alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Thomas R. Butkus, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Lyn G.
Rupich, President and Pamela N. Favero, Chief Financial Officer of AJS Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Company") each certify in their capacity as officers of the Company
that they have reviewed the annual report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal ended December 31, 2002 and that to the best of their knowledge:

1.    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


March 24, 2003                 /s/ Thomas R. Butkus
-------------------           -------------------------------------------------
Date                          Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer


March 24, 2003                /s/ Lyn G. Rupich
-------------------           -------------------------------------------------
Date                          President


March 24, 2003                /s/ Pamela N. Favero
-------------------           -------------------------------------------------
Date                          Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Argosy Gaming Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Glasier, Presidentand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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 |
| October 29, 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.

 

----
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 Commerce

###### National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

# AGENCY:

National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

5 CFR 430.310 requires agencies to publish notice of Performance Review Board appointees in the                         **Federal Register**                         before their service begins. This notice announces the names of new and existing members of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Performance Review Board.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Darlene Haywood, International Trade Administration, Office of Human Resources Management, at (202) 482-2850, Room 7060, Washington, DC 20230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The purpose of the Performance Review Board is to review and make recommendations to the appointing authority on performance management issues such as appraisals, bonuses, pay level increases, and Presidential Rank Awards for members of the Senior Executive Service. 

The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, Michael D. Gallagher, has named the following members of the National Telecommunications and Information Performance Review Board: 

1. Frederick R. Wentland, Associate Administrator for Spectrum Management (Chairperson). 

2. Bernadette McGuirre-Rivera, Associate Administrator for Telecommunications and Information Applications. 

3. Alan W. Vincent, Associate Administrator for Telecommunication Sciences and Director, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences. 

4. Robin R. Layton, Associate Administrator for International Affairs. 

5. Michael J. Crison, Director, Requirements, Planning and Systems Integration Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (outside reviewer). 

6. Darlene F. Haywood, Executive Secretary, ITA Office of Human Resources Management at (202) 482-2850. 

Dated: October 7, 2004. 

Doris W. Brown, 

Human Resources Officer. 

[FR Doc. 04-23061 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-25-P
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Policy and Guidance Directive FC 84-18, "Transportation of Irradiator Units Not Meeting Current Requirements of 10 CFR Part 71"

## HPPOS-263 PDR-9306070226

See the memorandum from R. E. Cunningham to Regional Administrators (and Branch Chiefs of the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety) dated November 6, 1984.

Prior to the adoption of the requirements of 10 CFR 71 in 1966, irradiators could be transported without being evaluated under the accident damage test requirements that are now incorporated in 10 CFR 71. Many of these irradiators are in use and from time to time need to be transported to a new location.

In those cases where the irradiator cannot be practically transported in packaging which meet requirements of 10 CFR 71, the licensee may request a one-time shipment in accordance with 10 CFR 71.7 and 71.41 (c). The shipment can only be authorized by Headquarters. In applying for a one-time shipment, the licensee must provide adequate controls such that the shipment will not endanger life or property.

Information that is typical of what the licensee has been requested to submit to Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS, to support one-time shipments includes:
        - The circumstances as to why an existing package cannot be used,
        -  Engineering drawings of the irradiator, and
        -  Information to confirm:            - Transport during time of low road usage,
          - The use of good roads which avoid residential areas to the maximum extent possible,
          - Accompaniment of the shipment by escort knowledgeable in the use of radiation survey instrument,
          - Provision an escort with appropriate survey instrument and supplies to permit the establishment of a radiation exclusion area,
          - Written procedures to be followed by the escort in an emergency situation,
          - Use of exclusive use vehicle and shoring to limit movement of package during transport, and
          - Notification of state health officials and local fire department of time and route of shipment.

Prior to applying to the NRC for its approval, the licensee should contact the State Health Officer of each state through which the shipment will be made to confirm points of contact and to discuss the proposed controls for the shipment. In several recent cases, short distance shipment of irradiators have been successfully made with the cooperation of state officials.

All requests for shipments of irradiators containing the information should be referred to the Material Licensing Branch who will coordinate the approval authorizing the shipment with the Transportation Certification Branch. All new Irradiators are expected to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 71.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 71.7, 10 CFR 71.45

**Subject codes:** 12.17

**Applicability:** Byproduct Material

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2017
#### Edward M. Murtfeldt, Respondent, v. Leander H. Thorn, Appellant.

Motion for stay pending appeal granted upon condition that appellant perfect his appeal, place the case on the calendar of the first motion day of the May term and be ready for argument when reached. The court thinks that the issue should be tried at the Trial Term appointed for Orange county in May, 1915; that stipulation to that effect be made between the parties, and that the order should so provide. Present — *931Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ. Order to be settled before Mr. Justice Stapleton.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AB B Y JO OVITSKY, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA DEPAR TM ENT OF FAIR EM PLOYM ENT AND HOUSING, De fe nda

nt, a nd K12.C OM , DB A C a lifornia Virtua l Ac a de m y , DB A C ava , DB ADe la ware K12, Inc ., DB A K12, Inc . , DB A W a shington Virtua

l Ac a de m y , in W a shington Sta

te , DB A WAVA; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55221 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-10142-DM GJC G M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M . Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d Fe brua ry 17, 2015 * * B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Abby Jo Ovitsky

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism issing he r a c t ion a lle g ing viola t ion of theAm e ric ans with Disa bilitie s Ac t (“ ADA” ) and va

rious sta te la w c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l for la c k of sta

nding, C anate lla v . C alifornia , 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th C ir. 2002), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ovitsky ’ s c la im for injunc tive re lie f unde r the ADA be c a

use Ovitsky

fa ile d to a lle ge a

“ re a l a n d im m e diate thre at of re pe ate d injury

in the future .” C

hapman v . Pie r 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc . , 631 F.3d 939, 946, 949 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D .

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , the re que sts for ora l argum e nt a

re de nie d. 1 3 - 5 5 2 2 1 2
### §756. Power to appoint

Whenever a majority of the district judges of any district court cannot agree upon the appointment of any officer of such court, the chief judge shall make such appointment.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 923.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §375 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §260, 36 Stat. 1161; Feb. 25, 1919, ch.29, §6, 40 Stat. 1157; Mar. 1, 1929, ch. 419, 45 Stat. 1422; May 11, 1944, ch. 192, §§1, 3, 58 Stat. 218, 219).

Only part of section 375 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., appears in this section. The remainder is incorporated in sections 136, 294 and 371 of this title.

The term "chief judge" was substituted for "senior district judge". (See reviser's note under section 136 of this title.)

Minor changes in phraseology were made.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# New Training Rule for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel

## HPPOS-325 PDR-9308260260

See the memorandum from L. J. Cunningham to J. Joyner (and others) dated August 9, 1993. 

The NRC has published a final rule, "Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," on April 26, 1993 (58 FR 21904) and also published a correction of a date on July 21, 1993 (58 FR 39092). A review of the final rule and supporting supplementary information by NRR's Radiological Protection Branch (PRPB) and earlier Regional feed back on the new rule has resulted in several questions. After discussions with NRR's Human Factors Assessment Branch, PRPB developed the following health physics position that summarizes the questions and answers. HPPOS-247 contains a related topic.

**Question:** Regarding the "Engineering Support Personnel" category listed as requiring training and qualification under the rule, are health physics (radiation protection) professionals such as radiation protection managers, ALARA engineers, and professional support technical staff (including foremen) included in this category?

**Answer:** No. The only radiation protection job category covered under 10 CFR 50.120 is the "Radiation Protection Technician" (or HP technician). The training and retraining requirements for the HP professionals are contained in the plant technical specifications - administrative controls section.

**Question:** Does the training rule cover contract HP or chemistry technicians?

**Answer:** Contract Health Physics / Chemistry technicians providing short-term support (e.g., outage work) and not filling a regular position in the permanent plant staff are not required to take part in the training program required by the rule [systems approach to training (SAT)]. However, all contractors assigned to work independently must be qualified to do the assigned tasks. As an example, the ongoing training and qualification programs, which are not part of the facility SAT program, are focused to task-qualify incoming outage workers.

On the other hand, contractors filling permanent plant staff positions that require them to work independently are covered by the rule. They should be included in the next scheduled session of the staff SAT training for that position.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 50.120, Technical Specifications

**Subject codes:** 1.2

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
#### John Buckley, Respondent, v. The New York Homeopathic Medical College and Flower Hospital, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §1221. Establishment

The staffs of the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Senate shall carry out the duties assigned under this subchapter to the Joint Pension, Profit-Sharing, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan Task Force. By agreement among the chairmen of such Committees, the Joint Pension, Profit-Sharing, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan Task Force shall be furnished with office space, clerical personnel, and such supplies and equipment as may be necessary for the Joint Pension, Profit-Sharing, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan Task Force to carry out its duties under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title III, §3021, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 999; Pub. L. 94–455, title VIII, §803(i) (2)(A)(iii), title XIX, §1907(a)(5), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1591, 1836.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455, §803(i)(2)(A)(iii), substituted "Joint Pension, Profit-Sharing, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan Task Force" for "Joint Pension Task Force" wherever appearing.

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Education and Labor of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Education and the Workforce of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, Jan. 9, 2023.

"Joint Committee on Taxation" substituted for "Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation" on authority of section 1907(a)(5) of Pub. L. 94–455.

Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of Senate abolished and replaced by Committee on Human Resources of Senate, effective Feb. 11, 1977. See Rule XXV of Standing Rules of Senate, as amended by Senate Resolution No. 4 (popularly cited as the "Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977"), approved Feb. 4, 1977. Committee on Human Resources of Senate changed to Committee on Labor and Human Resources of Senate, effective Mar. 7, 1979, by Senate Resolution No. 30, 96th Congress. See, also, Rule XXV of Standing Rules of Senate adopted Nov. 14, 1979. Committee on Labor and Human Resources of Senate changed to Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of Senate by Senate Resolution No. 20, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 19, 1999.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE GUADALUPE MORENO

RAMIREZ, AKA Jorge Guadalupe

Moreno, AKA Beto Moreno, AKA Jorge

Moreno, AKA Jorge Moreno Ramirez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72764

Agency No. A035-834-241

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Guadalupe Moreno Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for

FILED

NOV 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d

1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for

review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because

Moreno Ramirez failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See

Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

In denying Moreno Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims,

the agency found he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. The BIA did not consider the

impact, if any, of this court’s recent decision in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707

F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Further, when the IJ and BIA issued its

decisions, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we

remand Moreno Ramirez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine

2 13-72764
the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18

(2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 13-72764
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-23/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/34/EC - Working conditions - Organisation of working time - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 330/12)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-23/05: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 25 January 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.

----
#### § 114.108 What if my claim is approved?

SBA will notify you in writing if it approves your claim. The District Counsel or Disaster Area Counsel investigating your claim will forward to you, your agent or legal representative the forms necessary to indicate satisfaction of your claim and your acceptance of the payment. Acceptance by you, your agent or your legal representative of any award, compromise or settlement releases all your claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This means that it binds you, your agent or your legal representative, and any other person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the claim was presented. It also constitutes a complete release of your claim against the United States and its employees. If you are represented by counsel, SBA will designate you and your counsel as joint payees and will deliver the check to counsel. Payment is contingent upon the waiver of your claim and is subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

[64 FR 40283, July 26, 1999]
(No. 37127.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*John Peterson *et al.,*Plaintiffs in Error.

*Opinion filed February 1, 1963.*

Richard H. Devine, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.

William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and M. Robert Ostrow, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,), for the People.

Mr. Justice Schaefer

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendants were convicted in the criminal court of *609Cook County of conspiring to obstruct the administration of public justice. Their conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Court for the First District. (34 Ill. App. 2d 352.) On this writ of error they complain that they were not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the chief prosecution witness, an accomplice, should have been stricken because cross-examination was hindered by his claim of the privilege against self-incrimination.

The facts are fully set out in the opinion of the Appellate Court. We have reviewed the evidence and agree that the verdict is adequately supported. The witness’s claim of the privilege against self-incrimination was properly sustained as to the 43 questions on cross-examination concerning other criminal activity, not touched upon in the direct examination and relevant only for impeachment. *(People*v. *Nachowicz,*340 Ill. 480.) Assuming, *arguendo,*that the claim of privilege was improperly sustained as to the three questions seeking the identity of other policemen who spoke with the witness about substituting the camera, it does not appear that the defendants were prejudiced in view of the wide latitude afforded them in impeaching the witness.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*