alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------


     We  consent  to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form  S-8 (SEC File No. 333-103791), filed on March 13, 2003, of our independent
auditor's report dated April 10, 2003 with respect to the balance sheets of Star
E  Media Corporation as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related statements
of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the period from March 8,
2000  (inception) to December 31, 2000 and the years ended December 31, 2002 and
2002  of  Star  E Media Corp., which report appears in the 2002 Annual Report on
Form  10-KSB  of  Star  E  Media  Corp.



/s/ Mark Shelley
-------------------------------
Mark  Shelley
Shelley  Intl.,  CPA
Mesa,  Arizona

April  17,  2003
### §1163. Qualifying event

For purposes of this part, the term "qualifying event" means, with respect to any covered employee, any of the following events which, but for the continuation coverage required under this part, would result in the loss of coverage of a qualified beneficiary:

(1) The death of the covered employee.

(2) The termination (other than by reason of such employee's gross misconduct), or reduction of hours, of the covered employee's employment.

(3) The divorce or legal separation of the covered employee from the employee's spouse.

(4) The covered employee becoming entitled to benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.].

(5) A dependent child ceasing to be a dependent child under the generally applicable requirements of the plan.

(6) A proceeding in a case under title 11, commencing on or after July 1, 1986, with respect to the employer from whose employment the covered employee retired at any time.

In the case of an event described in paragraph (6), a loss of coverage includes a substantial elimination of coverage with respect to a qualified beneficiary described in section 1167(3)(C) of this title within one year before or after the date of commencement of the proceeding.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §603, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title X, §10002(a), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 229; amended Pub. L. 99–509, title IX, §9501(a)(2), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 2076.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in par. (4), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620. Title XVIII of the Social Security Act is classified generally to subchapter XVIII (§1395 et seq.) of chapter 7 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–509 added par. (6) and last sentence.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–509 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in title X of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub. L. 99–272, see section 9501(e) of Pub. L. 99–509, set out as a note under section 162 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 June 30, 2004 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: August 9, 2004                            /s/  Michael F. Curran
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Michael F. Curran
                                                Chief Executive Officer
### §2511. Accounts of officers, agents or contractors

Notice of suit under section 1494 of this title shall be given to the Attorney General, to the Comptroller General, and to the head of the department requested to settle the account in question.

The judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims in such suit shall be conclusive upon the parties, and payment of the amount found due shall discharge the obligation.

The transcript of such judgment, filed in the clerk's office of any district court, shall be entered upon the records, and shall be enforceable as other judgments.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 977; July 28, 1953, ch. 253, §12, 67 Stat. 227; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §139(j), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §287 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §180, 36 Stat. 1141; Feb. 13, 1925, ch. 229, §3, 43 Stat. 939).

Words "The Attorney General shall represent the United States at the hearing of said cause" were omitted as covered by sections 309 and 310 of title 5, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees.

Jurisdiction provisions of section 287 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., appear in section 1494 of this title.

A provision for continuances was omitted as unnecessary, in view of the inherent power of the court to grant continuances in any suit.

A provision in section 287 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that section 274 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., should apply to cases under such section 287 was omitted as covered by section 2504 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "The judgment of the United States Claims Court in such suit shall be conclusive" for "The judgment of the Court of Claims in such suit, or of the Supreme Court upon review, shall be conclusive".

1953—Act July 28, 1953, inserted "to the Comptroller General," in first par., struck out third par. which provided for accrual to the United States of a right of action upon the judgment, with a limitation period extending to three years after judgment, and inserted provisions for filing and recording the transcript of such judgment in the clerk's office of any district court and for enforcement thereof.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 FORM 10-Q OF ARGOSY GAMING COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          87,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,304
<INVENTORY>                                      1,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,396
<PP&E>                                         495,169
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 578,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,292
<BONDS>                                        350,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,710
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           245
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   578,602
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               373,690
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  312,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,061
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,199
<INCOME-TAX>                                       445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,833
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,833
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
P c

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** Altar c. AmlOlb,

**P&p** 2 but~tlM“tMemmtbytbALtt~Oamal Bb th8 Stat8

at -8, to th8 &hot Qmt Artlel8l466%8‘ulYloluctlegaaruthel~,Ylllkmo08ptabl8

80 to tbr ruffi8lmly.
APUO:. u66, VoPnu'8APnoa8t8d -8 oivu st8tuaw 808d8

**a8** iO&laPr; QlaLale1466. hsthwltytobulld.-Any
oftlmultlIatu,~ys,**vhol4lflthlauu** 1Mtad thlost8t8,

to povld8 8 o‘melmy,Po8d78y OP hlgb 78y tw v8hlalu,-88 pd88tPlan8, nllro8d8 ord fw ev8a-y

ahmutw of inlbpla tx’ ma8ptta’Wtlon. ~Aati.8 **1913,** P* 331.1" Tim l x p P u 8 1 o a

g u a r 7 8t w8= lll m t I w **7Gm** *808* ,lnl8t8erd w tin ?OlSdPlno *a ow7twd Fmokll?g

co., 175 3. Y* (24) 410 **Youdondrtito** iafotrrlotWYrbWu~tb~ §tm &raasnSUvw,at th8plaoudm8tbebH4m8amgwovad to b8 oon8tPwt8d, 1 ‘ ‘ ubjut to tb ebb 8nu r1w d wn fld8.Jim. Alton 0. APnold,PlBg. 3 **m8 puatlw**  **8 ‘**  **to 7lw?a8P**  **tb pwtfam**  **arc th8**  **Sal** &milbRl~,vlwrrthe~‘P* **to** k oomtPuot8d, rm 8Ub&Ot to t & l **bb 8rd**  **f1GI d**  **,f**qu88tlonor** 

### iat, vhloh

**vlll Qt.-**  **tW ~l&WU.llty**  **w** m~foebflfty **o? Artfo&**  **I&%, V.**  A. **C. 3.**
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 374

**Question 374:** In general, do established respirator effectiveness programs at nuclear power plants meet the intent of the regulation in providing assurances of the effectiveness of chosen respiratory protection?

**Answer:** Yes. There is no explicit requirement in 10 CFR Part 20 for a "respirator effectiveness program" other than the requirement of 10 CFR 20.1703 (a) (3) (ii) for "surveys and bioassays, as appropriate, to evaluate actual intakes." 10 CFR 20.1704 specifies that the Commission may impose additional restrictions to ensure that the respiratory protection program is adequate and to limit the extent to which a licensee may use respiratory protection equipment instead of process or other engineering controls. The NRC staff does not anticipate a need to impose further restrictions on the use of respiratory protection equipment at nuclear power plants pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1704. Also as indicated in the (revised) answer to Question 54, information from a "respirator effectiveness program" can be used to justify the assumption that the concentrations of radionuclides in air to be used for determining whether or not monitoring is required [pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1502 (b)] are the concentrations that include credit for the assigned protection factors when respirators are to be used, rather than the concentrations without that credit. See the answer to the related Question 376.

(References: 10 CFR 20. 1703, 10 CFR 20.1704, 10 CFR 20.1502)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
No: I-23-015 Nov. 9, 2023 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Proposes $43,750 Civil Penalty for Shipment of Equipment from 

Oyster Creek that Exceeded Radiation Limits

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $43,750 fine for Holtec 

Decommissioning International for shipping radioactive materials in a package exceeding 

regulatory transportation limits. 

The package, which contained decommissioning equipment, was shipped in an open 

transport vehicle from the Oyster Creek site in Lacey Township, New Jersey, to the Indian Point 

site in Buchanan, New York, where the radiation levels were detected on the outside surface. Holtec 

owns and is decommissioning both nuclear power plants. 

There was no impact to the public as a consequence of this incident. The elevated 

radioactivity levels were confined to the top of the package and were not accessible to the public 

while in transit. 

“This enforcement action reinforces that the NRC will hold licensees accountable if they 

don’t meet the requirements,” said NRC Region I Administrator Raymond Lorson. “We expect 

nuclear plant personnel to be diligent and ensure that no shipments are leaving their facilities that 

could in any way adversely affect the public.”

The NRC documented the Oyster Creek proposed violation in an August inspection report. 

In a separate finding, the NRC identified a “Severity Level IV” violation at Indian Point for 

Holtec’s failure to make a timely report to the NRC when the shipping package radiation level was 

found to exceed the regulatory limits. Holtec personnel at Indian Point should have reported it 

immediately but did not notify the NRC until the following day. This violation is lowest of four 

levels because there were no or relatively inappreciable safety consquences.

Holtec acknowledged the violation in a written response and provided corrective actions it 

has taken or will put in place to prevent a recurrence.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUI T

________________________ No. 18

- 11991 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:04

- cr - 00143

- ODE

- AJB

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus EDNECDIA (TINA ) JOHNSON, a.k.a. Tina Smith, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (February 7, 2019)
B efore WILLIAM PRYOR , GRANT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : The government has filed a motion to dismiss Johnson’s appeal, arguing that

we lack jurisdiction to consider it because (1) her time to appeal the restitution amount has long since passed and (2) her appeal is precluded by the limited appeal

Case: 18-11991 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 1 of 32 waiver in her plea agreement. However , the failure to file a timely notice of appeal does not deprive us of jurisdiction

. United States v. Lopez , 562 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009)

. In any event, Johnson timely appealed from the district court’s
2018 order denying her pro se motion to adjust her restitution. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i). Nevertheless , in her brief on appeal, Johnson largely raises issues challenging the district court’s initial award of restitution in 2004, not the district court’s order denyin g her pro se motion in 2018, and so her arguments challenging the 2018 order have been abandoned. United States v. Jernigan , 341 F.3d 1273,
1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). As for the arguments that she does raise on appeal, which focus on the district court’s 2004 award of restitution, we are required to dismiss them as untimely pursuant to the government’s request. Lopez , 562 F.3d at
1312

- 14. To the extent that Johnson’s arguments on appeal can be construed to challenge the district court’s denial of her pro se motion, we dismiss Johnson’s appeal pursuant to her valid appeal waiver. 1 We have held that a valid appeal waiver may bar a challenge to restitution , United States v. Johnson , 541 F.3d

1 Contrary to the government’s assertions, a valid appeal waiver does not deprive us of jurisdiction but does require that we dismiss an appeal prior to reaching its merits

. See, e.g. , United States v. Howles , 166 F.3d 1166, 1169 (11th Cir. 1999) (declining to reach the merits of an appeal due to a valid appeal waiver)

.

Case: 18-11991 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 2 of 33 1064, 1068 (11th Cir. 2008) , and we have also previously determined that Johnson’s appeal waiver i s valid and enforceable , making it the law of the case, In re Lambrix , 776 F.3d 789, 793 (11th Cir. 2015) ( per curiam )

. Johnson’s limited appeal waiver does not contain an exception relevant to her appeal. We therefore enforce Johnson’s limited appeal waiver with regard to any timely issues raised by Johnson. Accordingly, t he Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal in part as untimely and in part pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is
GRANTED. Case: 18-11991 Date Filed: 02/07/2019 Page: 3 of 3
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH 

NO. 2-09-357-CV

ROGER K. PARSONS, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS THE INDEPENDENT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE

OF ESTHER ANN KARTSOTIS PARSONS

APPELLANT

V.

ROBERT M. GREENBERG; LEGAL

SERVICES P.C., ROBERT M.

GREENBERG, ATTORNEY; ROBERT E.

MOTSENBOCKER; SHAFER, DAVIS,

O'LEARY & STOKER, INC. F/K/A

SHAFER, DAVIS, MCCOLLUM, ASHLEY,

O'LEARY & STOKER, INC.; LISA A.

BLUE BARON, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE

ESTATE OF FREDERICK M. BARON;

BARON & BUDD, P.C.; E.I. DU PONT DE

NEMOURS AND COMPANY;

CONOCOPHILLIPS F/K/A CONOCO,

INC.; RONALD WINDLE TURLEY; AND

LAW OFFICES OF WINDLE TURLEY,

P.C., A/K/A TURLEY LAW FIRM, P.C.

APPELLEES

----------

FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1 AND JUDGMENT

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss The Appeal For Want

Of Jurisdiction.”

We received appellant’s pro se notice of appeal on October 12, 2009.

On October 21, 2009, we sent a letter to appellant stating that the court may

not have jurisdiction over appellant’s appeal from the trial court’s “Order

Denying Motion To Disqualify” because the order did not appear to be an

appealable interlocutory order. On November 23, 2009, we received

appellant’s motion to retain the appeal on the docket, granted the motion, and

gave the parties until January 5, 2010, to furnish this court with a signed copy

of the final order that appellant seeks to appeal. On February 2, 2010, we

received a copy of the trial court’s January 25, 2010 final judgment, and we

sent a letter to all parties stating that the court has jurisdiction over appellant’s

appeal.

Appellant has now filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the case should

be dismissed because no final, appealable order was furnished to this court by

the January 5, 2010 deadline. Because appellant is requesting that we dismiss

his appeal, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal without prejudice. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

2
Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: April 1, 2010

3
Presidential Documents

60793

Federal Register 

Vol. 69, No. 196

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 7828 of October 7, 2004

Leif Erikson Day, 2004

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation

More than 1,000 years ago, Leif Erikson led his crew on a journey across 

the Atlantic, becoming the first European known to have set foot on North 

American soil. Every October, we honor this courageous Viking explorer, 

his historic voyage, and the rich heritage of Nordic Americans. 

Immigrants from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden and their 

descendants have made great contributions to our Nation in the fields of 

business, politics, the arts, education, agriculture, and other areas. Nordic 

Americans have also made a significant mark on our country’s society and 

culture, and have helped to establish and define America’s most cherished 

principles. Their energy and spirit have inspired others, and their courage, 

skill, and determination have played an important role in the development 

of our country. Today, millions of people in the United States trace their 

origins to these Nordic countries, and their contributions to America make 

our country stronger and better. 

On this day, we also recognize our longstanding ties to these nations that 

were home to the ancestors of many Americans. Together, we continue 

to work to advance prosperity, expand freedom, and increase stability and 

security in Europe and elsewhere in the world. 

To honor Leif Erikson, the courageous son of Iceland and grandson of 

Norway, and to celebrate our citizens of Nordic-American heritage, the Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88–566) approved on September 2, 

1964, has authorized and requested the President to proclaim October 9 

of each year as ‘‘Leif Erikson Day.’’

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, do hereby proclaim October 9, 2004, as Leif Erikson Day. I 

call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, 

activities, and programs to honor our rich Nordic-American heritage. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day 

of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the IndependVerDate jul<14>2003 18:07 Oct 08, 2004 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4705 Sfmt 4790 E:\FR\FM\12OCD1.SGM 12OCD1

[FR Doc. 04–23012

Filed 10–8–04; 10:40 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 

ence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

W
#### Henry Samuels, Respondent, v. Southern Pacific Company, Appellant.

Order reversed on argument, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.'
#### § 107.650 Requirement to report portfolio valuations to SBA.

You must determine the value of your Loans and Investments in accordance with § 107.503. You must report such valuations to SBA within 90 calendar days of the end of the fiscal year in the case of annual valuations, and if you are a Leveraged Licensee within 45 calendar days following the close of other reporting periods. Reinvestor SBICs must report valuations to SBA within 120 calendar days of the end of the fiscal year in the case of annual valuations, and within 120 calendar days following the close of other reporting periods. You must report material adverse changes in valuations at least quarterly, within 30 days following the close of the quarter.

[89 FR 3548, Jan. 19, 2024]