alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateRulemaking

# Historical Rulemaking Documents

On this page:
            - Public Dockets for Rulemaking Activities
            - Previously Published Rulemaking Activity Data
            - Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year

## Public Dockets for Rulemaking Activities

The NRC participates in the Federal shared rulemaking website, a portal for the public to review and comment on published regulatory actions and to view any supporting materials if provided. The Rulemaking and Petition for Rulemaking Dockets include publicly-available documents such as NRC-issued *Federal Register* notices, supporting documents, public comments, and other related documents.

## Previously Published Rulemaking Activity Data

**2000s:** | Planned Rulemaking Activities (As of February 2, 2017) | Planned Rulemaking Activities (As of October 14, 2016) | FY 2016/2017 |

## Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year

The NRC is no longer issuing the report, "Rulemaking Activities by Fiscal Year." To access all rulemaking and other regulatory actions published by the NRC in the *Federal**Register* in a given year, see the annual index issued by the *Federal**Register*.  *Federal Register** 2.0* has indices beginning with calendar year 2013; previous indices are available from the Government Publication Office.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has discontinued publication of the NRC Regulatory Agenda, NUREG-0936.

For more information, see Planned Rulemaking Activities.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - The NRC Rulemaking Process
          - Regulatory Analysis
          - NRC Rules and Petitions
          - NRC Regulations by Subject Matter
          - Public Involvement in Rulemaking
          - Procedural Requirements
          - Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
          - Historical Rulemaking Documents
          - Contact Us About Rulemaking
          - Subscribe to Rulemaking Updates
          - Retrospective Review of Administrative Requirements (RROAR)

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - Federal Register Index
            - NRC Regulations
            - Procedural Requirements
            - Plan for Retrospective Review of Existing Rule
            - Regulatory Guides
            - Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, August 25, 2021
No. 89-1175.

#### Nuclear Transport & Storage, Inc. *v.*United States, Acting Through its Department of Energy, et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EX-4.4





 Exhibit 4.4 
  

			
	NUMBER	  	SHARES

 C- 

CUSIP [•] 
 ROCKLEY
PHOTONICS 
 HOLDINGS LIMITED 

ORDINARY SHARES 
 THIS
CERTIFIES THAT is the owner of Ordinary shares, par value $0.00001 per share (each, an “Ordinary Share”), of Rockley Photonics Holdings Limited, a Cayman Islands exempted company (the “Company”),
transferable on the books of the Company in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. 

This certificate is not valid unless countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar of the Company. 

Witness the facsimile signature of a duly authorized signatory of the Company. 

 

			
	Authorized Signatory	  	Transfer Agent
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00047-CR

Layne Alan Derouen

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-22-5166-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 6, 2023
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2020

No. 04-19-00864-CV

In the Estate of Maria G. Stoll, Deceased, In the Estate of Richard M. Stoll, Deceased,

From the Probate Court No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PC-3675

Honorable Veronica Vasquez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The parties have filed a joint motion to expedite this court’s mandate in this appeal. The 

motion is GRANTED, and the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to issue this court’s mandate in 

this appeal contemporaneously with the issuance of this order. TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
### §49i. Recordkeeping and accountability

#### (a) Records

Each State shall keep records that are sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by this chapter and to permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditure adequate to insure that the funds have not been spent unlawfully.

#### (b) Investigations

(1) The Secretary may investigate such facts, conditions, practices, or other matters which the Secretary finds necessary to determine whether any State receiving funds under this chapter or any official of such State has violated any provision of this chapter.

(2)(A) In order to evaluate compliance with the provisions of this chapter, the Secretary shall conduct investigations of the use of funds received by States under this chapter.

(B) In order to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter, the Comptroller General of the United States may conduct investigations of the use of funds received under this chapter by any State.

(3) In conducting any investigation under this chapter, the Secretary or the Comptroller General of the United States may not request new compilation of information not readily available to such State.

#### (c) Reports

Each State receiving funds under this chapter shall—

(1) make such reports concerning its operations and expenditures in such form and containing such information as shall be prescribed by the Secretary, and

(2) establish and maintain a management information system in accordance with guidelines established by the Secretary designed to facilitate the compilation and analysis of programmatic and financial data necessary for reporting, monitoring, and evaluating purposes.

(June 6, 1933, ch. 49, §10, 48 Stat. 116; Pub. L. 97–300, title VI, §601(f), formerly title V, §501(f), Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1396; renumbered title VI, §601(f), Pub. L. 100–628, title VII, §712(a)(1), (2), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3248.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1982—Pub. L. 97–300 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to State maintenance of records and investigations by the Secretary and Comptroller General for provisions which limited expenditures in States prior to adoption of State systems to the current fiscal year and two fiscal years thereafter.

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

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–300 effective Oct. 1, 1983, but with Secretary authorized to use funds appropriated for fiscal 1983 to plan for orderly implementation of amendment, see section 181(i) of Pub. L. 97–300, which was formerly classified to section 1591(i) of this title.
§ 500.213 Termination of obligations. ( a ) The Board, in its discretion, shall be entitled to terminate all, or a portion, of the Board's obligations under the Guarantee, without further cause, in the event that: ( 1 ) The Guarantee fee required by § 500.208(d) shall not have been paid;
( 2 ) A Lender shall have released or covenanted not to sue the Borrower or any other guarantor, or agreed to the modification of any obligation of any party to any agreement related to the loan, without the prior written consent of the Board;
( 3 ) A Lender has released the Board from its liability and obligations under the Guarantee;
( 4 ) A Lender shall have made any incorrect or incomplete representation to the Board in any material respect in connection with the Application, the Guarantee or the Loan Documents;
( 5 ) A Lender fails to make a demand for payment within 30 days of payment default; or
( 6 ) A Lender fails to comply with any material provision of the Loan Documents or the Guarantee.
( b ) Upon receipt of a written demand for payment made pursuant to the Guarantee, the Board shall be entitled to seek such certifications from the Lender, undertake such audits or investigations, or take such other action as is provided for by law or the Guarantee so as to determine whether the Lender has complied with all of the Lender's obligations under the Guarantee.
[64 FR 57947, Oct. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 24107, Apr. 25, 2000]
Mr. Joseph Mattingly 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

Director of Government Affairs and General Counsel 

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 

1901 North Moore Street 

P.O. Box 9245 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Dear Joe: 

On May IS, 1998, the Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) held a meeting with the 

American Gas Association, the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and certain 

member companies regarding the cooking products rule. During the meeting, the Department 

requested information.from the gas industry. The Department's most important question 

pertained to the number of shipments of gas ranges with and without power cords before the 

enactment ofNAECA in 1987. This information would help the Department to estimate the 

number of homes using gas cooking products that did not have electricity available prior to 1987. 

It is important to analyze data prior to the enactment ofNAECA because this data would not be 

skewed due to regulatory effects. 

On July 2, 1998, Harper-Wyman Company sent DOE a letter providing some of the information 

requested at the meeting on May 15, 1998. However, this letter did not address shipments of gas 

ranges with and without power cords before 1987. Following the receipt of this letter, DOE staff 

(Kathi Epping and Carl Adams) had phone conversations with GAMA regarding this letter. 

Based on these discussions, the Department believes that neither GAMA nor any of its members 

have information regarding the shipments of gas ranges with and without power cords prior to 

1987. If the Department's understanding is incorrect, please contact Ms. Kathi Epping of my 

staff. 

(L/ //', ; 1 / " d / . ael McCabe, Director 

Office of Codes and Standards 

Office of Building Technologies, State, and 

Community Programs 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

* Printed wrth soy ink on recycled paper
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

October 9 , 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00225

- CR, 04

- 15

- 00226 and 04

- 15

- 00227

- CR

Arturo Rosales AKA Artemio Rosales

- AYALA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR10431, 2014CR1785 and 201 4CR1786 Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion for access to the appellate record is granted. We order the clerk of this court to send appellant, pro se, a copy of the record. We further order appellant’s pro se brief is due November 23, 2015

. Appellant is advised that no extensions of time to file the pro se brief will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9 th day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
§ 500.212 Liquidation. ( a ) The Board may take, or direct to be taken, any action in liquidating the Security which the Board determines to be necessary or proper, consistent with Federal law and regulations.
( b ) Pursuant to the Guarantee, upon written demand by the Lender and whether or not the Board has made any payment under the Guarantee, the Board, at the Board's sole option shall have the right to require that the Lender, solely or jointly with the Board, conduct to completion the liquidation of any or all of the Security. The Board may choose to conduct the liquidation itself.
### §1492. Congressional reference cases

Any bill, except a bill for a pension, may be referred by either House of Congress to the chief judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a report in conformity with section 2509 of this title.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 941; Pub. L. 89–681, §1, Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 958; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §133(b), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 40; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §257 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §151, 36 Stat. 1138).

This section contains only the jurisdictional provision of section 257 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The procedural provisions are incorporated in section 2509 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "chief judge of the United States Claims Court" for "chief commissioner of the Court of Claims".

1966—Pub. L. 89–681 substituted provisions allowing any bill, except a bill for a pension, to be referred by either House of Congress to the chief commissioner of the Court of Claims for a report in conformity with section 2509 of this title for provisions giving the Court of Claims jurisdiction to report to either House of Congress on any bill referred by such House, except a bill for a pension, and to render judgment if the claim against the United States represented by the referred bill was one over which the court had jurisdiction under other Acts of Congress.

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
#### Jan Sabl v. Laendekbank Wien Aktiengesellschaft and Banque des Pays de L’Europe Centrale.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Central Hanover Bank and Trust Company, as Executor of and Trustee under the Will of Samuel C. Hildreth, Deceased, Respondent. Mary E. Hildreth, Appellant.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 611.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leonel ESTRADA-ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41680.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly E. Odom, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*218PER CURIAM: *

Leonel Estrada-Zamora (Estrada) appeals his 46-month sentence following his guilty plea conviction of illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Estrada argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory guideline scheme, in violation of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Assuming *arguendo*that the written plea agreement does not foreclose review of this argument, we review it for plain error. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 267,163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005); *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005). Estrada concedes that he cannot demonstrate that the district court would likely have sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. His argument that this error is structural, or at least presumptively prejudicial, is foreclosed, *see United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 600-01 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 464, 163 L.Ed.2d 352 (2005), and his argument that we require proof by a preponderance of the evidence that this error affected his substantial rights lacks merit. *See Mares,*402 F.3d at 521; *Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d at 601.

Estrada’s constitutional challenge to § 1326 is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Estrada contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *AlmendarezTorres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Estrada properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Ida B. Pollock et al., Respondents, v. Ward Baking Company, Defendant, and Alfred Stark et al., Defendants-Appellants. (Action No. 1.)

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Martin, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant a new trial unless plaintiff Ida B. Pollock stipulates to reduce the verdict in her favor to $6,000.
#### Margaret Boyle, Respondent, v. Samuel Kraut et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business under the Name of 5th Ave. Plumbing Supply Company, et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Action to recover damages for personal injuries. Order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Integrated Fire Support in the Battlespace will tentatively meet in closed session on April 21-22, 2004, location to be determined. The Task Force will apply the methodology developed in the 2001 Precision Targeting Summer Study to broadly develop the system of systems required to provide truly integrated fire support.

                        The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Defense Science Board Task Force will assess: The adequacy of current and proposed munitions with respect to speed, accuracy, lethality, cost,                         *etc.,*                         to meet the spectrum of threats; Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) techniques and mechanisms to meet the needs of tactical and operational battlefield forces; the adequacy of battlefield command and control and integration techniques for tactical, operational, and strategic forces operating on the battlefield; the current impediments to a fully integrated Air, Land and Sea fire support; and the need for predictive engagement tools and derived intelligence products to guide the battlefield commander in the use of forces to shape the outcome to the desired effect.                    

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that this Defense Science Board Task Force meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

January 30, 2004.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 04-2323 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M