petras v. Ohio Concrete Constr. Co. (1995), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 3 Torts -- Inherently dangerous work -- Est ablishing liability to injured employee of 4 independent contractor -- General contractor “actively participated,” 5 when. 6 (No. 94-1830 -- Submitted December 6, 1995 -- Decided December 27, 7 1995.) 8 A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 65600. 9

______________ 10 Dennis Seaman & Associates and David A. Kulwicki, for appellees. 11 Law Offices of Jan A. Saurman and Alan B. Glassman, for appellants Tower 12 City Development, Inc. and Forest City Commercial Construction Company, Inc. 13 McLaughlin, McNally & Carlin and Tom Vasari; Casper & Casper and 14 Michael R. Thomas, urging affirmance for amicus curiae , Ohio Academy of Trial 15 Lawyers. 16 Calfee, Halter & Griswold and Wm. Tousley Smith, urging reversal for 17 amicus curiae , Automatic Sprinkler Corporation of America. 182 ______________ 1
2 The judgment of the court of appeal s is reversed on the authority of Bond v. 3 Howard Corp . (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 332, 650 N.E.2d 416. Final judgment for 4 appellants. 5 M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , W RIGHT , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER and 6 C OOK , JJ., concur. 7
8
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 00 1 98

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MAGGIE K. SCALF, WILLIAM S. SCALF, II,

STEPHANIE KRAUS, ROBERT J. KRAUS,

DENNIS W. HERD, SAMUEL SCHILLER,

DENICE YVONNE CULLUM, ALVIN ROGERS,

AND JEFFREY ELDER

, Appellant s

,

v.

AZIA NOORANI

, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 16 th District Court

of Denton County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides

, Hinojosa, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa2 This matter is before the Court on appellants ’ unopposed motion to dismiss

appeal

. 1 Appellants ’ request dismissal

, and appellee will not be prevented from seeking

relief to which they would otherwise be entitled.

The Court, having considered appellants ’ motion, is of the opinion that the motion

should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, appellants ’ unopposed

motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs will be taxed

against the appellant s , as there is no clear agreement between the parties regarding

costs

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ( “ Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax

costs against the appellant. ” ). Because the appeal is dismissed at appellants ’ request, no

motion for rehearing will be entertained.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

D elivered and filed on th e

30th day of June, 2022.

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket

equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

William Bourque

v. Civil No. 06-cv-090-JM

Town of Hampton, et al.

O R D E R

 Local Rule 7.1(a)(1) provides in part: 

all motions must contain the word “motion” in

the title . . . . Objections to pending

motions and affirmative motions for relief

shall not be combined in one filing. 

Despite the clear language of this rule, plaintiff has buried the

following motion in the middle of his objection to the motion for

summary judgment: 

that the Court decline to rule on the within

motion until discovery is concluded, as

important depositions of the material

witnesses are scheduled to take place in

March, 2007. 

While this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) was not filed

properly, it is granted and I have held off ruling. March is now

over and the important depositions are presumably complete. 

Plaintiff is ordered to file any addendum to this objection

by April 15, 2007. Any reply by defendant is due on May 1st. 

Case 1:06-cv-00090-JM Document 13 Filed 04/04/07 Page 1 of 2
2

Since that will leave only fifteen days to trial, I will assess

then whether the trial date is to be continued. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 4, 2007

cc: Scott F. Gleason, Esq.

 Thomas J. Gleason, Esq.

 William G. Scott, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00090-JM Document 13 Filed 04/04/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
   THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
   BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME OF
   PORTSMOUTH SQUARE, INC. SET FORTH IN ITS FORM 10-QSB REPORT FOR THE
   QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
   BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-QSB REPORT.
</LEGEND>

<CIK> 0000079661
<NAME> PORTSMOUTH SQUARE, INC.

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         94932
<SECURITIES>                                 2862091
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3302450
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5837566
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1348010
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     2092300
<OTHER-SE>                                   2397256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5837566
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1709982
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              271511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             30610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1438471
<INCOME-TAX>                                  489080
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           949391
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  949391
<EPS-BASIC>                                   1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   1.29



</TABLE>
#### Nancy M. RADFORD, Appellant, v. Walter H. RADFORD, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Feb. 11, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Parts 15 and 52
          - [FAC 2005-27; Item XIV;Docket FAR-2008-0007; Sequence 1]

# AGENCIES:

 Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

 Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

 This document makes amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulation in order to make editorial changes.

# DATES:

*Effective Date*: September 17, 2008.                        

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 The FAR Secretariat, Room 4041, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, (202) 501-4755, for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. Please cite FAC 2005-27, Technical Amendment.

# 

# List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 15 and 52

      - Government procurement

Dated: September 9, 2008

Al Matera,

Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.

Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA amend 48 CFR parts 15 and 52 as set forth below:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 15 and 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).

# PART 15—CONTRACTING BY NEGOTIATION

15.404-1

2. Amend section 15.404-1 by removing from paragraph (a)(7) “ *http://www.acq.osd.mil/​dpap/​contractpricing/​index.htm*                            ” and adding “                            *http://www.acq.osd.mil/​dpap/​cpf/​contract_​pricing _​reference_​guides.html*                             ”in its place.                        

# PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

52.212-5

3. Amend section 52.212-5 by removing from paragraph (b)(26) the word “FAR”. 

[FR Doc. E8-21368 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-S
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

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

April 25, 2011 

y0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142275 

GRADY HUDSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 142275 

 COA: 291714 

Wayne CC: 07-724008-NM 

GERALD M. LORENCE, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 23, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

                    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material,                           ( print page 54163)                        and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.                

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group Pediatrics Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         October 20-21, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rita Anand, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1487,                         *anandr@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 10, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-21791 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 06-cr-12-01, 02-SM

Starr Parrish, et al

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 17) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than April 25, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:06-cr-00019-SM Document 28 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: June 28, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Jury Selection: July 6, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

April 19, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Donald Feith, Esq.

 Donald Kennedy, Esq.

 Jeffrey Levin, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00019-SM Document 28 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 69 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 69

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``October 31, 2001''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 17, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 69

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
(173 La. 770)

#### STATE v. LEE.

No. 31505.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

Henry J. Rhodes, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eugene Stanley, Dist. Atty., and Warren O. Coleman, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, for the State.

O’NIELL, C. J.

The appellant stands convicted of murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.

The record contains three bills of exception. The,first bill was reserved to the overruling of an objection to the state's introducing in evidence a written confession. The document was a carbon copy of a typewritten instrument purporting to be a confession made by the defendant, and written by a detective, in the presence of an assistant district attorney and five or more police officers. The defendant, being' illiterate, made a cross-mark, in lieu of his signaturé, on each of the duplicate copies of the confession, after it had been read to him and approved by him; all of which was proven when the copy of the confession was offered in evidence. The only objection made to the introduction of the confession in evidence was “that there was no certificate to show that the same was a carbon eopy of the original statement alleged to have been made.” It was not contended that the writing was not an accurate representation of what the defendant had said, or that the confession was not a free and voluntary confession. The objection that the document offered in evidence was not certified to be a carbon copy of the original was without merit. When a writing has been made in duplicate, or counterpart copies, by one and the same mechanical operation, as when two or more typewritten copies of an instrument are made at the same time by interleaving sheets of carbon paper, each copy of the instrument is an original, and is primary evidence, admissible without accounting for the other copy or copies. 22 G. J. 1023.

 The two other bills of exception have reference to the form of the verdict, viz.: “June 9th, 1931. Guilty. (Signed) Sam Payne Stone, Foreman.” It is contended that the word “Guilty” was indefinite, in that it did not express Or explain the degree of guilt; particularly as the judge had properly instructed the jurors that they might find the defendant “Guilty as charged,” or “Guilty as charged, without capital punishment,” or “Guilty of manslaughter,” or “Not guilty.” The argument, in substance, is that the word “Guilty” might mean “Guilty, without capital punishment,” or “(Guilty of manslaughter,” as well as “Guilty as charged.” It is well settled, however, that when a jury’s verdict reads simply “Guilty” it means “Guilty as charged.” In fact the Code of Criminal Procedure, in article 411, so provides. See, also, State v. Johnson, 30 La. Ann. 921; State v. Underwood, 44 La. Ann. 1114, 11 So. 823; State v. Warner, 117 La. 938, 42 So. 432.

The verdict and sentence are affirmed.