alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 23-028 April 11, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Oral Argument 

on Comanche Peak License Renewal

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will conduct an 

oral argument via WebEx on April 19. The session concerns a petition to hold an adjudicatory 

hearing on Vistra Operations Company’s application to renew the operating licenses of 

Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, near Glen Rose, Texas, for an additional 20 

years.

The oral argument will begin at 2:00 p.m. Eastern time. The oral argument will concern 

three questions posed by the Board regarding the admissibility of the four proposed contentions 

from petitioner Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation that challenge safety and environmental 

aspects of the application. The three administrative judges on the Board will hear argument from 

representatives for the petitioner, Vistra, and the NRC staff.

The public will have listen-only access to the oral argument by dialing 301-576-2978 and 

entering the passcode 371 346 201, followed by the “#” sign. The Board is composed of three 

administrative judges from the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. Boards 

conduct adjudicatory hearings on major NRC licensing and enforcement actions, and they are 

independent of the NRC staff. A Board’s rulings may be appealed to the Commission, the fivemember body that sets NRC policy.
#### F. V. Halverstadt et al., appellants, v. Fred Berger, appellee.

Filed October 5, 1904.

No. 13,618.

Liquor License: Appeal. A final order by a district court rendered upon appeal from an order of a village board, granting or refusing a license to sell intoxicating liquors, is not reviewable upon appeal by tbis court.

Appeal from the district court for Dawson county: Charles L. G-utterson, Judge.

*Dismissed.*

*H. D.*Rhea, for appellants.

*Warrington & Stewart, contra.*

Ames, C.

A village board overruled a remonstrance to a petition for a license to sell intoxicating liquors and granted the license. The remonstrators appealed to the district court, by whom the action of the board was approved and affirmed, and from this order an appeal was taken to this court, where it is objected that the proceeding is not reviewable by appeal. The question has never been decided here, but it was mentioned and a doubt expressed about it in *Livingston v. Corey,*33 Neb. 366. There is no especial provision by statute for the review of such orders in this court, but by section 582 of the code it is enacted: “A judgment rendered or final order made by the distinct court, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the supreme court, for errors appearing on the record.” It is quite clear that such a proceeding is not a “civil case” within the meaning of section 24, article I of the constitution, and if the question were deemed an open one, the writer would not hesitate to hold that a final order in such a proceeding is not reviewable in this court at all. The granting or refusal of a license to sell liquors is the exercise of a purely police regulation, involving no personal *463or property right, and largely discretionary with the licensing authority; and the district judge, in deciding an appeal in such cases, performs an administrative rather than a judicial function. If the license is refused the applicant, in contemplation of law, loses nothing, and if it is granted he acquires a brief privilege, which will expire before the proceeding can be presented to this court for review, so that in any event this court can have before it nothing but a mooted question of no personal or pecuniary importance to the parties. But, however this may be, analogy with the decision of this court in *Nebraska Wesleyan University v. Craig’s*Estate, 54 Neb. 173, is conclusive to the effect that the order complained of is not reviewable here by appeal, and it is therefore recommended that the appeal in this case be dismissed.

Letton and Oldham, CC., concur.

By the Court:

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, it is ordered that the appeal in this case be

Dismissed.
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF TEHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
      Robert
      Spivak, 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 March 26,
      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/ Robert
              SpivakName:
                Robert SpivakTitle:
                Chief Executive OfficerMay 8, 2006
# Leif Erikson Day, 2004

More than 1,000 years ago, Leif Erikson led his crew on a journey across the Atlantic, becoming the first European known to have set foot on North American soil. Every October, we honor this courageous Viking explorer, his historic voyage, and the rich heritage of Nordic Americans.

Immigrants from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden and their descendants have made great contributions to our Nation in the fields of business, politics, the arts, education, agriculture, and other areas. Nordic Americans have also made a significant mark on our country's society and culture, and have helped to establish and define America's most cherished principles. Their energy and spirit have inspired others, and their courage, skill, and determination have played an important role in the development of our country. Today, millions of people in the United States trace their origins to these Nordic countries, and their contributions to America make our country stronger and better.

On this day, we also recognize our longstanding ties to these nations that were home to the ancestors of many Americans. Together, we continue to work to advance prosperity, expand freedom, and increase stability and security in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

To honor Leif Erikson, the courageous son of Iceland and grandson of Norway, and to celebrate our citizens of Nordic-American heritage, the Congress, by joint resolution (Public Law 88-566) approved on September 2, 1964, has authorized and requested the President to proclaim October 9 of each year as “Leif Erikson Day.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim October 9, 2004, as Leif Erikson Day. I call upon all Americans to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies, activities, and programs to honor our rich Nordic-American heritage.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth.

[FR Doc. 04-23012

Billing code 3195-01-P
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsComputerized inspection of gear tooth surfacesAn approach is proposed that uses coordinate measurements of the real surface of spiral bevel gears to determine the actual machine tool setting applied during the gear manufacturing process. The deviations of the real surface from the theoretical one are also determined. Adjustments are then applied by machine tool corrections to minimize these surface deviations. This is accomplished by representing the real surface analytically in the same Gaussian coordinates as the theoretical surface.Document ID19900012738Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsLitvin, Faydor L.*(Illinois Univ. Chicago., United States)*Yi, Zhang*(Illinois Univ. Chicago., United States)*Kieffer, Jonathan*(Illinois Univ. Chicago., United States)*Handschuh, Robert F.*(Army Research and Technology Labs. Cleveland, OH., United States)*Coy, John J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1989Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:102395AVSCOM-TR-89-C-011NASA-TM-102395E-5113Meeting InformationMeeting: SIAM Conference on Geometric DesignLocation: Tempe, AZCountry: United StatesStart Date: November 6, 1989End Date: November 10, 1989Accession Number90N22054Funding Number(s)PROJECT: DA PROJ. 1L1-62209-AH-47-APROJECT: RTOP 505-63-51Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012738.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
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Stamp Your Park Passport

Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2826
CLAUDE HOSCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BANDAG, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-894-5-BR-2) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claude Hosch, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321(1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hosch v. Bandag , No. CA-96-894-5-BR-2 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K A D / R es ear ch 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B I N G J I N G C H E N , a . k. a . T ony aW i ng S e e C hi ang, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72150 A ge nc yN o. A 076- 208- 985 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dC L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B i ng J i ng C he n, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of C hi na , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng he rappe a l f r om a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of



# FI LED DE C 28 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK AD / Res ea r ch 07- 72150 2 re m ov al . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i al e v id e n c e , T

ekle v . Mukasey , 533 F . 3d 1044, 1051 ( 9th C i r . 2008) , a nd w e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. C he n t e s t i f

i e d tha tpr i ort o the a rr e s tof m e m be r s of

he rr e l i gi ous gr oup, the pol i c e c a m e t o he rhom e s e ve r a l t i m e s , w arne d he r , a nd c onf i s c a t e d he rr e l i gi ous books . S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the I J ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on be c aus e C he n om i tt e d thi s i nf orm a t i on f

r om he rothe rw i s e de t a i l e d a s y l um ap p lic a tio n , an df

a ile dto e x p la in a d e q u a te lyth is s ig n if ic an t o m is s io n . See L iv. A s h c r o ft , 3 7 8 F . 3 d9 5 9 , 9 6 3 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). In th e ab sen ce o f cred i b l e t est i m o n y, C h e n ’s c la im s f

o ra s y lu m a n dw ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### George Spragg *v.*City of West Haven

*Peter F. Culver,*in support of the petition.

Decided March 26, 1986

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 6 Conn. App. 265, is denied.
#### In the Matter of Max Silverstein et al., Petitioners, against John F. O’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority of the State of New York, Respondents.

Determination unanimously confirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Voorhis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 996.]
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to this park navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to this park information section
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

World War II Memorial
District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22846-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN

SHELLEY HUTCHINSON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MENIN HOTELS, LLC

d/b/a “Menin Hospitality,” et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CASE has been DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Notice of Dismissal (ECF No. 30). The Clerk shall 

CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Miami, Florida, this 22nd day of February

2021.

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22846-MGC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2021 Page 1 of 1
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5345 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide that the consumer 

transaction account deposits of an insured depository institution are 

not considered to be funds obtained by or through a deposit broker, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2022 

Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to provide 

that the consumer transaction account deposits of an 

insured depository institution are not considered to be 

funds obtained by or through a deposit broker, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer Transaction 

5 Account Protection Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5345 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITED EXCEPTION FOR CONSUMER TRANS2 ACTION ACCOUNT DEPOSITS. 

3 Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 

4 U.S.C. 1831f) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(j) LIMITED EXCEPTION FOR CONSUMER TRANS7 ACTION ACCOUNT DEPOSITS.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Consumer transaction ac9 count deposits of an insured depository institution 

10 shall not be considered to be funds obtained, directly 

11 or indirectly, by or through a deposit broker. 

12 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection: 

13 ‘‘(A) CONSUMER TRANSACTION ACCOUNT

14 DEPOSIT.—The term ‘consumer transaction ac15 count deposit’ means a deposit in a transaction 

16 account with an insured depository institu17 tion— 

18 ‘‘(i) that is entirely covered by deposit 

19 insurance; 

20 ‘‘(ii) that is opened by an individual; 

21 ‘‘(iii) that is held in the name of the 

22 individual; 

23 ‘‘(iv) that is used monthly by the indi24 vidual to make payments to, and to receive 

25 deposits from, third parties; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5345 IS

1 ‘‘(v) with respect to which only the in2 dividual is recognized by the insured de3 pository institution as being authorized to 

4 designate that withdrawals or payments be 

5 made from the account. 

6 ‘‘(B) TRANSACTION ACCOUNT.—The term 

7 ‘transaction account’ has the meaning given the 

8 term in section 19(b)(1) of the Federal Reserve 

9 Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03008

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03008\03008_120210 Communication.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 03008\03008_120310 Communication.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

x 03008\03008_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03008\03008_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03008\03008_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03008\03008_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03008\03008_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03008\03008_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03008\Certification Statement Plant ID_03008.PDF Plant certification statement

03008\Supporting Documentation\03008_MOORELAND 3008 MAP1 AND MAP2.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03008\Supporting Documentation\MOORELAND 3008 WB1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Moore & Evans, an Illinois Corporation, Respondent, v. John Van Praag, an Individual Doing Business under the Firm Name, etc., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Request for Interpretation Regarding Licensee Recordkeeping

## HPPOS-204 PDR-9111210348

See the memorandum from J. W. N. Hickey to W. L. Axelson dated May 19, 1987. 

Although computer storage of required records is a broad issue, it appears that, in general, records maintained on computer media would be appropriate. An example, where computer storage is not appropriate, is the situation in which a copy of a document is required to be held. The health physics position was written in the context of 10 CFR 20.311, but it also applies to "new" 10 CFR 20.2006.

Guidance was requested on whether records maintained only on computer media and not in hard copy satisfy the Commission's requirements for record-keeping. Computer storage of required records is a broad issue, and NRC is not able to address all situations that may arise for all licensees. In general, however, records maintained on computer media would meet the requirements of the regulations in many cases, provided the records are available for inspection and can be produced in hard copy promptly upon request.

Computer recordkeeping would not be acceptable for those requirements that specify a copy of a document must be held [see, for example, 10 CFR 20.311 (d) (7) and 10 CFR 20.2006 (d), specifically Section III.B.5 of Appendix F to 10 CFR 20.1001-20.2401. Note: 10 CFR 30.39 (d) (1) is no longer applicable]. It would be the licensee's responsibility to take such measures as are necessary to ensure the reliability of the records, including protection from loss, tampering, alteration, or destruction, as is the case with any required records.

Such measures should include storing separately one other copy (backup) of the computer storage medium for the time required.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 20.311, 10 CFR 20.2006, 10 CFR 30.39

**Subject codes:** 2.1

**Applicability:** All

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 17, 2017
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.1011 Weight of evidence.

The Judge will give greater weight to specific, signed, factual evidence than to general, unsupported allegations or opinions. In the case of refusal or failure to furnish requested information within a required time period, the Judge may assume that disclosure would be contrary to the interests of the party failing to make disclosure.