alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Materials - Medica

March 30, 2010

Duann V. Thistlethwaite, RPh, BCNP

Director Manufacturing Complia

Triad Isotopes, INC.
Introduction

• Myself

– In nuclear pharmacy practice since 1992.– Board Certified in Nuclear Pharmacy since 1994.– Fellow of the American Pharmacists Association (2

• My company: Triad Isotopes, INC.

– Guiding Principles

• Service: Our service will distinguish us from all of ou

exceed the expectations of our customers, vendors a

• Safety: Our priority to our customers, partners and f

operate in an environment that features the best posand precautions. We will offer the safest products, wdelivery method in our industry. 

• Integrity: Our customers, fellow employees and com

and served with the highest possible standards. We those standards.
Introduction

• My professional organization – Soc

Nuclear Medicine (SNM)

– An international scientific and professi

organization founded in 1954 to promotechnology and practical application omedicine. 

– Its 16,000 members are physicians, te

scientists specializing in the research 

nuclear medicine. 

– Mission: to improve healthcare by adv

molecular imaging and therapy
Materials/Medica

• There is a unique nature of 

radiopharmaceuticals, nuclear pharmacies, and nuclear medicNRC must differentiate these oand/or practice settings from otwhich nuclear materials are us
Materials/Medica

• There is a paradigm difference 

and other licensees.

• We come from a variety of indu

shapes and sizes.

– From one person to organization

hundreds or thousands of emplo

– Hospitals, pharmacies, mobile im

centers, etc. are all included in o
Materials/Medica

• The concept of "Safety" with re

nuclear materials conjures up inuclear weapons, power plantsbombs, etc. 

• Most of these scenarios and le

concerns thereof are beyond ooperations.
Materials/Medica

• I believe that there is a positive 

for radiation in helping to optimcare.

– The benefits are commensurate 

• I believe that safety culture mu

bench to bedside.
Materials/Medica

• I believe in the concept of a sa

and with the definition that was in the February 2010 Workshop

• I believe with the general categ

traits.

• I believe the NRC should take 

in the implementation of this reacross the licensees it represesize may not fit all.”
Materials/Medica

• I believe the idea of zero tolera

violations is an unattainable golead to under reporting of issueeventually deteriorate the fabric conscious work environment.

• I believe the idea of a safety cu

cannot be burdensome for thos
Materials/Medica

• I believe that a positive Safety 

should encompass our patientspersonnel, the public and the e

• I believe without a doubt it is ev

person’s responsibility no matteposition to continuously cultivaculture of safety.
Materials/Medica

• In the medical community, sec

inherent in our safety culture.

• Security and Safety go hand-in

ensure our products are handlefrom bench to bedside.
Thanks

• Thanks for this opportunity to b

today.

• Also special thanks to my comp

allowing me the time to be here family & my nuclear pharmacis
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE,

v. STEPHANIE M. DESOLA,

Defendant

. ) ) ) ID # 1506018431 ) ) ) )

March 3, 2017 On Defendant Stephanie M. Desola’s Motion for Postconviction Relief. DENIED.

ORDER

Joseph Grubb, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney for the State. Stephanie M. Desola, pro se Defendant.

SCOTT , J.On this 3rd day of March , 2017, upon consideration of Defendant’s

Motion for Post

- conviction Relief and the Commissioner’s Report, the
Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for Post

- conviction Relief Should be Denied, and the record in this case, it appears that:
1. On July 2, 2015, as a result of investigation by the FBI and IRS,
De fendant was charged with one count of Theft over $50,000 from her employer Chesapeake Insurance Advisors, in violation of 11 Del. C. § 841(c)(3)(a).
2. Defendant’s case was transferred from the District Court of Delaware to the Superior Court of Delaware for plea purposes.
3. On July 8, 2015, Defendant plead guilty to one count Theft over $50,000, and was sentenced to five years in at Level Five, suspended for six months at Level Four, followed by one year at Level Three probation.
4. On July 24, 2015, Defendant was granted a sentence modification to remove the Level Four portion of her sentence because she resided in Maryland and therefore was not a candidate for home confinement. Defendant is currently on Level Three probation.
5. Defendant’s restitution hearing w as held on January 13, 2016. On April 11, 2016 Defendant was required to pay $115,130.97 in restitution to the victims pursuant to a Modified Restitution Order.6. Defendant filed her Motion for Postconviction Relief on June 27,

2016, and it was assigned to a Commissioner on July 8, 2016.
7. Chesapeake Insurance Advisors , Defendant’s employer, filed a civil suit against Defendant and her husband in Chancery Court. The matter is pending
before Vice Chancellor Laster.
8. Defendant discharged her attorney, Brian Jord an, in her Chancery Court proceeding as of May 26, 2016. Mr. Jordan also represented Defendant in the criminal proceedings.
9. On July 8, 2016 , Defendant’s Motion was assigned to Commissioner Bradley Manning pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Criminal Rule 62 for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
10. On January 4, 2017, t he Commissioner filed a Report and
Recommendation that the Defendant’s Motion for Post Conviction Relief should
be DENIED , and the Commissioner also noted it was so lacking in merit it could
be Denied and SUMMARILY DISMISSED pursuant to Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(5). No written objection s were filed. NOW, THEREFORE , for reasons stated in the Commissioner’s Report and
Recommendation that Defendant’s Motion for Post

- conviction Relief s hould be Denied, as well as responses filed by the State, IT IS SO ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Report, including its Recommendation , is a dopted by the Court.Defendant, Stephanie M. Desoloa’ s , Motion for Post

- conviction Relief is

DENIED

.

/s/ Calvin L. Scott The Honorable Calvin L. Scott Jr.
§ 19.515 Compensation. A recipient shall not make or enforce any policy or practice that, on the basis of sex: ( a ) Makes distinctions in rates of pay or other compensation;
( b ) Results in the payment of wages to employees of one sex at a rate less than that paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.
**Exhibit****31.1**
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
 As
Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
 Sarbanes
- Oxley Act of 2002
 
 I, James
A. Coyne, certify that:
 
 1.  I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of PLM Equipment Growth &
Income Fund VII (the Registrant).
 
 2.  Based on
my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.
 
 3.  Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.
 
 4.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
 
 a)  designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;
 
 b)  evaluated
the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)  disclosed
in this quarterly report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 
 5.  The
Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b)  any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal controls over financial
reporting.
 
 
 
 
 Date:
August 10, 2005  By:  /s/
James A. Coyne
 James A. Coyne
 President
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 541 

To require the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent of affected State 

and local governments before making an expenditure from the Nuclear 

Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2 (legislative day, MARCH 1), 2021 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Ms. ROSEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to obtain the consent 

of affected State and local governments before making 

an expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund for a nuclear waste repository, 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 ‘‘Nuclear Waste In5 formed Consent Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act, the terms ‘‘affected Indian tribe’’, ‘‘af8 fected unit of local government’’, ‘‘high-level radioactive 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 541 IS

1 waste’’, ‘‘repository’’, ‘‘Secretary’’, ‘‘spent nuclear fuel’’, 

2 and ‘‘unit of general local government’’ have the meanings 

3 given the terms in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy 

4 Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101). 

5 SEC. 3. CONSENT-BASED APPROVAL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may not make an 

7 expenditure from the Nuclear Waste Fund established 

8 under section 302(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 

9 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)) for the costs of the activities 

10 described in paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 302(d) of 

11 that Act (42 U.S.C. 10222(d)) unless the Secretary has 

12 entered into an agreement for a repository with— 

13 (1) the Governor of the State in which the re14 pository is proposed to be located; 

15 (2) each affected unit of local government; 

16 (3) any unit of general local government contig17 uous to the affected unit of local government if 

18 spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will 

19 be transported through that unit of general local 

20 government for disposal at the repository; and 

21 (4) each affected Indian tribe. 

22 (b) CONDITIONS ON AGREEMENT.—Any agreement 

23 for a repository under this Act— 

24 (1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties; 

25 (2) shall be binding on the parties; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 541 IS

1 (3) shall not be amended or revoked except by 

2 mutual agreement of the parties. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
August 26, 2013

Docket FAA

- 2012

- 0506

Docket Management Facility

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption No. 10556

– Request for Update

Dear Sir or Madam:

On June 8, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) granted Exemption No. 10556 in response

to the Regional Airline Association’s ( RAA’s ) May 2, 2012 request for exemption from certain sections of Title

14 of the Code of Federal Regulations

. The exemption was granted until June 30, 2014 unless sooner

superseded or rescinded.

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air

Carrier Operations Final Rule which renumbered or removed certain re gulations that impact this exemption.

Therefore, RAA respectfully requests the FAA update Exemption No. 10556 to reflect the correct regulatory

references.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information

.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Stacey Bechdolt, Esq.

Director, Safety & Technical Affairs

Regional Airline Association

2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

202

- 367

- 1252

Bechdolt@raa.org
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 134.601 What is the purpose of this subpart?

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504, establishes procedures by which prevailing parties in certain administrative proceedings may apply for reimbursement of fees and other expenses. Eligible parties may receive awards when they prevail over SBA, unless SBA's position in the proceeding was “substantially justified” or, as provided in § 134.605(b), special circumstances make an award unjust. The rules of this subpart explain which OHA proceedings are covered, who may be eligible for an award of fees and expenses, and how to apply for such an award.

[61 FR 2683, Jan. 29, 1996. Redesignated at 63 FR 35766, June 30, 1998, and 70 FR 8927, Feb. 24, 2005, as amended at 75 FR 47443, Aug. 6, 2010]
#### Carnegie Trust Company v. Samuel H. Kress.

Motion denied. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §§3414, 3415. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–93, §16(a), Dec. 18, 2017, 131 Stat. 2036

Section 3414, Pub. L. 102–477, §15, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2305, related to fiscal accountability.

Section 3415, Pub. L. 102–477, §16, Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2305; Pub. L. 103–437, §10(e)(1), (2)(C), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4589, related to report on statutory obstacles to program integration.
#### M. G. Smith et al., Respondents, *v.*A. White, Appellant.

April 21, 1885.

Practice — Affirmance with Damages. — The judgment on an appeal1 manifestly taken for delay, will be affirmed with ten per cent., damages.

Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Barclay, J.

*Affirmed with ten per cent, damages.*

H. L. Christie, for the respondent.

Rombauer, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The record in this case presents nothing for review *444here. The appeal is wholly without merit, as no exceptions were saved by appellant to any rulings of the trial •court. We have examined the record proper and find no error. The action is one against the maker of a promissory note, and the answer is a general denial unverified. The execution of the instrument is thus confessed. No .assignment of errors or brief is filed by appellant in this court. Under such circumstances the conclusion is inevitable that the appeal was taken for the sole purpose of •delay.

The judgment of the trial'conrt,

with the concur rence of all the judges,

is affirmed with ten per cent, •damages.
June 20, 2011

Mr. Douglas S. Forslund Director, New Iberia Support

Bristow U.S. LLC

4605 Industrial Drive New Iberia, LA 70560

Dear Mr. Forslund:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from §§ 91.411(b)(2) and 91.413(c)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your March 30, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Bristow U.S. LLC into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0329), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport

Rules Division

Enclosure
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ANDRES GOMEZ,

 Plaintiff Case Number: 1:20-cv-22274-KMW

QUICK CASH AUTO LOANS, INC.,

Defendant

________________________________/

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) herby gives this Honorable Court notice of

dismissal of this action with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 22, 2020 / s / A l b e r t o R . L e al . 

Alberto R. Leal

Florida Bar No.: 1002345

E-Mail: al@thelealfirm.com

The Leal Law Firm, P.A.

Case 1:20-cv-22274-KMW Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2020 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 13.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of Bayer AG (the Company), does hereby certify, to
such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form
20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. Dated:
April 6, 2004
    
    /s/
WERNER
WENNINGName: Werner Wenning
Title:   Chairman of the Board of ManagementDated:
April 6, 2004
    
    /s/
KLAUS
KÜHNName: Klaus Kühn
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
            Member of the Board of Management
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James H. Davies, Appellant.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ., concur.
### PART I—INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYER PLANS

Sec.
9711.
Continued obligations of individual employer plans.
1

Gooding, Frederic

From: Beardsley, Michelle <Michelle.Beardsley@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 3:42 PM

To: ryan.schierman@wyo.gov

Cc: AgreementStateRegs Resource

Subject: Wyoming response to RATS ID 2018-2

Attachments: Wyoming SRS.pdf

Dear Mr. Schierman: 

Thank you for informing us that the provisions in RATS ID 2018‐2 do not apply to your program. Please find attached the 

Wyoming State Regulation Status (SRS) Sheet indicating such. Let us know if you note any inaccuracies or errors in the 

SRS sheet. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. 

Michelle Beardsley, Health Physicist 

State Regulation Review Coordinator

Agreement State Programs Branch 

Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs 

Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

301‐415‐0275 

michelle.beardsley@nrc.gov
Enclosure 2

STATE REGULATION STATUS

State: Wyoming Tracking Ticket Number: 19-15

Date: 01/30/19

[ # amendment(s) reviewed identified by a * at the 

beginning of the equivalent NRC requirement.]

RATS ID NRC Chronology Identification Date Due for 

State Adoption

Incoming 

Letter

Outgoing 

Package

Notes

NA Wyoming Enabling Legislation

Wyoming House Bill HB0027

NA Proposed

ML15225A439

Revised Proposed

ML15324A391

Revised Proposed

ML19004A444

Comments

9/28/2015

ML15225A433

Comments

09/26/2016

ML15324A388

No Comments

01/23/19

ML19004A436

NA Wyoming DEQ Regulations to 10 CFR Part 20

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Chapter 3: Radiation Protection Standards

NA Proposed

ML16014A133

Revised Proposed

ML16097A348

Comments

03/15/2016

ML16014A131

Comments

10/03/2016

ML16097A339

NA Wyoming DEQ Regulations to 10 CFR Parts 19 

and 71

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Chapter 5: Notice, Instructions and Reports to 

Workers

Chapter 9: Transportation of Licensed Material

Chapter 10: Risk-Informed and Performance 

Based Licensing and Inspection

NA Proposed

ML16095A093

Comments

07/25/2016

ML16095A091
2

RATS ID NRC Chronology Identification Date Due for 

State Adoption

Incoming 

Letter

Outgoing 

Package

Notes

NA Wyoming DEQ Regulations to 10 CFR Parts 40 

and 150

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Chapter 4: Licensing Requirements for Source 

and Byproduct Material

Chapter 6: Financial Assurance

Chapter 10: General Licenses

NA Proposed

ML16194A168

Comments

10/13/2016

ML16194A048

2018-2 Miscellaneous Corrections –

Organizational Changes

10 CFR Parts 37, 40. 70 and 71 

12/21/2021 ML19030B773 ML19030B770

01/30/2019

This rulemaking does not contain 

provisions applicable to Wyoming’s 

program.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7527

LORENO NEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-97-1891-3-23BC) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Loreno Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Loreno Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Neal v. Beardsley , No. CA-97-1891-3-23BC (D.S.C. Sept. 28, 1998). 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