alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to this park navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to this park information section
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Yosemite
National Park
California


Info
Alerts
Maps
Calendar
Fees


Alerts In Effect Dismiss
 more information on current conditions...
 Dismiss View all alerts


Contact Us
  Photos & Multimedia
 Videos

Yosemite Trip Planning focuses on videos to help you plan your trip.

Yosemite Nature Notes is a video podcast series that tells unique stories about the natural and human history of Yosemite National Park.

Yosemite Presents... contains selected videos about Yosemite National Park, including an orientation to visiting Yosemite.

Photos

Black and white image of ranger on snowy peak
We are working to digitize historic negatives in our collections and making them accessible online for anyone to use. Over 6,500 images are now available online. You can download and use these public domain images for free.

Audio Podcasts

Yosemite Voices is an audio podcast series intended to provide insights into the natural and cultural history and management of Yosemite National Park. The podcast also explores the lives of and lifestyles of the people who live and work in Yosemite.

A Buffalo Soldier Speaks is an audio podcast featuring National Park Ranger Shelton Johnson as Sergeant Elizy Boman, Troop "k," Ninth U.S. Cavalry, who was dispatched to Yosemite National Park in 1903. On their routine patrols through the high country of Yosemite, these Buffalo Soldiers recorded the pertinent but mundane details of their journeys.
 Last updated: November 14, 2018
 Park footer Contact Info Phone: 209/372-0200 Contact Us
 Tools FAQ
Site Index
Español
 Stay Connected


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
### §218. Civil penalties

Any person who violates the provisions of this subchapter shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000, and each day shall constitute a separate offense.

(Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 814, title II, §207, as added Pub. L. 100–690, title VIII, §8001(a)(3), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4520.)
#### In the Matter of the Application of the Standard Bitulithic Company for a Writ of Certiorari to John N. Carlisle, as Commissioner of Highways of the State of New York, Appellant.

Order resettled.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Willbros Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael F. Curran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: June 16, 2006 |  | /s/ Michael F. Curran  
|                    |  | Michael F. Curran      
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer
0-cr-06218-NCR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2000 Pa
0-cr-06218-NCR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/22/2000 Pa
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 389

**Question 389:** The revised 10 CFR 20 includes a new provision that allows disposal of licensed material "...by decay in storage..." What criteria should be used in implementing this provision? Is the NRC planning to develop generic guidance for "decay in storage"?

**Answer:** See the answer to Question 376 for a discussion of "decay in storage." As indicated in that answer, "decay in storage" is not a practical means of disposal of licensed material at nuclear power plants (and at some other facilities). Therefore, the NRC is providing no criteria to be used in implementing this provision at nuclear power plants and is not planning to develop (additional) generic guidance for "decay in storage" at nuclear power plants. As noted in the statement of considerations for revised Part 20 (56 FR 23380, third column, and 23381, first column), technically, the "decay in storage" option has always been available to licensees as an allowed waste disposal option. This option was formally included in the proposed and final rules because the list of disposal options is exclusive and there had been questions as to whether this option is allowed under §§20.1-20.601 (in old Part 20). It should be noted that this option does not allow material that has "decayed in storage" to be released to an unrestricted area unless it meets the requirements of one of the other allowed forms of waste disposal in part 20, or the requirements of §35.92, "Decay in Storage," of 10 CFR Part 35, or the specific requirements given in any NRC or Agreement State license.

(References: 10 CFR 20.2001)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, November 27, 2017
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Ex Parte Communication

## HPPOS-126 PDR-9111210297

See the memorandum from J. P. Murray to J. G. Keppler dated February 3, 1981.

Ex parte provisions prohibit discussion - written or oral - by one party to a proceeding with a "judge." Judges include licensing boards, appeal boards, administrative law judges, the Commissioners, and staffs of all the above.

An explanation of the term "ex parte" in assisting IE personnel in the recognition of potential ex parte contacts was sought. Here is an attempt to briefly summarize the situation in simplified terms. The latin phrase "ex parte" means "from one side only." It has application only in the context of a legal "proceeding". What is a "proceeding?" It is the agency's process for issuing, amending, suspending or revoking a license or issuing a civil penalty.

When is it "going on?"

It begins when a hearing has been noticed or when a request for a hearing is made. It ends with the final decision by the agency. The basic idea behind the ex parte prohibition, codified in 10 CFR 2.780, is the prevention of the unfairness which could occur if one of two (or more) parties to a proceeding were to have secret discussions with the decisional authority on a matter at issue in the proceeding. One party ought not be allowed to discuss secretly with the judge matters at issue before the judge. This could be unfair to the party or parties left in the dark as to what was said.

In NRC's practice, the "judges" are: the licensing boards, the administrative law judge, the appeal board and, of course, the Commissioners themselves when there is a case pending before them. (This includes all members of the staffs of these "judges".) Also, in NRC's practice the "parties" to proceedings are: the NRC staff, the applicant or licensee, and any intervenors.

So, the prohibition is against discussion - written or oral - between one of the parties and a judge concerning a matter at issue in a pending proceeding. Put another way, all parties to a proceeding are entitled to be in on any discussions which occur between the judge and any of the other parties.

One final observation is as follows. Although the subsequent revelation on the record of a prior ex parte contact serves, at least in most cases, to largely eliminate the pernicious effect which might otherwise occur, such a "curative" action does not eliminate the original illegality of the contact.

In summary, IE personnel should be sensitive to any contact they may have with the "judges" or their staffers and, never discuss a matter currently pending before one of the "judges," except on the formal record.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 2.780

**Subject codes:** 12.19

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
#### § 5.3 How do I apply for a permit?

For information on application procedures and to obtain a permit application, contact the site manager at the location at which you seek to conduct commercial filming or still photography activities.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 4858]

*Summary:*                     Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Stubbs and the Horse” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, from on or about November 14, 2004 to on or about February 6, 2005, and at the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland, from on or about March 13, 2005 to on or about May 29, 2005, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

*For Further Information Contact:*                     For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr R. Sulzynsky, the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202/619-5078). The address is: Department of State, SA-44, and 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                

Dated: October 1, 2004.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 04-22936 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Delegation of Authority

    Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Administrator, 
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the authority to 
execute functions pertaining to the Healthy Communities Access Program 
(HCAP) and ``HCAP Demonstration Projects,'' section 340, including 
340(j) of Title III, Part D of the Public Health Service Act, as 
amended. This authority may be redelegated.
    This delegation shall be exercised under the Department's existing 
delegation and policy on regulations.
    I have ratified any actions taken by the HRSA Administrator or 
other HRSA officials that involve the exercise of this authority prior 
to the effective date of this delegation.
    This delegation was effective on the date of signature.

    Dated: September 29, 2004.
Tommy G. Thompson,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 04-22453 Filed 10-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-M
#### § 113.305 Preference in admission.

A recipient to which §§ 113.300 through 113.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 113.300 through 113.310.
# NRC_Service_Contract_Inventory_

&"Arial,Bold"&14NRC Service Contract Inventory - FY 2013		

Page &P of &N
EXHIBIT 99.2: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
1350

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended November 30, 2002, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

            (3)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
                  November 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

            (4)   the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-QSB for the quarter ended November 30, 2002 fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of Magna-Lab, Inc.

      January 14, 2003                            /s/ Kenneth C. Riscica
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Name: Kenneth C. Riscica
                                                  Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Keith Lamonte HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-7425.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 2, 2006.

Keith Lamonte Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Keith Lamonte Hill, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
## SIP Rev **ision Ap**  **pendix IV Calculation Spreadsheet for 2013 Modeling of the NJ**  **Existing I/M Program, NJ Proposed I/M Program and**

**USEPA I/M Performance Standard** 

**Au gust, 2009**  **The State of New Jersey**  **Department of Env ironmental Protection** 

**Proposed Rev isions to the Enhanced Inspection and**  **Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jersey** 

**Proposed I/M Program Modeling and Rev ised**  **Performance Standard Modeling**Appendix II

Calculation Spreadsheet for 2013 Modeling of the NJ Existing I/M Program, NJ Proposed I/M Program and USEPA I/M Performance Standard

**Pollutant** VOC 0.349 0.348 0.001 NOx 0.687 0.688 -0.001 CO 10.045 10.025 0.020

**Pollutant** VOC 0.923 0.943 0.595 NOx 2.396 2.416 1.728 CO 21.854 21.874 11.849 **New Jersey** 

**2013 Evaluation Year --- MOBILE6 Results**

**(USEPA LPS Range**  **Limit) - (NJ Proposed Program)**  **USEPA Low**  **Performance Standard (LPS)**  **New Jersey**  **Existing Program**  **New Jersey** 

**Proposed Program** 

**USEPA LPS**  **Range Limit (LPS +0.02)**  **(NJ Existing Program) -**

**(NJ Proposed Program)** 

NJDEP Page 1 9/13/2011
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Drive the Newton B. Drury Scenic Parkway

Redwood National and State Parks
Date: February 19 , 20 1 5 To: Docket , EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 4 - 0738 From: Andrew Bouchard Subject: Meeting Record for February 19, 2015 Meeting Between the U.S. EPA and The Dow Chemical Compan y On February

19, 2015 , representatives of the U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency (EPA) participated in a conference call with The Dow Chemical Company . The purpose of the call was to discuss the initial MPGF AMELnotice and process for submitting comments to the docket . See **Attachment 1** for the names and affiliations o f the meeting participants .**Attachment 1 Participants in**  **February 19, 2015 EPA/** **Dow Meeting**  The Dow Chemical Company Representatives Russell Wozniak Jarod Davis Vance Varner U.S. EPA Representatives Andrew Bouchard Brenda Shine Susan Stahle
§ 4760.1 Compliance with the Private Maintenance and Care Agreement. ( a ) An adopter shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Private Maintenance and Care Agreement and these regulations. The authorized officer may verify compliance by visits to an adopter, physical inspections of the animals, and inspections of the facilities and conditions in which the animals are being maintained. The authorized officer may authorize a cooperative extension agent, local humane official or similarly qualified individual to verify compliance.
( b ) The authorized officer shall verify compliance with the terms of the Private Maintenance and Care Agreement when an adopter has received 25 or more animals or when 25 or more animals are maintained at a single location.
( c ) The authorized officer shall conduct an investigation when a complaint concerning the care, treatment, or use of a wild horse or burro is received by the Bureau of Land Management.
( d ) The authorized officer may require, as a condition for continuation of a Private Maintenance and Care Agreement, that an adopter take specific corrective actions if the authorized officer determines that an animal is not receiving proper care or is being maintained in unsatisfactory conditions. The adopter shall be given reasonable time to complete the required corrective actions.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

Travel Florida Shipwrecks
#### § 123.4 What is a disaster area and why is it important?

Each disaster declaration defines the geographical areas affected by the disaster. Only those victims located in the declared disaster area are eligible to apply for SBA disaster loans. When the President declares a major disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency defines the disaster area. In major disasters, economic injury disaster loans and IDAP loans may be made for victims in contiguous counties or other political subdivisions, provided, however that with respect to major disasters which authorize public assistance only, SBA shall not make economic injury disaster or IDAP loans in counties contiguous to the disaster area. Except for rural disaster declarations (as defined in § 123.3), disaster declarations issued by SBA include contiguous counties for both physical, economic injury and, in some cases IDAP assistance. Rural disaster declarations do not include assistance for contiguous counties. Contiguous counties or other political subdivisions are those land areas which abut the land area of the declared disaster area without geographic separation other than by a minor body of water, not to exceed one mile between the land areas of such counties. When SBA issues an economic injury disaster declaration in response to a determination of an emergency involving Federal primary responsibility by the President, the disaster area shall include each State or subdivision thereof (including counties) included in the President's emergency determination.

[88 FR 24109, Apr. 19, 2023]
Searched for **https://www.csce.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.csce.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Cite as 2013 Ark. 486



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-13-671

ED DESHAWN HARRIS APPELLANT

v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered November 21, 2013 PRO SE MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 60CR-09-1184, HON. CHRISTOPHER CHARLES PIAZZA, JUDGE]
MOTION GRANTED; REMANDED TO SETTLE THE RECORD.

PER CURIAM Appellant Ed Deshawn Harris timely lodged in this court an appeal from an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying his pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion to correct the record. We agree that the record appears to be incorrect, and we remand to the circuit court to settle the record. The record, as appellant notes in his motion, contains the judgment-and-commitment order of Justin Lamar Eason, a codefendant of appellant’s, but does not include appellant’s judgment-and-commitment order. This court may direct that an omission in a record on appeal be corrected by filing a certified, supplemental record. Ark. R. App. P.–Civil 6(e) (2013) (as made applicable to criminal cases by Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(a) (2013)). Accordingly, we remand the case to the circuit court to correct and supplement the record. The circuit court shall transmit to this court within thirty days from the date of this opinionthe corrected-and-supplemented record containing the appropriate judgment-andcommitment order. Motion granted; remanded to settle the record.