alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417

No: II-97-50 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Friday, June 27, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC SENDS INSPECTION TEAM TO OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Augmented Inspection Team To Assess Problems

Related to Backup Power Supply

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is dispatching a team of inspectors to

Duke Power Company's Oconee nuclear power plant near Seneca, South Carolina to

inspect and assess failures experienced during testing of the Oconee Unit 1

100,000-volt power supply between June 20 and 23.

An Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) will arrive at the plant Monday, June 30,

to determine the facts surrounding the failure of a nearby hydroelectric facility

(Keowee Unit 1) to provide electricity to Oconee Unit 1 as expected following a

loss of power on June 20. In addition, the team will look into the failure of two

circuit breakers during testing to restore the power path from the Keowee hydro

unit on June 23.

The AIT will review the company's response to the events and document its

findings in a special report. When the team has completed its inspection, the NRC

staff will discuss its preliminary findings in a meeting with company officials

which will be open to public observation.

###
§ 400.204 Loan terms. ( a ) All loans guaranteed under the Program shall be due and payable in full no later than December 31, 2005.
( b ) Loans guaranteed under the Program must bear a rate of interest determined by the Board to be reasonable. The reasonableness of an interest rate will be determined with respect to current average yields on outstanding obligations of the United States with remaining periods of maturity comparable to the term of the loan sought to be guaranteed. The Board may reject an application to guarantee a loan if it determines the interest rate of such loan to be unreasonable.
( c ) ( 1 ) The performance of all of the Borrower's obligations under the Loan Documents shall be secured by, and shall have the priority in, such Security as provided for within the terms and conditions of the Guarantee.
( 2 ) Without limiting the Lender's or Borrower's obligations under paragraph (c) of this section, at a minimum, the loan shall be secured by: ( i ) A fully perfected and enforceable security interest and/or lien, with first priority over conflicting security interests or other liens in all property acquired, improved or derived from the loan funds;
( ii ) A fully perfected and enforceable security interest and/or lien in any other property of the Borrower's pledged to secure the loan, including accessions, replacements, proceeds, or property given by a third party as Security for the loan.
( 3 ) The entire loan will be secured by the same Security with equal lien priority for the Guaranteed Portion and the Unguaranteed Portion of the loan. The Unguaranteed Portion of the loan will neither be paid first nor given any preference over the Guaranteed Portion. A Supplemental Guarantor shall not have a security interest, direct or indirect, in any asset of the Borrower or any affiliate thereof other than the Security.
( 4 ) An Applicant's compliance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section does not assure a finding of reasonable assurance of repayment, or assure the Board's Guarantee of the loan.
( d ) An eligible Lender may assess and collect from the Borrower such other fees and costs associated with the application and origination of the loan as are reasonable and customary, taking into consideration the amount and complexity of the credit. The Board may take such other fees and costs into consideration when determining whether to offer a Guarantee to the Lender.
[64 FR 57933, Oct. 27, 1999, as amended at 64 FR 72020, Dec. 23, 1999; 65 FR 70293, Nov. 22, 2000; 66 FR 53080, Oct. 19, 2001]
### [§341. Repealed. Pub. L. 108–27, title III, §302(e)(4)(A), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 763]

Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 107; Pub. L. 85–866, title I, §20(a), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1615; Pub. L. 87–834, §13(f)(4), Oct. 16, 1962, 76 Stat. 1035; Pub. L. 88–272, title II, §231(b)(4), Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 105; Pub. L. 88–484, §1(a), Aug. 22, 1964, 78 Stat. 596; Pub. L. 89–570, §1(b)(4), Sept. 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 762; Pub. L. 91–172, title II, §211(b)(4), title V, §514(b)(1), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 570, 643; Pub. L. 94–455, title II, §205(c)(2), title XIV, §1402(b)(1)(B), (2), title XIX, §§1901(b)(3)(A), (I), 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1535, 1731, 1732, 1792, 1793, 1834; Pub. L. 97–34, title V, §505(c)(2), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 332; Pub. L. 97–248, title II, §222(e)(5), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 480; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §§43(c)(1), 65(a)–(c), 135(a), title IV, §492(b)(2), title X, §1001(b)(2), (e), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 558, 584, 669, 854, 1011, 1012; Pub. L. 99–514, title VI, §631(e)(6), title XVIII, §§1804(i)(1), 1899A(8), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2273, 2807, 2958; Pub. L. 100–647, title I, §1006(e)(18), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3403; Pub. L. 104–188, title I, §1702(h)(7), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1874; Pub. L. 106–170, title V, §532(c)(2)(D), Dec. 17, 1999, 113 Stat. 1930; Pub. L. 107–147, title IV, §417(24)(B)(i), Mar. 9, 2002, 116 Stat. 57, related to collapsible corporations.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable, except as otherwise provided, to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2002, see section 302(f) of Pub. L. 108–27, set out as an Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.
§ 208.23 Allowable costs under Preparedness Cooperative Agreements. System Members may spend Federal funds that DHS provides under any Preparedness Cooperative Agreement and any required matching funds under 2 CFR part 200, subpart E—Cost Principles, and this section to pay reasonable, allowable, necessary and allocable costs that directly support System activities, including the following: ( a ) Administration, including: ( 1 ) Management and administration of day-to-day System activities such as personnel compensation and benefits relating to System maintenance and development, record keeping, inventory of equipment, and correspondence;
( 2 ) Travel to and from System activities, meetings, conferences, training, drills and exercises;
( 3 ) Tests and examinations, including vaccinations, immunizations and other tests that are not normally required or provided in the course of a System Member's employment, and that DHS requires to meet its standards.
( b ) Training: ( 1 ) Development and delivery of, and participation in, System-related training courses, exercises, and drills;
( 2 ) Construction, maintenance, lease or purchase of System-related training facilities or materials;
( 3 ) Personnel compensation expenses, including overtime and other related expenses associated with System-related training, exercises, or drills;
( 4 ) System-required evaluations and certifications other than the certifications that DHS requires System Members to possess at the time of entry into the System. For instance, DHS will not pay for a medical school degree, paramedic certification or recertification, civil engineering license, etc.
( c ) Equipment: ( 1 ) Procurement of equipment and supplies specifically identified on the then-current DHS-approved Equipment Cache List;
( 2 ) Maintenance and repair of equipment included on the current Equipment Cache List;
( 3 ) Maintenance and repair of equipment acquired with DHS approval through the Federal Excess Property program, except as provided in § 208.25 of this part;
( 4 ) Purchase, construction, maintenance or lease of storage facilities and associated equipment for System equipment and supplies.
( d ) Disaster search canine expenses limited to: ( 1 ) Procurement for use as a System resource;
( 2 ) Training and certification expenses;
( 3 ) Veterinary care.
( e ) Management and administrative costs, actually incurred but not otherwise specified in this section that directly support the Sponsoring Agency's US&R capability, provided that such costs do not exceed 7.5 percent of the award/amendment amount.
[70 FR 9194, Feb. 24, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 76087, Dec. 19, 2014]
(No. 912

Claimant awarded $500.00.)

#### Nicholas M. Whitfield, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 1, 1925.*

Military *service*— when *claimant entitled to award.*The court reviews the evidence in this case, and enters an award in favor of claimant.

Charles McBrian, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; S. S. DuHamel, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Chief Justice Clarity

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought on account of injuries sustained while on duty as a private of the first class in Troop F of the 106th Cavalry of the Illinois National Guard. It appears *201that said claimant while in the course of his duty, with due care and caution for his own safety while leading a horse from the stable, was kicked by a horse led by another Private, breaking the leg of claimant about six inches above the ankle, totally disabling the claimant for about five months. The claimant alleges damages in the sum of $900.00. The defendant the State of Illinois comes and makes no denial of the cause of the accident or the extent of the injury claimed and leaving the matter of allowance to the discretion of this court.

The claimant appeared in open court and was examined by members of this court as to the cause and the extent of the injury and the court finds that the claimant was injured as alleged and was disabled for a considerable length of time, and after taking the matter under advisement, this court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $500.00.
#### In the Matter of Reader Mail, Inc., against Sol Fishko, as President of Paper Workers & Distributing Trades Union, Local 447 of International Printing Pressmen and Assistants’ Union of North America, A. F. of L.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
463 P.2d 40

#### Russell E. MAYER, Appellant, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT BOARD, Appellee.

No. 444.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Jan. 8, 1970.

James C. Hall, Toulouse, Moore & Walters, Albuquerque, for appellant.

James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, James V. Noble, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*65OPINION

SPIESS, Chief Justice.

A review in this court is sought by Russell E. Mayer of a decision rendered by the Public Employees Retirement Board. The Administrative Procedures Act, § 4— 32-1 to § 4-32-25, inch, N.M.S.A.1953, and in particular § 4 — 32-16 (F) of the Act is invoked as a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court to review the decision of the Board. The Board has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction for the reason that the Board is not an agency affected by or subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. It is conceded, and we think correctly so, that this court has no jurisdiction to review a decision of the agency involved unless such jurisdiction is conferred by the Administrative Procedures Act.

The solution of the jurisdictional question depends upon the applicability of the Administrative Procedures Act as provided by § 4-32-23, the material portion being as follows:

> “The provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act [4-32-1 to 4-32-25] apply to agencies made subj ect to its coverage by law, or by agency rule or regulation if permitted by law.”

The term “agency” is defined by § 4— 32-2 (A).

> “ ‘Agency’ means any state board, commission, department or officer authorized by law to make rules, conduct adjudicatory proceedings, make determinations, grant licenses, impose sanctions, grant or withhold relief or perform other actions or duties delegated by law, and which is specifically placed by law under the Administrative Procedures Act; ”

 It is clear that only such agencies as are specifically placed by law under the Administrative Procedures Act are subject to its provisions. So far as we have been able to determine the agency involved here has not been placed under the Act, nor subjected to its provisions. As a result, jurisdiction has not been conferred upon this court to review decisions of the agency involved. The motion to dismiss the appeal is, therefore, granted.

It is so ordered.

OMAN and HENDLEY, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.6**

 

**WARRANT AMENDMENT**

** **

This WARRANT AMENDMENT(this "Amendment") is dated as of December     , 2014, by and among LiveDeal, Inc., a Nevada corporation(the "Company"), and the holder signatory hereto. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall havethe meanings ascribed to such terms in the Warrant (as defined below).

**RECITALS**

** **

WHEREAS, the Company enteredinto a Note and Purchase Warrant Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of April 3, 2012 (the "Closing Date"),pursuant to which the Company issued the Notes and Warrants in reliance upon an exemption from registration under Section 4(2)and Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"); and

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section11 of the Warrant delivered to the Holder (the "Warrant"), the Holder had certain anti-dilution protection in the eventthe Company issues any additional shares of Common Stock or Common Stock Equivalents (as defined in the Warrant) at a price pershare less than the Exercise Price then in effect; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company has requestedthat the Holder amend the Warrant to delete Sections 11(b) through (e);

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section16(c) of the Warrant, no provision of the Warrant may be amended without the written consent of the Company and the Holder; and

 

NOW THEREFORE, forgood and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree asfollows:

1.              Amendment.Pursuant to Section 11 of the Warrant, the parties hereto hereby amend the Warrant, as of the date hereof, by deletingSections 11 (b) through 11 (e).

 

2.              EffectiveTime. The parties hereto agree that this Amendment shall be retroactive from and including, April 4, 2012.

 

3.              Effecton Transaction Documents. Except as set forth above the Transaction Documents and any other documents related thereto,shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified and confirmed.

 

4.              GoverningLaw; Jurisdiction. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of NewYork applicable to contracts made and to be performed in the State of Arizona.

 

5.              Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement andshall become effective when counterparts have been signed by each party and delivered to the other party.

 

6.              Severability. If any provision of this Amendment shall be invalid or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity orunenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this Amendment or the validity orenforceability of this Amendment in any other jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0049 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CHRISTIAN NYANFORE ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 13 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Laurie McKinnon Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 4 2020

06/04/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0049
Page 1

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 7
Page 2

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 7
Page 3

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 3 of 7
Page 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 4 of 7
Page 5

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 5 of 7
Page 6

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 6 of 7
Page 7

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-58 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 7 of 7
1

Filed 3/18/16 P. v. Claybrooks CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CASANOVA ELIJAH CLAYBROOKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C079127

(Super. Ct. No. 14F7707)

Appointed counsel for defendant Casanova Elijah Claybrooks has filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more 

favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief 

description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
2

I. BACKGROUND

Parole officers searched the motel room in which defendant had been living by 

himself. In defendant’s bed, between the box spring and mattress, the officers found a 

plastic bag containing 0.51 grams of methamphetamine. 

The People subsequently charged defendant with possession of methamphetamine. 

The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of a serious or violent 

felony. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine and admitted 

his prior strike conviction. Defendant also admitted that as a result of his crime, he 

violated his probation in an unrelated matter. 

Consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced 

defendant to an aggregate term of six years eight months in state prison. The trial court 

also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded him 293 days of 

custody credit. 

Defendant appeals; his request for a certificate of probable cause was granted. 

II. DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,

25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental 

brief within 30 days of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no 

communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, 

we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
3

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

ROBIE, J.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or vld@nrc.gov

I-96-37

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Victor Dricks June 10, 1996

NRC CHAIRMAN TO HOLD NEWS BRIEFING JUNE 14

FOLLOWING VISIT TO INDIAN POINT NUCLEAR PLANTS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson

will visit Indian Point Units 1, 2 and 3 on Friday, June 14, and

hold a news media briefing at the close of her plant tours.

Consolidated Edison Company is the license-holder for Indian

Point Units 1 and 2. Unit 1 was shut down in 1974. Indian Point

Unit 3 is operated by the New York Power Authority. All three

units are located in Buchanan, New York.

The news briefing will be at 4 p.m. in the Indian Point 2

Education Center Auditorium at the site.

This visit is part of a series of visits to nuclear

facilities across the country by Chairman Jackson. She has been

Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since July 1.

While at the plants, she will tour the facilities, meet with

the NRC resident inspectors and other NRC personnel, and meet

with utility and plant management.

####
### §673. Reporter

(a) The Supreme Court may appoint and fix the compensation of a reporter of its decisions who shall be subject to removal by the Court.

(b) The reporter may appoint and fix the compensation of necessary professional and clerical assistants and other employees, with the approval of the Court or the Chief Justice of the United States.

(c) The reporter shall, under the direction of the Court or the Chief Justice, prepare the decisions of the Court for publication in bound volumes and advance copies in pamphlet installments.

The reporter shall determine the quality and size of the paper, type, format, proofs and binding subject to the approval of the Court or the Chief Justice.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 919.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§325, 332, and 333 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§219, 225, 226, 36 Stat. 1152, 1153; July 1, 1922, ch. 267, §§1, 2, 42 Stat. 816; May 29, 1926, ch. 425, §1, 44 Stat. 677).

This section consolidates sections 332 and 333 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with part of section 325 of such title.

Provisions of section 325 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to appointment of clerk and marshal of the Supreme Court are incorporated in sections 671 and 672 of this title.

The provision as to tenure is new and is added to insure consistency with other revised sections relating to tenure of court officers.

The provisions of section 333 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., fixing the reporter's salary at $8,000 per annum were omitted and the Court given authority to fix the salary in conformity with sections 671 and 672 of this title relating to the clerk and the marshal.

Provisions of section 333 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., for allowance of stationery, supplies, equipment, and office rent are omitted as obsolete. Offices are now provided in the Supreme Court building and supplies are furnished by the marshal.

The last sentence of section 333 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the payment of the reporter's expenses from appropriation for the Supreme Court, was omitted as surplusage.

The revised section makes specific the implied power to fix the compensation of the reporter's assistants.

The provision in section 332 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., authorizing the Public Printer to do the printing referred to in such section, was omitted as unnecessary. (See section 111 of title 44, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Public Printing and Documents.)

Authority for making an appropriation to carry into effect the provisions of this section relating to compensation and allowances of the reporter, compensation of his assistants, and preparation of the decisions of the Supreme Court for publication, is contained in section 336 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. (Acts July 1, 1922, ch. 267, §5, 42 Stat. 818; May 29, 1926, ch. 425, §3, 44 Stat. 678), which is omitted, but not repealed, as unnecessary in this revision.
#### Warren R. Burdick, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Burdick, Deceased, Respondent, v. George S. Jamison et al., Appellants. Graham S. Jamison, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Alma S. Jamison, Appellant, v. Warren Burdick, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffeman, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

I support mokolele 

I 

" 

I 

1 

I 

i 

Jason Harris <jasonrobertharris@gmail.com> 

Monday, November 25, 2013 12:30 PM 

EAS (OST) 

Kalaupapa EAS 

imagejpeg; ATTOOOOl.txt 

1