alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-34 June 1, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH FIRSTENERGY OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Tuesday, June 8, with FirstEnergy

Nuclear Operating Company officials to discuss the recent Plant Performance Review of the

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located at Oak Harbor, Ohio.

The meeting will be at 2 p.m. (EST) in the Energy Education Center of the Davis-Besse

Administration Building, 5501 North State Route 2, Oak Harbor. The meeting is open to public

observation. NRC officials will be available after the meeting for questions and comments from

members of the public and the news media.

[The Plant Plant Performance Review assessment of Davis-Besse was previously

covered in News Announcement RIII-99-14, issued on March 31.]

In a March 26 letter to FirstEnergy, which operates the plant, Geoffrey Grant, Division

Director in the NRC's Region III Office, said, "Overall, performance at Davis-Besse was

acceptable."

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region III

Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/346ppr1.htm.

The review covered the time period from January 1997 through January 31.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is using to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months. A new

inspection and assessment program is being developed for use next year.

#####
#### Thomas Johnston, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. E. J. McLaughlin Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present —Jenks, P. J., Bun, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 19, 2017

a0516 

# Order

Clerk May 19, 2017

153531 & (121)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153531

COA: 320227

Wayne CC: 12

- 008886

- FH

DAVID BENJAMIN DUNN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the February 23, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered,

and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be

revi ewed by this Court. The denial is without prejudice to the defendant’s right to file a

motion for relief from judgment pursuant to MCR Subchapter 6.500 that may include the

issue whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to support the charge of

conspiracy to commit perjury. MCL 750.157a and MCL 750.422.

W ILDER , J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
#### J. Gillow Garton, Respondent, v. Leda S. Garton, Appellant.

*712Findings of fact numbered 50 and 51 and conclusions of law numbered 3 and 4 are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made, such findings and conclusions to be submitted on five days’ notice. Plaintiff’s complaint was predicated upon the theory that he was entitled to a one-half interest in the property in question and on the trial he did not establish a right to any greater relief. It was, therefore, error to direct defendant to convey the property to plaintiff alone. That relief was not authorized by the evidence nor under the allegations of the complaint, and defendant was not apprised of the fact that any such claim would be made. (Cf. *Walrath*v. *Hanover Fire Ins. Co.,*216 N. Y. 220; *Graham*v. *Read,*57 N. Y. 681; *Gettins*v. *Boyle,*184 App. Div. 499, mod. on reargument, 186 App. Div. 966.) Present — Holán, P. J., Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and Mae-Crate, J J.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 58959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22095]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Evidence

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Evidence.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a one-
day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: January 15, 2005.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Clift Hotel, 495 Geary Street, San Francisco, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: September 23, 2004.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 04-22095 Filed 9-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2002 Page 1 of 2
Case 0:00-cr-06218-NCR Document 30 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/28/2002 Page 2 of 2
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:see attached file
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-00-12 February 1, 2000

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NRC,NYPA TO DISCUSS INSPECTION FINDING AT FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with New York Power Authority (NYPA)

officials on Monday, February 7, to discuss an inspection finding involving a safety system at the

James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant. NYPA operates the plant, which is located in Scriba, N.Y.

The regulatory conference, scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the

NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa., will be open to the public for observation. NRC staff will

be available to answer questions from the public following the meeting.

FitzPatrick is one of 13 plants at nine sites nationwide taking part in a pilot program for a new

NRC reactor oversight process. Under the program, the NRC uses performance indicators and

inspections to determine the appropriate level of regulation for each plant. Performance indicators and

inspection findings can range from "green," which is the least significant, to "red," which is the most

significant. Intermediate categories are "white" and "yellow." The NRC’s response is commensurate

with those indicators and findings.

Based on an inspection completed on November 29, the NRC issued a proposed "white"

finding and determined there was an apparent violation at FitzPatrick involving inadequate testing of

the high-pressure coolant injection (HPCI) system. Among the system’s uses is to maintain reactor

vessel water level after small loss-of-coolant accidents, provide cooling for larger loss-of-coolant

accidents and back up the reactor core isolation cooling system.

The NRC preliminarily found that inadequate testing, due to a failure to incorporate vendor

recommendations, allowed the HPCI system’s speed control system to degrade without being detected

until an actual failure of the HPCI system occurred during an October 14 sudden shutdown of the

reactor. The agency considers the issue to have low to moderate risk because the HPCI system is an

important mitigating system during a loss-of-offsite power event, and it is likely the system would not

have been able to perform its intended function during a period greater than 30 days.

The purpose of the regulatory conference is to discuss the concern about inadequate testing of

the HPCI system and its causes, the proposed "white" categorization and the apparent violation.

NYPA will be provided with an opportunity to clarify aspects of the NRC inspection report, as

necessary, and to outline its proposed corrective action.
#
#### Madison Avenue Coach Company, Inc., Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant. Eighth Avenue Coach Corporation, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant. New York City Omnibus Corporation, Respondent, v. City of New York, Appellant.

Present — -Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1050.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 1594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-234]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4901-N-02]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Johnston, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: December 30, 2003.
John D. Garrity,
Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-234 Filed 1-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-M
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateRisk AssessmentHistory of Risk-Informed Regulation Programs

# Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Plan (RPP) (2007 to Present)

On April 13, 2016 the Commission issued Staff Requirements – SECY-16-0009, "Recommendations Resulting from the Integrated Prioritization and Re-Baselining of Agency Activities" – which approved the staff's recommendations on items to shed, de-prioritize, and perform with fewer resources. The SECY Information paper on Risk-Informed Activities was identified in item 34 of Enclosure 1 as one of the items to shed and discontinue. The annual update of the Risk-Informed Activity public Web site will continue to communicate necessary information to the Commission and stakeholders.

On June 1, 2006, the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) directing the staff to improve the RIRIP so that it is an integrated master plan for initiatives designed to help the agency achieve the Commission's goal of a holistic, risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure.

In response to that SRM, the staff submitted SECY-06-0217, noting that the improved plan would focus on the NRC's strategic business arenas of reactor safety, materials safety, and waste management. Then, with SECY-07-0074, the staff conveyed its improved plan and noted that its title would change from "RIRIP" to the "Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Plan" (RPP). In addition, SECY-07-0074 stated that the RPP would provide the following enhancements:
        -  Evaluate which initiatives should be continued, which should be retired, and what new initiatives are needed. 
        -  Perform an effectiveness review of completed initiatives. 
        -  Provide a database of initiatives on the NRC's public Web site. 

For additional information, see the NRC's current risk-informed activities.

## Additional Information

To learn more about the NRC's path toward risk-informed performance-based regulation, explore the following links:

To request additional information, Contact Us About Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 1994-1999
          - 2000-2007
          - 2007-present

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2023
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Louis LeCalsey, III, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tufco Technologies, Inc., certifythat:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tufco Technologies, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andpresented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2005     /s/ Louis LeCalsey, III     Louis LeCalsey, III  President and Chief Executive Officer
[Exhibit 32.1]

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Med Gen, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report'), I, Jack Chien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

January 4, 2007


/s/ Paul B. Kravitz
---------------------------
Paul B. Kravitz,
Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.2

[Letterhead of Rodefer Moss]

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To
the Board of Directors and Stockholders
OwnerTel, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

We
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and the use in the Form 10-KSB of OwnerTel, Inc. of our report dated March 11, 2002 relating to the balance sheet of
OwnerTel, Inc. as of December 31 and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the period from inception (July 2, 2001) to
December 31, 2001.

/s/
Rodefer Moss & Co. PLLC

April
15, 2002

---

QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Muscolino and Emanuel Civarelli, Appellants.

No opinion. Present- — -Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Yan Yoorhis, J., dissents and votes to reverse and dismiss the information on the ground that the guilt of the defendants was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
KEITH MATHIS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5248

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed November 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Robert Groeb , Judge

.

Stephen N. Bernstein, Gainesville , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR

, KELSEY

, and WINSOR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 10

**Question 10:** Why does the revised Part 20 still require Form 4?

**Answer:** Form 4 is used as a cumulative record of exposures at each licensee facility and serves as a mechanism for transmitting data from one licensee to another. Licensees must attempt to obtain the information on lifetime cumulative occupational radiation dose on Form 4, or equivalent, for all workers requiring monitoring. Licensees must obtain that information for occupational radiation doses received during the current year and prior to permitting a Planned Special Exposure. (See 10 CFR 20.2104.) Form 4 is not transmitted to the NRC. 

Form 5 is a summary of annual exposure and may have more frequent entries. The data on several previous Form 5's might be used to prepare a summary Form 4. The Form 5 will be provided to the NRC annually for workers in 7 classes of licensed facilities under the revised Part 20. 

(References: 10 CFR 20.2104, 10 CFR 20.2206)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 31, 2017
#### §§ 136.161-136.169 [Reserved]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Maricela MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, also known as Cindy Lou Alvarez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40916.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 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, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, Rene’ C. Flores, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*299Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Maria Maricela Martinez-Mendoza appeals her sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported. Martinez-Mendoza argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. This challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Martinezr-Mendoza 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). Martinez-Mendoza properly concedes that her argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but she 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.