alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 68 FR 51349, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 117.5 Illustrative applications. ( a ) *Discrimination in providing financial assistance.* Development companies and small business investment companies, which apply for or receive any financial assistance may not discriminate on the ground of age in providing financial assistance to small business concerns. Such discrimination prohibited by § 117.4 includes but is not limited to the failure or refusal, because of the age of the applicant, or the age of the applicant's principal owner or operating official to extend a loan or equity financing to any business concern; or, in the case of financing which has actually been extended, the failure or refusal because of the age of the recipient, or the age of recipient's principal owner or operating official to accord the recipient fair treatment and the customary courtesies regarding such matters as default, grace periods and the like.
( b ) *Discrimination in accommodations or services.* Small Business Concerns and others who or which apply for or receive any financial assistance administered by the Small Business Administration, such as but not limited to physicians, dentists, hospitals, schools, libraries, and other individuals or organizations may not discriminate in the treatment, accommodations or services they provide to their patients, students, members, passengers, or members of the public, except when the normal operation or statutory objective of the business or activity of the intended beneficiary is designated in age-related terms, whether or not operated for profit. Action by such business or activity to be excluded from compliance with this regulation must fall within the exceptions enumerated in § 117.4 (d), (e), and (f) of this part.
( c ) The discrimination prohibited by § 117.5(b) includes, but is not limited to the failure or refusal, because of age, to accept a patient, student, member, customer, client, or passenger, except when the imposition of this prohibition would interfere with the normal operation of the business, e.g., pediatricians, nursery schools, geriatric clinics.
No: II-23-026 September 6, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Names New Senior Resident Inspector at Catawba Nuclear Station 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected David Rivard as the 

new senior resident inspector at the Catawba nuclear power plant. The plant, 

operated by Duke Energy, is located in York, South Carolina. 

Rivard joined the agency in 2020 as a project engineer in the Division 

of Reactor Projects in the Region II office in Atlanta, after working for more 

than 30 years in various nuclear engineering and compliance roles in the 

private sector. Most recently, he was the resident inspector at the Catawba 

nuclear plant. He earned a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering from the 

University of Virginia and a master’s degree in business administration from Southern New 

Hampshire University. 

“David Rivard brings over 30 years of expertise and a proven track record of ensuring 

nuclear safety to his new role as the senior resident inspector at Catawba. He is well-positioned to 

uphold the high standards set by the agency for the plant,” said NRC Region II Administrator Laura 

Dudes. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They 

serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conduct regular inspections, monitor plant 

operations and significant work projects, and interact with plant workers and the public.
FAA Home
Regulations & Policies
Advisory Circulars (ACs)

# AC 21-2J - Export Airworthiness Approval Procedures (Cancelled)

- ShareShare
- 

- Facebook					Share on Facebook
- Twitter					Tweet on Twitter

## Document Information

- Number
- 21-2J
- Title
- Export Airworthiness Approval Procedures
- Date cancelled
- 2003-09-30
- Cancelled by
- 21-2K
- Date issued
- 2000-06-27
- Office of Primary Responsibility
- AIR-200, Aircraft Certification Service - Production & Airworthiness Certification Division
- Content
-    -  AC21-2J.pdf  (PDF) 
  -  AC21-2update1.pdf  (PDF) 

## View All

      - Current ACs
      - Cancelled ACs
      - Series 150 ACs
      - Draft Series 150 ACs

## Export All

      - Current ACs  (CSV)
      - Cancelled ACs  (CSV)

## Contact Information

      - Advisory Circulars Administrator
      - Other Points of Contact  (MS Excel)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1015. TIRAM D. LEWIS v. THE STATE.

TiramLewis pled guilty to attempted armed robbery, and the trial court entered

his judgment of conviction on February 13, 2015. Lewis filed a pro se notice of

appeal on November 28, 2017. We lack jurisdiction.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the

order sought to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing

of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. 

See Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872, 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Because Lewis

filed his notice of appeal more than two years after entry of the order he seeks to

appeal, it is untimely. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of

jurisdiction.

We note, however, that Lewis wasrepresented by counsel before the trial court

and may be entitled to pursue an out-of-time appeal. He therefore is informed of the

following in accordance with Rowland, 264 Ga. at 875-876 (2): This appeal has been

dismissed because you failed to file a timely notice of appeal. If you still wish to

appeal, you may petition the trial court for leave to file an out-of-time appeal. If the

trial court grants your request, you will have 30 days from the entry of that order to

file a notice of appeal referencing your conviction. If the trial court denies your

request, you will have 30 days from the entry of that order to file a notice of appeal

referencing the denial of your request for an out-of-time appeal.

February 08, 2018
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Lewis and to

Lewis’s attorney, and the latter also is DIRECTED to send a copy to Lewis.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/08/2018
### §3206. Discharge

A person who pursuant to an execution or order issued under this chapter by a court pays or delivers to the United States, a United States marshal, or a receiver, money or other personal property in which a judgment debtor has or will have an interest, or so pays a debt such person owes the judgment debtor, is discharged from such debt to the judgment debtor to the extent of the payment or delivery.

(Added Pub. L. 101–647, title XXXVI, §3611, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4959.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 180 days after Nov. 29, 1990, and applicable with respect to certain actions for debts owed the United States pending in court on that effective date, see section 3631 of Pub. L. 101–647, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.
(No. 803

Claimant awarded $1,200.00.)

#### Paula Engleman, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 19, 1927.*

Non-liability of *state*— State *not liable for injuries sustained by attendant at football game at State University.*The State is not liable for injuries sustained1 by an attendant at. a football game at its State University, which injury was caused by the collapse of a defectively constructed bleacher.

Equity and good *conscience*— award *may be made.*While there may be no liability against the State, yet compensation may be awarded as a matter of good conscience.

Frank F. Trobaugh, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This claim was filed by Mrs. Paula B. Engleman, for damages sustained by her, through a fall when the. bleacher upon which she was sitting collapsed and' she was thrown to the ground, while she was in attendance at a football game, on November 28, 1923, at the Southern Illinois State Normal University, she having paid admission to the game which was staged at said University athletic grounds.

To the declaration filed by the claimant, the Attorney General has filed a demurrer which is sustained as a matter of law.

There is evidence of negligence in the construction of these bleachers, and that quite a severe injury resulted to the claimant as a result of her fall.

The claimant offered testimony showing expenses necessarily incurred by her as result of said injuries, amounting to approximately $1,200.00.

While there is no legal liability on the part of the State to make any compensation on account of any injuries received, as a matter of good conscience, we award to claimant Paula B. Engleman, the sum of $1,200.00.
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent,

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and

judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th

Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/5/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

IAN BRUCE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS, KANSAS

SUPREME COURT,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-3157

(D.C. No. 94-4149-SAC)

(Dist. Kansas)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Ian Bruce Johnson brought this action against the Kansas

Supreme Court alleging that the court violated the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., when it

denied his application to take the Kansas Bar examination. The

district court granted summary judgment for defendant, holding

that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. 

Johnson v State of Kansas, 888 F. Supp. 1073 (D. Kan. 1995). Mr.

Johnson appeals.
-2-

We have reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the

law. The district court thoroughly discussed the relevant

issues, and we are substantially in accord with its analysis and

its conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over

this case under District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

460 U.S. 462 (1983). We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the

district court.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
-cr-06218-NCR Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/29/2001 P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 10, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 10, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18A1962. JAMES WILLIAM HOOD v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of William G. Pelham, Petitioner, against Lewis J. Valentine, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### Part A—Special National Programs and Activities
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

RIII-99-51 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Jan Strasma, (630) 829-9663 December 21, 1999

E-MAIL: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD “ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION” AT PUBLIC MEETING

ON NEW REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with invited community leaders,

industry representatives and members of public interest groups for a “roundtable” discussion of

the agency’s new reactor oversight process for the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Station during a

public meeting on Wednesday, January 6, in Red Wing, Minnesota.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. in the Mississippi Room of the St. James Hotel, 406 Main

St., Red Wing. The roundtable discussion portion of the meeting will be open to public

observation. Members of the general public will have an opportunity to present their views to

NRC officials afterward.

The Prairie Island plant, operated by Northern States Power Company, is one of nine

nuclear plant sites with 13 reactors that are participating in a pilot program which began June 1

to test and adjust the new oversight process. A public meeting is planned for each plant site.

Following a several month trial to determine if revisions are needed, the process is expected to

be extended next year to all 103 commercial nuclear power reactors.

The NRC is seeking input from the public on its new reactor oversight process, including

the inspection and assessment programs to maintain safety, improve public confidence,

increase efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. The changes

reflect, in part, improvements in nuclear power plant safety performance over the past 20 years.

Plants that perform well will generally have less regulatory oversight than plants that have

problems.

The pilot plant sites are: (1) Salem 1 and 2, near Wilmington, Delaware, operated by

Public Service Electric & Gas; (2) Hope Creek near Wilmington, Delaware, operated by Public

Service Electric & Gas; (3) Fitzpatrick, near Oswego, New York, operated by the Power Authority

of the State of New York; (4) Shearon Harris, near Raleigh, North Carolina, operated by Carolina

Power & Light Co.; (5) Sequoyah 1 and 2, near Chattanooga, Tennessee, operated by the

Tennessee Valley Authority; (6) Prairie Island 1 and 2, near Red Wing, Minnesota, operated by

Northern States Power Co.; (7) Quad Cities 1 and 2, near Cordova, Illinois, operated by

Commonwealth Edison Co.; (8) Ft. Calhoun, near Omaha, Nebraska, operated by the Omaha

Public Power District; and (9) Cooper, near Nebraska City, Nebraska, operated by the Nebraska

Public Power District.

Information on the new oversight program, including a list of questions that will be

discussed at the roundtable meeting, is available on the NRC website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html.

#####
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-38 June 30, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $55,000 FINE AGAINST U. S. ENRICHMENT CORP.

FOR FAILING TO DECLARE "ALERT" DURING PORTSMOUTH PLANT FIRE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000 fine against the

United States Enrichment Corporation for failing to declare an "alert" under its emergency plan

during a fire December 9 of last year at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant at Piketon,

Ohio.

The fire damaged equipment in the portion of the plant used to remove waste gases

from the processing system. The plant processes uranium for use in fuel for commercial

nuclear power plants.

In notifying the company of the proposed fine, NRC Regional Administrator James E.

Dyer stated: "The failure to declare an alert during this event resulted in not activating the

onsite emergency operations facility which would have provided technical and management

support to the onsite response efforts." As a result, plant personnel took longer to fight the fire

and did not take prompt action to control any uranium still in the system after the fire was

extinguished.

Mr. Dyer added, "Failure to declare an alert also resulting in not notifying local, state and

Federal agencies of the event or its significance, so that they could fulfill their emergency

response functions."

The fire lasted for about two hours with thick smoke, 20-foot flames, and large quantities

of oil spilled onto the floor of the building. Four individuals received minor injuries. The fire was

contained in one portion of the large processing building. Environmental monitoring by the

company showed no evidence of the release of uranium outside the building.

The company took prompt and comprehensive corrective actions following the fire,

including revision of emergency procedures and additional training for the plant staff.

The company has until July 29 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and

subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing.

#####
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5385-5386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
State of California)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, March 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Peterson O'Brien at 1-888-912-
1227, or 206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)

[[Page 5386]]

that an open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 from 9 a.m. Pacific Time to 10 a.m. Pacific Time 
via a telephone conference call. The public is invited to make oral 
comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you 
would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-
888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to Mary Peterson O'Brien, TAP 
Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the 
telephone conference call meeting must be made with Mary Peterson 
O'Brien. Ms. O'Brien can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: January 30, 2004.
Bernard Coston,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 04-2301 Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No: 23-005 January 27, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Makes Monticello Subsequent License Renewal Application

Available for Public Inspection

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received a subsequent license renewal 

application from Northern States Power Company, which requests an additional 20 years for the 

already-renewed operating license of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The application is 

now available for public inspection on the NRC website. 

Northern States filed the application on Jan. 9, seeking to renew the license for a second 

time. Monticello is a boiling-water reactor in Monticello, Minnesota, located approximately 

35 miles northwest of Minneapolis. The NRC approved the initial license renewal in 

November 2006, with the reactor currently licensed to operate through Sept. 8, 2030. 

The NRC staff is reviewing the application to determine if it has sufficient information to 

complete the agency’s extensive safety and environmental reviews. If the application is 

determined to be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request 

an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. 

Information about the license renewal process is available on the NRC website. A copy 

of the Monticello subsequent license renewal application will be available at the Monticello 

Great River Regional Library, 200 W 6th St. in Monticello.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsConcurrent Image Processing Executive (CIPE). Volume 2: Programmer's guideThis manual is intended as a guide for application programmers using the Concurrent Image Processing Executive (CIPE). CIPE is intended to become the support system software for a prototype high performance science analysis workstation. In its current configuration CIPE utilizes a JPL/Caltech Mark 3fp Hypercube with a Sun-4 host. CIPE's design is capable of incorporating other concurrent architectures as well. CIPE provides a programming environment to applications' programmers to shield them from various user interfaces, file transactions, and architectural complexities. A programmer may choose to write applications to use only the Sun-4 or to use the Sun-4 with the hypercube. A hypercube program will use the hypercube's data processors and optionally the Weitek floating point accelerators. The CIPE programming environment provides a simple set of subroutines to activate user interface functions, specify data distributions, activate hypercube resident applications, and to communicate parameters to and from the hypercube.Document ID19900019033Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWilliams, Winifred I.*(Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. Pasadena, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 15, 1990Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186854NASA-CR-186854JPL-PUBL-88-32-REV-1-VOL-2Accession Number90N28349Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900019033.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Argosy Gaming Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Glasier, President and ChiefExecutive 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 Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Richard J. Glasier          |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                                  |
| Richard J. Glasier                    |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| August 5, 2004                        |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HASBEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHEDTO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 126

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 126.614 [Reserved]