alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary Perry, Respondent, v. Hart’s Food Stores, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Motion for reargument denied. Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 940.]
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 210

**Question 210:** 10 CFR 20.1501 (c) requires a dosimetry processor to be NVLAP accredited. DOE also has an accreditation program. Do DOELAP-accredited processors meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501 (c)?

**Answer:** No.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1501)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 24, 2017
p130378.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0378 Focus Ready Draft 4/22/2013 ENGINEER: Jon \ REC PV (kg/yr): 10,200 Import Only

SUBMITTER:

MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: Wear chemcial safety gloves. // Wear full face shield with goggles underneath. // Wear impervious clothing: full rubber suit (rain gear), rubber or plastic boots, slicker suit. Respirator: Wear appropriate respirator when ventilation is inadequate. Health Effects: Inhalation: Hamful if inhaled and may cause delayed lung injury. Can cause severe eye, skin, and respiratory tract burns. Risk of serious damage to lungs. May cause nose, throat, and lung irritation. Inhalation of aerosol may cause irritation to the upper respiratory tract. // Eyes: Corneal edema may give rise to a perception of "blue haze" or "fog" around lights. Exposed individuals may see rings around bright lights (temporary effect). Product vapor can cause glaucopsia (corneal edema) when absorbed into the tissue of the eye from the atmosphere. Causes eye burns. May cause blindness. // Skin: Casues skin burns. // Ingestion: If ingested, severe burns of the mouth and throat, as well as a danger of perforation of the esophagus and the stomach. TLV/PEL: None established.

CRSS (04/15/2013):

Page 1p130378.eng

Consumer Use: No SAT (concerns) (04/16/2013): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info: Ecotox: Analog: . Migration to groundwater: Anion moderate; Cation moderate PBT rating: P2B1T2 Anion: P1B1T2; Cation: P2B1T2 Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 24.00 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: No Pollution Prevention information provided by the submitter. EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0378
Use: Number of Sites/ Location: 1 unknown site(s) Days/yr: 300

Page 2p130378.eng

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Water or Incineration or Landfill High End: 6.2E+0 kg/site-day over 49 days/yr from 1 site or 3.1E+2 kg/yr

Water or Incineration or Landfill Conservative: 3.4E-1 kg/site-day over 300 days/yr from 1 site or 1.0E+2 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL 4.1E+2 kg/yr - all sites

Page 3
Editorial Note on Part 124
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

§ 124.403 How is a business plan updated and modified? ( a ) *Annual review.* Each Participant must annually review its business plan with its assigned Business Opportunity Specialist (BOS), and modify the plan as appropriate. If there are no changes in a Participant's business plan, the Participant need not resubmit its business plan. A Participant must submit a new or modified business plan only if its business plan has changed from the previous year. The Participant must submit a modified plan and updated information to its BOS within thirty (30) days after the close of each program year. It also must submit a capability statement describing its current contract performance capabilities as part of its updated business plan.
( b ) *Contract forecast.* As part of the annual review of its business plan, each Participant must annually forecast in writing its needs for contract awards for the next program year. The forecast must include: ( 1 ) The aggregate dollar value of 8(a) contracts to be sought, broken down by sole source and competitive opportunities where possible;
( 2 ) The aggregate dollar value of non-8(a) contracts to be sought;
( 3 ) The types of contract opportunities to be sought, identified by product or service; and
( 4 ) Such other information as SBA may request to aid in providing effective business development assistance to the Participant.
( c ) *Transition management strategy.* Beginning in the first year of the transitional stage of program participation, each Participant must annually submit a transition management strategy to be incorporated into its business plan. The transition management strategy must describe: ( 1 ) How the Participant intends to meet the applicable non-8(a) business activity target imposed by § 124.509 during the transitional stage of participation; and
( 2 ) The specific steps the Participant intends to take to continue its business growth and promote profitable business operations after the expiration of its program term.
[63 FR 35739, 35772, June 30, 1998, as amended at 76 FR 8259, Feb. 11, 2011; 88 FR 26205, Apr. 27, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 2000 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Income for the three months ended September 30, 2000
(Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,519
<SECURITIES>                                     1,689
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                       336
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,001
<PP&E>                                           5,118
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,213
<SALES>                                          8,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,179
<CGS>                                            5,105
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    340
<INCOME-TAX>                                       180
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       160
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
### Re: Response to EPA Comments On Fault Tree Analysis Outline for HCR-188C Margaret Sheppard to: richard, Riskscicom 04/11/2008 05:36 PM Cc: Cindy Newberg, Dave Godwin, Julius Banks, Karen Thundiyil, Monica Shimamura Follow Up: Normal Priority. Richard and Gary, Thank you for your thoughful response to EPA's comments on the FTA outline. After consideration, we still would like you to examine a scenario for a technician who is not properly trained with HCR-188C or flammable refrigerants. Our EPA enforcement staff have found a number of situations where untrained or uncertified technicians worked on AC or refrigeration systems. Although we wish that such a scenario did not occur in reality, it is still of concern to us. Karen and Monica, please follow up if Dr. Whitmyre or Mr. Maruya need to discuss this further. Thanks. Margaret Sheppard USEPA/Stratospheric Protection Division SNAP Program Tel. 202-343-9163 Fax 202-343-2362 email: sheppard.margaret@epa.gov
Editorial Note on Part 121
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 121.802 What size standards are applicable to reduced patent fees programs? A concern eligible for reduced patent fees is one: ( a ) Whose number of employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and
( b ) Which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under this section.
Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2020 Page 4 of 4
No: I-23-013 November 6, 2023 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Chair and Commissioners to Host

Public Meeting in King of Prussia on Nov. 16

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Christopher T. Hanson and Commissioners 

David A. Wright, Annie Caputo and Bradley R. Crowell will host a public meeting Nov. 16 in the 

agency’s Region I Office in Pennsylvania to hear from NRC staff about regional activities and from 

several external stakeholders on their communications and interactions with the agency. 

The Commission invited representatives of the following agency, organizations and 

companies to share their views and make a presentation: Connecticut’s Department of Energy and 

Environmental Protection; the Indian Point Decommissioning Oversight Board; C-10 Research & 

Education Foundation; Constellation Energy; and Baxter Healthcare Corp. 

A panel of NRC senior managers will brief the Commission on activities such as the 

agency’s ongoing hiring initiatives, training, outreach to external stakeholders, inspection priorities 

and challenges, and support to states in the process of establishing programs to assume regulatory 

authority of nuclear materials used for medical, industrial and academic purposes within their 

borders. 

The meeting is scheduled from 9 a.m. to noon on Nov. 16 at 475 Allendale Road, Suite 102, 

in King of Prussia, in the Market and Broad Conference Room. Members of the public can attend in 

person or watch live via webcast. 

The NRC Region I Office is responsible for conducting inspections at operating and 

decommissioning nuclear power plants in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. It also performs 

inspections to ensure the safe and secure use of certain nuclear materials in states within the Region 

that have not been delegated authority by the NRC to regulate these materials.
Order entered April 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00589-CV

ESTATE OF ALAN MORGAN HUMPHREY, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-13-2943-3

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s April 19, 2016 unopposed motion for extension of time to file 

reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than May 18, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
 Date: May 8, 2009
    BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
WILLIAMS COAL SEAM GAS ROYALTY TRUSTBy:
    /s/ RON E. HOOPERRon E. HooperSenior Vice President and Administrator
Bank of America, N.A.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6004
MAURICE JUGGINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JANET WURIE, Nurse Practitioner; STAN BERRY, Sheriff; HARDY, Nurse; MALIK, Dr.; QUINTANA, Lt., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01126-TSE-TCB) Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 1, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Juggins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Juggins, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). In his informal appellate brief, Juggins failed to address the district court’s basis for dismissing his claims against Janet Wurie, Dr. Malik, and Nurse Hardy. Therefore, Juggins has waived appellate review of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). We have reviewed the record as to Juggins’ claims against the remaining Defendants and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Juggins v. Wurie , No. 1:07-cv-01126- TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2007). We also deny Juggins’ motions for appointment of counsel and dismissal of payments for filing fees. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NRC Safety Culture Definitio

and Characteristics
Draft Definition of Safety Cultur

• That assembly of characteristics, 

attitudes, and behaviors in organizaand individuals which establishes than overriding priority, nuclear safety security issues receive the attention warranted by their significance.
Draft Safety Culture Characteri

• Individuals demonstrate ownership 

personal responsibility for maintainisafety and security in their day-to-dawork activities; 

• Processes for planning and controll

work activities are implemented sucsafety and security are maintained;
Draft Safety Culture Characteri

• A work environment exists in which 

personnel feel free to raise safety asecurity concerns without fear of retaliation; 

• Nuclear safety and security issues a

promptly and thoroughly identified, evaluated, and resolved, commensuwith their significance;
Draft Safety Culture Characteri• Resources are available to ensure 

safety and security are maintained;

• Decision-making processes protect 

and security; 

• Roles and responsibilities for mainta

safety and security are clearly defin

• Opportunities to improve safety and 

security are sought out and impleme
What works so far:

• Draft definition and characteristics d

require a large, stable organization applicable

• May apply across the range of conte

which NRC-regulated activities are performed

• Appropriate for regulatory perspecti

(adequate assurance vs. excellence
What may not work:

• May not be as generally applicable 

hope

• May be incomplete (e.g., do not dire

refer to either leadership or supervis

• May not be sufficiently distinct (i.e., 

they overlapping?)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 0:20-cv-61241-RUIZ

APRIL HICKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

________________________________/

FINAL JUDGMENT

On January 26, 2022, this Court entered its Order Adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions 

of Law after conclusion of the trial on liability in the above-captioned matter [D.E. 96]. The Court 

further held trial on damages on March 21, 2022. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) 

and 58(a), the Court now enters Final Judgment in favor of Defendant on its Counterclaim. It is 

accordingly, 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendant, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and against Plaintiff, APRIL HICKS. 

1. Defendant shall recover from Plaintiff $4,745.13, consisting of the repairs performed on 

the Postal Service truck post-accident. Payment for this sum shall be made to the United 

States Postal Service, as the agency who expended such funds, for which sum let execution 

issue. 

2. Defendant shall further recover its costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 as set forth in its 

Motion to Tax Costs [D.E. 101] in the amount of $5,163.03. Payment for costs shall be 

made to the U.S. Department of Justice, for which sum let execution issue.

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

3. Post-judgment interest on both sums shall accrue at the rate authorized by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961, which for the week ending March 16, 2022, was 0.08 percent. 

DONE AND SIGNED in Miami, Florida on March 25, 2022.

_________________________________

PAUL C. HUCK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to: Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61241-RAR Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7414** 
WILLIAM SMOAK FAIREY, Jr., a/k/a Doak Fairey , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 4:09

- cv - 01610

- RMG )

Submitted : July 28, 2011 Decided : August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William Smoak Fairey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Smoak Fairey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wr ong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fairey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Fairey’s motion to stay state court proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would n ot aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30567

 

ARTHUR WASHINGTON

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STATE OF LOUISIANA, on behalf of Louisiana Department of Health and

Hospitals

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CV-2271)

 

March 13, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:*

Louisiana’s argument that Congress did not abrogate Eleventh

Amendment immunity in enacting Title VII is without merit. See

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1975). The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
### §1148. Authority to postpone certain deadlines by reason of Presidentially declared disaster or terroristic or military actions

In the case of a pension or other employee benefit plan, or any sponsor, administrator, participant, beneficiary, or other person with respect to such plan, affected by a Presidentially declared disaster (as defined in section 1033(h)(3) of title 26) 1 a terroristic or military action (as defined in section 692(c)(2) of such title), or a public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to section 247d of title 42, the Secretary may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, prescribe, by notice or otherwise, a period of up to 1 year which may be disregarded in determining the date by which any action is required or permitted to be completed under this chapter. No plan shall be treated as failing to be operated in accordance with the terms of the plan solely as the result of disregarding any period by reason of the preceding sentence.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §518, as added Pub. L. 107–134, title I, §112(c)(1), Jan. 23, 2002, 115 Stat. 2434; amended Pub. L. 116–136, div. A, title III, §3607, Mar. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 412.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2020—Pub. L. 116–136 substituted "a terroristic or military action (as defined in section 692(c)(2) of such title), or a public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to section 247d of title 42, the Secretary may" for "or a terroristic or military action (as defined in section 692(c)(2) of such title), the Secretary may".

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to disasters and terroristic or military actions occurring on or after Sept. 11, 2001, with respect to any action of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation occurring on or after Jan. 23, 2002, see section 112(f) of Pub. L. 107–134, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment note under section 6081 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
#### James E. Hughes, Respondent, *v.*The Breakwater Company, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment, entered on the 30th day of October, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the 5th day of Hovember, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.

Ingraham, P. J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that the assumption of the debt of the bankrupt company by the defendant was without consideration, and the directors of the defendant had no power to assume such debt.