alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edward J. Skrod, Respondent, v. Frank Martorella et al., Appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

While we are in accord with substantially all the findings of fact embodied in the oral decision of the trial court, we are constrained to disagree with some of the conclusions of law in this case.

In our view of the matter it is unnecessary to decide whether or not the plaintiff became a partner of Martorella by reason of the assignment dated April 12, 1944.

We find that the plaintiff was not a member of the new partnership effective May 1, 1944, and formed by the defendants with the plaintiff’s approval. Thereafter the plaintiff was merely the owner of an interest in Martorella’s right to 55% of the profits from the partnership business. While this interest was originally fixed at 50% of Martorella’s share, it was subsequently modified to 45.45% of his participation in the partnership as of the date of the plaintiff’s return to Government service on or about May 15, 1944. This modification was the mathematical equivalent of 25% of the partnership profits.

We further find that in November or December, 1945, the defendants agreed to dissolution of their partnership effective January 31, 1946. The interest of Martorella was acquired by Wohlers and Brown, who paid for the same in part with partnership funds. They acted with full knowledge of the plaintiff’s rights. Although the plaintiff was not a partner, it is our opinion that a relationship of a fiduciary nature existed between the parties sufficient to warrant a judgment for an accounting by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff. This accounting, however, should be limited to the period expiring January 31, 1946, as well as in the1 other respects provided in the judgment appealed from.

The judgment should be modified accordingly, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur; Van Voorhis, J., concurs on the additional ground that subdivision 2 of section 53 of the Partnership Law authorized an accounting to a person in the plaintiff’s situation upon dissolution of a partnership.

Interlocutory judgment unanimously modified in accordance with opinion and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice.
HomeAbout NRCCareer OpportunitiesWorking at NRCNRC EthicsSummaries of Major Ethics Rules

# Job Seeking

The standards of conduct (5 CFR 2635 subpart F) require employees to disqualify themselves from participating in any particular NRC matter, including rulemaking and other generic matters, that will have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of a person with whom the employee is negotiating or has any arrangement for future employment unless the employee receives a waiver.

Employees are encouraged to keep written records of any disqualifications resulting from employment negotiations. They should also consult with an ethics counselor to understand the restrictions imposed by the ethics laws.
> 
*Example: An employee may not work on a license amendment if the employee has applied for a position with the licensee. If the employee wishes to pursue a job with that licensee, the employee must have the amendment assignment transferred to another employee before soliciting employment with the licensee.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Financial Interests
          - Impartiality
          - Security Ownership Restrictions
          - Gifts
          - Bribery
          - NRC Time and Property
          - NRC Title or Position
          - Nonpublic Information
          - Outside Employment
          - Supplementing Federal Salary
          - Teaching, Speaking, or Writing
          - Fundraising
          - Representations to the Government
          - Job Seeking
          - Post-Employment Restrictions
          - Expert Witness
          - Political Restrictions
          - Procurement Restrictions
          - Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
          - Foreign Governments
          - Financial Disclosure (5 CFR Part 2634)

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 12, 2020
**Wind and Sand Program**

**Upper Elementary School Worksheet (Grades 3-5)**

**Instructions:**Fill out this worksheet while following along with the “Wind and Sand” video.   

1. **What did Wilbur believe? _____________________________________________**

2. **What did Wilbur and Orville’s dad give them? (circle one)**

a. A flying toy        b. Candy canes           c. A soccer ball 

3. **What four things do you need to figure out how to fly?**

a. _____________ 

b. _____________ 

c. _____________ 

d. Thrust 

4. **What three things did Wrights need in a good location?**

a. ___________ 

b. ___________ 

c. Isolation (not as many people) 

5. **What do you notice about the area?**

_______________________________________________ 

6. **How did they find out about the town of Kitty Hawk? (circle one)**

a. Asked their dad     b. Wrote a letter     c. Searched google 

7. **What was the problem with the first glider (1900)? (circle one)**

a. lift    b. control      c. power        d. thrust 

8. **How were Wilbur and Orville feeling after their 1901 trip? (circle one)**

a. Happy    b. Excited    c. Discouraged 

9. **Who encouraged Wilbur and Orville? (circle one)**

a. Sister Katharine    b) Bike Mechanic Charlie Taylor    c) Post Master Tate 

10. **What did Wilbur and Orville do after the conference?**

________________________________ 

11. **What did they add to the 1902 glider?** ________________________ 

12. **How were Wilbur and Orville feeling after 1902 trip? (circle one)**

a. Confused    b. Excited      c. Discouraged 

13. **Who helped with their engine? (circle one)**

a. Sister Katharine    b. Bike Mechanic Charlie Taylor    c. Their Dad Milton 

14. **Where did they assemble the flyer? (circle one)**

a. Dayton     b. on the train    c. Outer Banks (at camp) 

15. **Who won the coin toss and tried to fly on December 14? (circle one)**

a. Orville    b. Wilbur    c. Jonny Moore 

16. **How did they signal to their friends that they needed help with the flyer?**

______________________________________ 

17. **How many flights did they make on December 17, 1903?** _________ 

18. **What job did John Daniels have? (circle one)**

a. photographer   b) mechanic   c) pilot 

19. **What do you think is interesting about the first flight photo?**

_______________________________________________________________________ 

20. **What is one connection you made to the Wright brothers’ story?**

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________ 

# image1.png
(No. 759

Claimant awarded $498.22.)'

#### Peoples Bank & Trust Company of Rockford, Illinois, Executor Estate of Sarah Winn, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 16, 1924.*

Inheritance *tax-*— when *claimant entitled to refund*— Sec. *10.*There being no dispute as to the facts, and no objection by the State, the court will enter an award in favor of claimant.

Early *&*Early, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The Peoples Bank and Trust Company of Rockford, Illinois, a corporation, was duly appointed executor under the last will and testament of Sarah Ann Winn, who died testate in Winnebago county, Illinois, November 28, A. D. 1919. The entry of an order was made in due time and assessing the inheritance tax, which was paid by the executor.

*22Later on, a re-hearing was shown by the records and other evidence that the executor had paid the State an excess on said taxes to the amount of $498.22, and an order made by the court ordering a refund of said sum erroneously paid.

The Attorney General in writing consents to this and a claim of $498.22 is accordingly awarded claimant.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.892 Certifications of no adverse change. Following completion of the Project, the following certifications must be made before the 504 loan closing: ( a ) The interim lender must certify to the CDC that it has no knowledge of any unremedied substantial adverse change in the condition of the small business since the application to the interim lender;
( b ) The Borrower (or Operating Company) must certify to the CDC that there has been no unremedied substantial adverse change in its financial condition or its ability to repay the 504 loan since the date of application, and must furnish interim financial statements, current within 120 days of closing; and
( c ) The CDC must issue an opinion to the best of its knowledge that there has been no unremedied substantial adverse change in the Borrower's (or Operating Company's) ability to repay the 504 loan since its submission of the loan application to SBA.
[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 57987, Oct. 7, 2003]
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Financialreport to the citizens [electronic resource].**** 
SuDoc:T 63.129:
ItemNumber:0928-A-02(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000487161
 - budget96.pdfecon96.pdf
 **
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINACIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF TEHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I,
      Wayne
      Lipschitz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Grill Concepts, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September
      24,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form
      10-Q
      fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of Grill Concepts, Inc.




By:
            /s/ Wayne LipschitzName:
            Wayne
              LipschitzTitle:
            CFO and Principal Financial OfficerNovember
              7, 2006
§ 9212.3 Permits. ( a ) Permits may be issued to enter and use public lands designated in fire prevention orders when the authorized officer determines that the permitted activities will not conflict with the purpose of the order.
( b ) Each permit shall specify: ( 1 ) The public lands, roads, trails or waterways where entry or use is permitted;
( 2 ) The person(s) to whom the permit applies;
( 3 ) Activities that are permitted in the closed area;
( 4 ) Fire prevention requirements with which the permittee shall comply; and
( 5 ) An expiration date.
( c ) An authorized officer may cancel a permit at any time.
----

Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Lorient and Lyon

(2006/C 5/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA1'2. o t~ c.c - 0'\ \- 1\0 Directora te Identifier: --At) 

ff you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. Jf 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection 4.0 ' . ' (j :li ~itt 01_) 9 . '060.0· 

<:; 'I(J', (l.OIJ < 1.1 I{J 

' o.r,: (J,\11) ooo 

u,: II O'i rtn 

( .., (Jlj.l .... . O.Pt 1 p(Jit 

I O.Ot• l.i.CO -,}Iii) 

\ ()I! !' .ou fl Ofi 

) 0.01

' OCil r o' 

"; 0.1){! ' flJIO ' ,, no 

~ I s U.OO 11.00 .. [I OIJ 

~ 0.00 I '· 0.00 i s (!,()(' 

I s 0.00 0 DG of., I " 0 t'l' O.l,l) -;; II' 

' 0 Ot (l.PU I (:'1 

' (j,i;! (1_('0 P .no 

') 0 0{· fl.C lJ ' .If: 

') 0 {'( ll.f'U r .flil 

:--, 0 .(){, ()_()() n 11o 

i ... ) o on i ' 0 {jl) .. 'l {'>.1 

I $ o.no I b 0.00 ) IJ !Hl 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,060 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

Replacement 16.0 S 1.J60.ou $500 'pI Yl1' ' no 

s 0.00 5, ( • on 

s nt:o c, II,OfJ 

s 000 I (11 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): AD 2000-20-12 

stated that the manufacturer would provide the replacement fittings at no cost. As this was 15 

years ago, a fitting cost of $500 is assumed for the analysis. 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? G 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

ls the AD significant? ~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

YES* 0 NOi81 

YES* 0 N0[8J 

WiJI the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YESO N0[8J 

Explanation: This AD only affects 9 US registered gliders. 

Intrastate A viatioo in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific reguirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* 0 N0[8J 

*Explanation:
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Emma B. Johnson, Deceased. Norma D. Owen et al.; Norman W. Roe et al.

Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### § 9264.2 Grazing administration—Alaska; livestock. [Reserved]
# Official Journal C 334A/30 D

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 334A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4830 December 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 334A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4830 December 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 334A/1 | Common catalogue of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 23rd complete edition | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 334A/1

Common catalogue of agricultural plant species — sixth supplement to the 23rd complete edition

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20119]

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

 COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday September 21, 2012.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. In the 
event that the times or dates of these or any future meetings change, 
an announcement of the change, along with the new time and place of the 
meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-20119 Filed 8-13-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# 10 CFR 50.72, Applicability of Notification Requirement to Non-Power Reactors

## HPPOS-174 PDR-9111210265

See the memorandum from R. L. Nimitz to Radiation Support Section dated April 8, 1981.

The requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 do not apply to non-power reactors even though they may be licensed under 10 CFR 50.21.

During an inspection at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Critical Facility, the question arose whether the licensee was required to report occurrences at their facility in accordance with 10 CFR 50.72. The wording of 50.72 indicates that it applies to "... each licensee of a nuclear power reactor licensed under 50.21 or 50.22 ...."

The Critical Facility at RPI is licensed and is about a 1-watt training and research facility. Although the facility is not a nuclear power reactor used for generating electricity, it is a nuclear reactor and the licensee did not wish to be in noncompliance with this requirement for failing to report an occurrence meeting 10 CFR 50.72 requirements.

IE Headquarters was contacted and it was their opinion that the 10 CFR 50.72 requirements did not apply to non-power reactors, but a review is underway to determine if the 10 CFR 50.72 requirements should apply to these non-power reactor facilities. 

Therefore, based on this discussion, the 10 CFR 50.72 requirements do not apply to non-power reactor facilities even though they may be licensed under 10 CFR 50.21.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 50.21, 10 CFR 50.72

**Subject codes:** 2.3, 12.1

**Applicability:** Non-Power Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 16, 2017
PD-1067-15 FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/9/2015 10:26:50 AM 

# «*—*»« no. —^= ABEL ACOSTA CLERK ABELACOSTA, CLERK „ —~Jy 

# INTHE Ch/<Nfr COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS OF TEXAS * ^

EX PARTE JAMES RICHARD "RICK" PERRY, Appellant
On Appeal FromThe 390th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-l-DC-14-100139

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED SUPPLEMENT TO HIS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS: COMES NOW Appellant, James Richard "Rick" Perry (GovernorPerry), and pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 9(i)(4), presents this Motion for Leave to File Oversized Supplement to His Petition for Discretionary Review, and would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following:
I. GovernorPerry filed his petition for discretionaryreview on August 18,2015. As reflectedbythe certificate ofcompliance, that document complied with the word limitations contained in Rule 9.4(i)(2)(D). 

### Because the State Prosecuting Attorney filed her petition for discretionary review on August 28, 2015, Governor Perry needs to present four supplemental but^T

contingent grounds for review, as explained in his Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Petition for Discretionary Review, filed this date. They are reflected in his Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Petition for Discretionary Review. However, whenthe words subjectto Rule 9.4(i)(l) fromthe supplementare included with the words subject to Rule 9.4(i)(l) from the original petition, the total words exceed the 4,500 limitby 883. Accordingly, leave to file an oversized supplementto his petition is respectfully requested.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, GovernorPerryrespectfullyprays that this Court grant leave to file his supplementto petition for discretionary review in its current form, realizing that it exceeds the total word limit by 883 words. Respectfully submitted,

THE BUZBEE LAW FIRM Is/Anthony G. Buzbee Anthony G. Buzbee State Bar No. 24001820 JPMorgan Chase Tower 600 Travis Street, Suite 7300 Houston, Texas 77002 Tbuzbee@txattorneys.com Telephone: 713-223-5393 Facsimile: 713-223-5909 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. /$/ Thomas R. Phillips Thomas R. Phillips State Bar No. 00000102 San Jacinto Center 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1500 Austin, Texas 78701-4078 tom.phillips@bakerbotts.com Telephone: 512-322-2565 Facsimile: 512-322-8363BOTSFORD & ROARK Is/David L. Botsford David L. Botsford State Bar No. 02687950 1307 West Ave. Austin, Texas 78701 dbotsford@aol.com Telephone: 512-479-8030 Facsimile: 512-479-8040
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and complete copy ofthis document has been 

### emailed to Michael McCrum at michael@McCrumlaw.com, to David Gonzalez at david@sg-llp.com and to Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney at lisa.mcminn@spa.texas.govon the samedateit was electronicallyfiled withthe Clerk ofthe Court ofCriminal Appeals. /s/DavidL. Botsford David L. Botsford
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 25, 2014

No. 04-13-00750-CR

Larry CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0307A

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After Megan V. Cook was appointed to represent appellant on appeal, we ordered 

appellant’s brief due March 10, 2014. We subsequently granted an extension of time to file the 

brief until April 10, 2014. Appellant has filed another motion for extension of time, requesting 

until May 10 to file the brief.

We grant the motion in part and order appellant’s attorney to file the brief by May 9, 

2014 (60 days after the originally due date). Counsel is advised that no further extensions of 

time will be granted absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying 

further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and 

(3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the 

requested extended deadline. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 45.73 When will DOI file its modified condition or prescription? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if any license party proposes an alternative to a preliminary condition or prescription under § 45.71, DOI will do the following within 60 days after the deadline for filing comments on FERC's draft NEPA document under 18 CFR 5.25(c): ( 1 ) Analyze under § 45.74 any alternative condition or prescription proposed under § 45.71 or 45.72; and
( 2 ) File with FERC: ( i ) Any condition or prescription that DOI adopts as its modified condition or prescription; and
( ii ) DOI's analysis of the modified condition or prescription and any proposed alternative.
( b ) If DOI needs additional time to complete the steps set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, it will so inform FERC within 60 days after the deadline for filing comments on FERC's draft NEPA document under 18 CFR 5.25(c).