alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Request for NRR Follow-Up on Environmental Samples with Levels Greater Than FES Estimates

## HPPOS-009 PDR-9111210097

See the memorandum from L. B. Higginbotham to J. Sutherland dated April 15, 1976. The memo states that the concentrations of radioactive materials in environmental samples higher than those estimated in the Final Environmental Statement are not, by themselves, cause for concern.

An "Evaluation of the Results of Oconee Environmental Survey" was forwarded to NRR. Concern was expressed over what significance should be placed on observed environmental radioactive levels found to be greater than the estimated levels in the Final Environmental Statement (FES). The submitted evaluation stated that the concentrations of radioactivity detected by the South Carolina Department of Health in environmental samples were well below the South Carolina drinking water standards and the inspection of Oconee's liquid radwaste control program did not identify any noncompliance with the Technical Specifications. The doses to the public calculated using NRC models by Duke Power Company were below the numerical guides of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I.

NRR stated that the values of anticipated annual releases of radioactive material in liquid effluents and the corresponding anticipated concentrations in the tailrace as presented in the Oconee FES were exactly what they were claimed to be - anticipated or estimated values. FES values are estimates of long-term averages for the 40 year life of the plant and these estimates may vary from the observed value for any specific year. In this situation, regulatory limits were not exceeded; there was no information that was previously unknown to NRR; and there was no information contrary to that assumed by NRR in its issuance of the license. Therefore, based on this criteria, the significance of levels in the environment greater than estimated levels in the FES is minimal and that concentrations of radioactive materials in environmental samples higher than those estimated in the FES are not, by themselves, cause for concern.

The regional response to such incidences should be to provide the SEP Branch with a brief summary of the findings and these will be forwarded to Licensing for information. The Regional response need not involve an evaluation of the data nor a modification of the inspection schedule to inspect the subject area.

**Regulatory references:** Technical Specifications, Final Environmental Statement

**Subject codes:** 7.4

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 02, 2017
EXHIBIT 99.1


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



In  connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Insightful
Corporation  for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, the undersigned, Shawn F.
Javid,  President  and  Chief  Executive Officer of Insightful Corporation, does
hereby  certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     1)   such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
          2002 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
          the  quarter ended September 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material
          respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of
          Insightful  Corporation.




Date:    November 12, 2002              By:     /s/  Shawn F. Javid
      --------------------                 -------------------------------------
                                                    Shawn F. Javid
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
Exhibit
        32.1





CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO


18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350,


AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
        connection with the amended annual report of Fellows Energy Ltd. (the “Company”)
        on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George
        S. Young, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C.
        section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Fellows Energy Ltd. and will be retained by Fellows Energy Ltd. and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:
                  February 02, 2006
              By:*/s/ GEORGE S. YOUNG*George
                  S. YoungChief
                  Executive
                  Officer
§ 315.11 Adjustment Proposal process. ( a ) Firms certified in accordance with the procedures described in §§ 315.6 and 315.7 must prepare an Adjustment Proposal and submit it to EDA for approval within two years after the date of certification.
( b ) EDA determines whether to approve the Adjustment Assistance requested in the Adjustment Proposal based upon the evaluation criteria set forth in § 315.12. Upon approval, a Certified Firm may submit a request to the TAAC for Adjustment Assistance to implement an approved Adjustment Proposal. Firms must begin implementation within six months after approval. Firms that do not begin implementation within six months after approval must update, re-submit their Adjustment Proposal, and request re-approval before any Adjustment Assistance may be provided.
( c ) EDA will make a determination regarding the Adjustment Proposal no later than 60 calendar days upon receipt of the Adjustment Proposal.
( d ) Adjustment Assistance is subject to matching share requirements. Each Certified Firm must pay at least 25 percent of the cost of preparing its Adjustment Proposal. Each Certified Firm requesting $30,000 or less in total Adjustment Assistance in its approved Adjustment Proposal must pay at least 25 percent of the cost of that Adjustment Assistance. Each Certified Firm requesting more than $30,000 in total Adjustment Assistance in its approved Adjustment Proposal must pay at least 50 percent of the cost of that Adjustment Assistance. Certified Firms may request no more than the amount as established by EDA for total Adjustment Assistance over the entire lifetime of the firm.
( e ) Firms may request EDA approval to amend their Adjustment Proposals within two years from the date of EDA approval of their initial Adjustment Proposal.
( f ) Firms must complete implementation of their Adjustment Proposals within five years of EDA approval of their initial Adjustment Proposal.
( g ) If a Certified Firm is transferred, sold, or otherwise acquired by another Firm during the five-year period of Adjustment Assistance, the Firm must notify EDA no later than 30 calendar days following the transfer, sale, or acquisition. EDA will then make a determination as to whether the Firm remains eligible for Adjustment Assistance. EDA will make this determination no later than 60 calendar days following notification by the Firm.
( h ) In accordance with Section 255A of chapter 3 of title II of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2345a), Firms that receive Adjustment Assistance must provide data regarding the Firms' sales, employment, and productivity upon completion of the program and each year for the two-year period following completion.
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 1 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 2 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 3 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 4 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 5 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 6 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 7 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 8 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 9 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 10 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 11 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 12 of 13
Case 0:20-cv-61348-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2020 Page 13 of 13
Case 2:20-tp-14003-KMM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 1 of 2
August 17, 2020

Case 2:20-tp-14003-KMM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2020 Page 2 of 2
- 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

Wupatki
National MonumentArizona
### [§6153. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title IV, §412(a)(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 792]

Section, acts Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 758; Sept. 25, 1962, Pub. L. 87–682, §1(a)(3), (c), 76 Stat. 575; Dec. 23, 1975, Pub. L. 94–164, §5(b), 89 Stat. 975; June 30, 1976, Pub. L. 94–331, §3(b), 90 Stat. 782; Sept. 3, 1976, Pub. L. 94–396, §2(a)(2), 90 Stat. 1201; Sept. 17, 1976, Pub. L. 94–414, §3(b), 90 Stat. 1273; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), 90 Stat. 1834; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–34, title VII, §725(c)(3), 95 Stat. 346; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, title III, §328(b)(3), 96 Stat. 618, related to installment payments of estimated income tax by individuals.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable with respect to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1984, see section 414(a)(1) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as an Effective Date of 1984 Amendment note under section 6654 of this title.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-61252-CIV-ALTMAN 

HOWARD COHAN, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JRA FAMILY POMPANO, LLC., 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice [ECF No. 19]. Being fully advised, the Court hereby 

 ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Each 

party shall bear its own fees and costs, except as otherwise agreed to. 

 DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 4th day of August 2020. 

 _________________________________ 

 ROY K. ALTMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record 

Case 0:20-cv-61252-RKA Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 5511.3-4 Removal by agent.

A free-use permittee may procure the timber by agent. Such agent shall not, however, be paid more than fair compensation for the time, labor and money expended in procuring timber and processing it, and no charge shall be made by such agent for the timber itself. No part of the timber may be used in payment for services in obtaining it or processing it.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22999]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel,
    Date: November 4, 2004.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Samuel Rawlings, PhD, Chief Scientific Review 
Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, Bethesda, MD 20892-9300, 
301-451-2020.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 5, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-22999 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Sarah E. Vander Putten, Appellant, v. The Nassau Electric Railroad Company, Respondent.

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ.
#### Kenneth J. Milano v. Thomas B. Sayers et al. William J. Drew v. Thomas B. Sayers et al.

Eugene A. Cooney, in support of the petition.

Richard P.Weinistein and Anthony A. Tomaro, in opposition.

Decided April 29, 1986

The defendants' petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 6 Conn. App. 491, is denied.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael J. Durkan, Respondent, against Green-Wood Cemetery, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*736Present — Foster, P. J., Brewster, Deyo, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 29, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10618

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ONE 1996 LEXUS LS 400,

VIN JT8BH22F8T0036858,

Defendant,

INCREASE EBONG ISANG,

Movant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:02-CV-00947-BF-R

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Increase Ebong Isang, federal prisoner # 24177-077, has

moved this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in

an appeal from the district court’s judgment determining that one

1996 Lexus LS 400, VIN JT8BH22F8T0036858, is subject to forfeiture

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C). In denying Isang’s motion for

leave to proceed IFP on appeal, the district court certified that
2

the appeal is not taken in good faith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

and FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). By moving for IFP, Isang has challenged

the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court did not err in rejecting Isang’s

contention that the forfeiture was illegal because he was not

provided with pre-deprivation notice and hearing. See CaleroToledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 679–80 (1974).

Nor did it err in rejecting Isang’s contention that the forfeiture

was illegal because the Lexus was not seized pursuant to a search

warrant. See United States v. $9,041,598.68, 163 F.3d 238, 250

(5th Cir. 1998). In granting the motion for summary judgment, the

district court concluded that the United States had met its burden

of proving that Isang had engaged in the criminal activity

described in 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) and that the Government had shown

that the Lexus was derived from the proceeds of that criminal

activity. Isang presented no competent summary judgment evidence

to the contrary. No error has been shown.

Because Isang has not shown that his appeal will present

legal points arguable on their merits, the appeal is DISMISSED AS

FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219–20 (5th Cir.

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; see also Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24. The

motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP DENIED.
§ 3173.5 Removing production from tanks for sale and transportation by truck. ( a ) When a single truck load constitutes a completed sale, the driver must possess documentation containing the information required in § 3174.12.
( b ) When multiple truckloads are involved in a sale and the oil measurement method is based on the difference between the opening and closing gauges, the driver of the last truck must possess the documentation containing the information required in § 3174.12. All other drivers involved in the sale must possess a trip log or manifest.
( c ) After the seals have been broken, the purchaser or transporter is responsible for the entire contents of the tank until it is resealed.
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857)257+(

6287+(51',675,&72))/25,'$

&$6(12BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

,17+(0$77(52)       

7+((;75$',7,212)      

&(6$5+25$&,2'8$57(-$48(=  

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

&,9,/&29(56+((7

 'LGWKLVPDWWHURULJLQDWHIURPDPDWWHUSHQGLQJLQWKH1RUWKHUQ5HJLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV

$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFHSULRUWR2FWREHU"      <HV ; 1R

 'LGWKLVPDWWHURULJLQDWHIURPDPDWWHUSHQGLQJLQWKH&HQWUDO5HJLRQRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV

$WWRUQH\=V2IILFHSULRUWR6HSWHPEHU"    <HV ; 1R

5HVSHFWIXOO\VXEPLWWHG

$5,$1$)$-$5'2256+$1

81,7('67$7(6$77251(<

%\

-DVRQ:X

$VVLVWDQW8QLWHG6WDWHV$WWRUQH\ 

&RXUW,'1R$

86$WWRUQH\¶V2IILFH

1(WK 6WUHHW

0LDPL)ORULGD

7HOHSKRQH

(PDLO -DVRQ:X#XVGRMJRY

RQ :X

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/10/2020 Page 1 of 1
----

NOTICE

On 30 December 2005, in Official Journal of the European Union C 334 A, the ‘Common catalogue of agricultural plant species — Sixth supplement to the 23rd complete edition’ will be published.

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see overleaf).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex.

----
### §5675. Penalty for intentional removal or defacement of brewer's marks and brands

Every person other than the owner, or his agent authorized so to do, who intentionally removes or defaces any mark, brand, or label required by section 5412 and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall be liable to a penalty of $50 for each barrel or other container from which such mark, brand, or label is so removed or defaced.

(Added Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1408.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5675, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 696, consisted of provisions similar to those comprising this section, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859.
(No. 1191

Claimant awarded $2,105.00.)

#### Schuyler E. Redpath, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May*12, 1927.

Fees *& salaries*— when *award will he made.*Where the salary of a State officer has been fixed by law, and the legislature fails to appropriate a sufficient sum to pay the salary, an award will be made in favor of such officer for the difference between the amount fixed by statute and the amount paid to him under the appropriation made by the General Assembly.

Noah Gullett, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Merrill F. Wehmhoff, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant was appointed in due course as a member of the State Mining Board, and entered upon the duties of his position on the 5th day .of December, 1923, and has been continuously employed in said position since the date aforesaid.

It appears that the legislature in making the appropriation for the salary in question, did not take into consideration the law enacted by the Fifty-second General Assembly, effective July 1, 1921, which increased the salary of the members of the State Mining Board from $500.00 to $1,000.00 per annum, being an increase of from $5.00 to $10.00 per day for *393100 .days’ services per annum; and that the legislature has not appropriated sufficient money to pay the increase in salary which was so provided for by the Fifty-second General Assembly, as aforesaid.

That claimant has been paid by the State of Illinois a salary of $500.00 per annum, being $5.00 per day for 100 days’ services per annum, and it appears that there is now due and will be owing to him as unpaid salary from the 5th day of December, 1923, to the 1st day of July, 1927, the sum of $2,105.00, this being the difference between the amount paid him and the amount allowed by the statute, up to July 1,1927.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the State, has filed his statement in this cause, and makes no defense thereto, but submits the same upon the recommendation of the Director of Mines and Minerals.

The court therefore awards claimant the sum of $2,105.00.
----

----

III Informações

Comissão

----

PUBLICAÇÃO DE UMA VAGA DE PRESIDENTE DO INSTITUTO COMUNITÁRIO DAS VARIEDADES VEGETAIS (ICVV)

(Grau A*14)

(N.o 2 do artigo 29.o do Estatuto)

COM/2005/10015

(2005/C 297 A/01)

O Instituto Comunitário das Variedades Vegetais pretende nomear um presidente.

Os candidatos devem ser nacionais de um dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia.

O presidente é nomeado pelo Conselho a partir de uma lista de candidatos, que serão propostos pela Comissão após parecer do Conselho de Administração do Instituto. A remuneração e outras condições de emprego são as estabelecidas no Estatuto para os funcionários das Comunidades Europeias de grau A*14. O Instituto Comunitário das Variedades Vegetais e a Comissão aplicam uma política de igualdade de oportunidades.

A descrição de funções, os formulários de candidatura e as instruções para a apresentação de candidaturas podem ser obtidos na internet nos seguintes endereços:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

ou

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/propertyrights/index_en.htm

O prazo de recepção das candidaturas termina em 31 de Dezembro de 2005 (para mais informações, ver instruções de candidatura).

----
Elizabeth A. Y oung, CSR, RPR Official Court Reporter P. O. Box 747 Belton, Texas 76513 254 933-5268

December 14, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle Clerk, Court of Appeals P. O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711-2547 tel 512 463-1733 fax 512 463-1685

In re: State vs Kei th Anthony Collilns

COA: 03- 15-00629-CR TC # 73281

Attn: Chri s Knowles

Dear Chris,

I am requesting an extension to complete this reporter's record by Dece mber 23, 2015.

Sincerely,

/s/ Elizabeth A. Young

Elizabeth A. Young