alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2634. Notice

Reasonable notice of the time and place of trial or hearing before the Court of International Trade shall be given to all parties to any civil action, as prescribed by the rules of the court.

(Added Pub. L. 96–417, title III, §301, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1733.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2634, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 981; June 2, 1970, Pub. L. 91–271, title I, §115, 84 Stat. 280, related to notice, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 96–417. See section 2634 of this title.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-130 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, June 23, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received six reports from its Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards following the committee’s meetings June 2-4. The reports

provide comments on:

ˇ Proposed options for using averted onsite costs and voluntary initiatives in regulatory

analyses;

ˇ Development of a low-power and shutdown risk assessment program;

ˇ Pilot application of the revised inspection and assessment programs, risk-based

performance indicators, and performance-based regulatory initiatives and related

matters;

ˇ Exemption request to the hydrogen control requirements for the San Onofre nuclear

generating station, Units 2 and 3;

ˇ Proposed final rule amending the fitness-for-duty rule;

ˇ Draft (regulatory) Guide-1075, “Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear

Power Reactors.”

Copies of the reports are available through the NRC’s Office of Public Affairs, the NRC’s

homepage (http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document Room.

.

###
**Exhibit32**

**Section906 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

 

                The certificationset forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2003 (the “Report”) for thepurpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 ofTitle 18 of the United States Code.

 

                Anthony J. Cuti,the Chief Executive Officer and John K. Henry, the Chief Financial Officer ofDuane Reade Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Duane Reade Inc.

 

 

 
|                        |   | /s/ Anthony J. Cuti      |
|-----------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                        |   | Anthony J. Cuti          |
|                        |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
|                        |   |                     |
| .                           |   |                     |
|                        |   |                     |
|                        |   | /s/ John K. Henry        |
|                        |   | John K. Henry            |
| Date:  August 11, 2003 |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 00-1704 UNITED STATES, Appellee,
v. MICHAEL CRUZ-REYES, A/K/A SEALED DEFENDANT 1,

Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge ]
Before Selya, Circuit Judge , Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge , and Boudin, Circuit Judge .

Edgar R. Vega Pabon on brief for appellant. Gui llermo Gil , United States Attorney, Jorge E. VegaPacheco , Assistant United States Attorney, and Camille VelezRive , Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

July 5, 2000-2- Per Curiam . After a thorough review of the record and of the submissions of the parties, we affirm the district court’s decision to detain the defendant based on risk of flight.

The evidence proffered by the government showed that appellant Michael Cruz Reyes (“Cruz”) possesses extensive financial resources, and Cruz lied to Pretrial Services about those resources. In light of the extent of those resources and Cruz’ dishonest statements, the amount of the bond suggested by Cruz seems woefully inadequate, especiallywhere the real estate securing that bond does not belong to Cruz. For a defendant allegedly involved in drug tra fficking of this magnitude, forfeiture of bond may be “simplya cost of doing business.” United States v. Jessup , 757 F.2d 378, 385 (1 stCir. 1985) (quoting S.Rep. No. 225, 98 thCong., 1 stSess. 23-24 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp. 26, 27).

We find no error in the lower court’s decision to discount the evidence of Cruz’ self-surrender in the instant matter, in light of the government’s proffer indicating Cruz fled from an officer attempting to arrest him in a 1995-3-

incident. Further, the lower court was entitled to reject Cruz’ suggestion that he be placed on electronic monitoring; while increasing the likelihood that flight will be detected (and thereby deterring flight), electronic monitoring is not always effective. See Unit ed States v. O’Brien , 895 F.2d 810, 815-16 (1 stCir. 1990) (recognizing that while electronic monitoring acts as a deterrent against flight, defendants do escape while being monitored and are never found). We see no error in the lower court’s conclusion that in light of all the factors in § 3142(g), electronic monitoring would be insufficient here, especially considering the financial resources of the defendant, the inadequate bond offered, and Cruz’ prior false statements.

Finally, while the witnesses who make up the bulk of the government’s case against Cruz are cooperating witnesses, and therefore are more vulnerable to impeachment attempts, we find no error in the lower court’s reliance on that evidence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(2), especially since
more than one witness apparently identifies Cruz as a significant actor in the charged conspiracy.

Affirmed. 1 stCir. Loc. R. 27(c).
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION  I, Keith Berman, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of InstaCare Corp.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 annual report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:  a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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 control 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 control over financial reporting.  Date: July 19, 2011  /s/ Keith Berman Keith Berman Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-189 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, September 3, 1999)

NRC AMENDS REGULATIONS TO ADD

HI-STAR FUEL STORAGE CASK DESIGN TO APPROVED LIST

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to add an additional

fuel storage cask design to those that utilities can use--under a general license and without sitespecific approval -- to store spent fuel at their nuclear power plants.

The new design is the Holtec International HI-STAR 100 Cask System (HI-STAR),

manufactured by Holtec International Inc., of Marlton, New Jersey. It can contain up to 24

pressurized water reactor fuel assemblies or 68 boiling water reactor fuel assemblies.

Under the terms of an NRC general license, any nuclear power reactor licensee can use

a pre-approved cask if the reactor licensee notifies the NRC in advance, meets the conditions

of the cask’s NRC certificate of compliance, and complies with the NRC’s regulations. These

regulations include a requirement to ensure that the reactor site characteristics and potential

site-boundary radiation doses are within the scope of the cask’s safety analysis report and the

reactor license.

The HI-STAR certificate contains conditions for use that are similar to those for other

NRC-approved casks. However, the certificate for each cask design may differ in some

specifics, such as operating limits, monitoring and testing requirements, and spent fuel

specifications.

NRC staff is issuing a safety evaluation report which finds that adequate protection of

public health and safety will be maintained by the user following the conditions specified in the

certificate of compliance.

The certificate would expire in 20 years unless it is renewed.

The HI-STAR 100 Cask System is designed to be used as a dual purpose -- storage

and transportation -- cask. Certification for transportation was issued earlier, on March 31.

On August 31, NRC staff approved and forwarded the subject information to the Office

of the Federal Register for publication.

###
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00396-CV

K. D., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 267,636-B, HONORABLE CHARLES H. VAN ORDEN, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant K.D. filed her notice of appeal on June 23, 2015. The appellate record 

was complete July 8, 2015, making appellant’s brief due July 28, 2015. On July 24, 2015, 

counsel for appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. 

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition 

of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) 

(providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this 

Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order 

counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than August 17, 2015. If the brief is not filed by that 

date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on July 29, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
```

[House Prints 107-B]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress 
 1st Session           COMMITTEE PRINT NO. 107-B
_______________________________________________________________________
 
                      COMPILATION OF SELECTED ACTS

                      CONCERNING NATIONAL FORESTS

                          AND RELATED MATTERS

                               __________

         WITH AMENDMENTS THROUGH THE END OF THE 106TH CONGRESS

                               __________

                      PREPARED FOR THE USE OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                                 OF THE

                      ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                MAY 2001

                  Printed for the use of the
              House Committee on Resources

                               _________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-669                         wASHINGTON  : 2001
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800  
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

[TEXT NOT AVAILABLE - REFER TO PDF]
```
i'. 

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION 

AUSTIN, 1 

. \ 

I 

i' ~ ' 

OFFICIA!fB~~ 

STATE c)p~~s 53~ 1-<t 

PENALTY FOR ~cj 

PRIVATE USE c::_ ~~ 

a..u.. 

RE: WR-81 ,246-01
#### Morris Pollman, Appellant, v. Sam Pollman et al., Respondents.

Mo opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
§ 307.13 Records and retention. ( a ) *Closed Loan files and related documents.* The RLF Recipient shall maintain Closed Loan files and all related documents, books of account, computer data files and other records over the term of the Closed Loan and for a three-year period from the date of final disposition of such Closed Loan. The date of final disposition of a Closed Loan is the date: ( 1 ) Principal, interest, fees, penalties and all other costs associated with the Closed Loan have been paid in full; or
( 2 ) Final settlement or discharge and cessation of collection efforts of any unpaid amounts associated with the Closed Loan have occurred.
( b ) *Administrative records.* RLF Recipients must at all times: ( 1 ) Maintain adequate accounting records and source documentation to substantiate the amount and percent of RLF Income expended for eligible RLF administrative costs.
( 2 ) Retain records of administrative expenses incurred for activities and equipment relating to the operation of the RLF for three years from the actual submission date of the report that covers the fiscal year in which such costs were claimed.
( 3 ) Consistent with § 307.11(a), for the duration of RLF operations, maintain records to demonstrate: ( i ) The adequacy of the RLF's accounting system to identify, safeguard, and account for the entire RLF Capital Base, outstanding RLF loans, and other RLF operations;
( ii ) That standard RLF loan documents reasonably necessary or advisable for lending are in place; and
( iii ) Evidence of fidelity bond coverage for persons authorized to handle funds under the Grant award in an amount sufficient to protect the interests of EDA and the RLF.
( 4 ) Make available for inspection retained records, including those retained for longer than the required period. The record retention periods described in this section are minimum periods and such prescription does not limit any other record retention requirement of law or agreement. In no event will EDA question claimed administrative costs that are more than three years old, unless fraud is at issue.
[71 FR 56675, Sept. 27, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 62867, Oct. 22, 2008; 79 FR 76134, Dec. 19, 2014; 82 FR 57057, Dec. 1, 2017]
### §1606. Extent of liability

As to any claim for relief with respect to which a foreign state is not entitled to immunity under section 1605 or 1607 of this chapter, the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances; but a foreign state except for an agency or instrumentality thereof shall not be liable for punitive damages; if, however, in any case wherein death was caused, the law of the place where the action or omission occurred provides, or has been construed to provide, for damages only punitive in nature, the foreign state shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages measured by the pecuniary injuries resulting from such death which were incurred by the persons for whose benefit the action was brought.

(Added Pub. L. 94–583, §4(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2894; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(h) [title I, §117(b)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–480, 2681–491; Pub. L. 106–386, div. C, §2002(g)(2), formerly §2002(f)(2), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1543, renumbered §2002(g)(2), Pub. L. 107–297, title II, §201(c)(3), Nov. 26, 2002, 116 Stat. 2337.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–386, §2002(g)(2), formerly §2002(f)(2), as renumbered by Pub. L. 107–297, which directed repeal of section 101(h) [title I, §117(b)] of div. A of Pub. L. 105–277, was executed by striking out ", except any action under section 1605(a)(7) or 1610(f)" after "punitive damages", to reflect the probable intent of Congress. See 1998 Amendment note below.

1998—Pub. L. 105–277 inserted ", except any action under section 1605(a)(7) or 1610(f)" after "punitive damages".

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

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 applicable to any claim for which a foreign state is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of this title arising before, on, or after Oct. 21, 1998, see section 101(h) [title I, §117(c)] of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 1610 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 21, 1976, see section 8 of Pub. L. 94–583, set out as a note under section 1602 of this title.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-25 March 7, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

LATEST NRC STAFF REVIEW RATES DAVIS-BESSE "GOOD" IN OPERATIONS

AND "SUPERIOR" IN MAINTENANCE, ENGINEERING, AND PLANT SUPPORT

The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, operated by Centerior

Service Co., has received performance ratings of "good" in

operations and "superior" in maintenance, engineering, and plant

support, the four areas of review in the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission staff's latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee

Performance (SALP) report for the facility. The plant is located

at Oak Harbor, Ohio.

The assessment covers the period from January 22, 1995,

through January 18 of this year.

The NRC staff and Centerior officials will discuss the

evaluation during a meeting set for 9:30 a.m. CST on March 21.

The meeting will be in the Administration Building at the DavisBesse site.

The meeting will be open to public observation. NRC

officials will be available afterwards to speak with reporters,

state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC SALP reports rate utilities in four functional areas --

plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support --

and assign ratings of Category 1, 2, or 3 depending on whether

their performance in those areas is superior, good or acceptable.

The report on Davis-Besse gives the plant a "Category 2" rating -

- indicating good performance -- in operations and a "Category 1"

rating -- indicating superior performance -- in maintenance,

engineering, and plant support.

NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach, in a letter to the

utility, noted that "conduct of nuclear activities at Davis-Besse

was excellent overall and was properly focussed on nuclear

safety."
He added, "Good performance in the control room was evident

throughout the period. Though few plant challenges occurred,

operator response to transient conditions and equipment problems

was excellent.

"However, detracting from otherwise excellent performance

were issues related to procedural adherence, inattention to

detail, and a lack of questioning attitude identified on several

occasions throughout the assessment period."

"Plant engineers provided excellent coordination of system

activities and were consistently involved in the testing,

maintenance, and operation of their assigned systems," he

continued. "Plant equipment was well maintained, supported by

rigorous implementation of mature predictive and preventive

maintenance programs.

Functional Area Current Period Previous Period

Operations 2 1

Maintenance 1 1

Engineering 1 1

Plant Support 1 1

#####

SALP reports may be viewed on the NRC's internet web site at

<http://www.nrc.gov/OPA>. The reports for all plants may be

obtained by e-mail, as issued. Send an e-mail message to

listproc@nrc.gov with no subject and the following message:

subscribe SALP yourfirstname yourlastname.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 58 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit 

the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer Continental Shelf off the 

coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 27, 2021 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. PADILLA, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. MARKEY, 

and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the 

outer Continental Shelf off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

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 ‘‘West Coast Ocean Pro5 tection Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 58 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING ON THE 

2 OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFF THE COAST 

3 OF CALIFORNIA, OREGON, AND WASHINGTON. 

4 Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

5 (43 U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(q) PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN

8 CERTAIN AREAS OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.— 

9 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any 

10 other law, the Secretary shall not issue a lease for the 

11 exploration, development, or production of oil or natural 

12 gas in any area of the outer Continental Shelf off the coast 

13 of the State of California, Oregon, or Washington.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS