alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 65.9 Review and response by the Administrator. If any questions or problems arise during review, FEMA will consult the Chief Executive Officer of the community (CEO), the community official designated by the CEO, and/or the requester for resolution. Upon receipt of a revision request, the Federal Insurance Administrator shall mail an acknowledgment of receipt of such request to the CEO. Within 90 days of receiving the request with all necessary information, the Federal Insurance Administrator shall notify the CEO of one or more of the following: ( a ) The effective map(s) shall not be modified;
( b ) The base flood elevations on the effective FIRM shall be modified and new base flood elevations shall be established under the provisions of part 67 of this subchapter;
( c ) The changes requested are approved and the map(s) amended by Letter of Map Revision (LOMR);
( d ) The changes requested are approved and a revised map(s) will be printed and distributed;
( e ) The changes requested are not of such a significant nature as to warrant a reissuance or revision of the flood insurance study or maps and will be deferred until such time as a significant change occurs;
( f ) An additional 90 days is required to evaluate the scientific or technical data submitted; or
( g ) Additional data are required to support the revision request.
( h ) The required payment has not been submitted in accordance with 44 CFR part 72, no review will be conducted and no determination will be issued until payment is received.
[51 FR 30315, Aug. 25, 1986; 61 FR 46331, Aug. 30, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 5736, Feb. 6, 1997]
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-96-53

Contact: Victor Dricks FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 1, 1996

CHANGE IN THE SCHEDULE OF NRC CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S

PRESS CONFERENCE AND PUBLIC MEETING IN WATERFORD, CT

NRC Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson will tour the three

Millstone nuclear power plant units Tuesday, August 6, and hold a

press conference, which will last about an hour, at 3:00 p.m. in

the Waterford Town Hall.

Waterford First Selectman Thomas A. Sheridan will then

moderate a public meeting, which will begin at 4:00 p.m. in the

Town Hall. Chairman Jackson will answer written questions

submitted to Mr. Sheridan in advance or during the meeting.

####
Exhibit 10.5


 


Nocturne Acquisition Corporation


 


7244 Carizzo Drive


La Jolla, CA 92037


 


March 30, 2021


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement that, commencing on the effective
date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration Statement”)
for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Nocturne Acquisition Corporation (the “Company”)
and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial business combination and (ii) the Company’s
liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination
Date”), Nocturne Sponsor LLC shall make available to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services
as may be required by the Company from time to time, at 7244 Carizzo Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037. In exchange therefore, the Company shall
pay Nocturne Sponsor LLC $10,000 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until the Termination Date.


 


Nocturne Sponsor LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right,
title, interest or claim of any kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”)
that may be established upon the consummation of the IPO and will not seek recourse against the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


This agreement may not be amended, modified or waived as to any particular
provision, except by a written instrument executed by the parties hereto.


 


No party hereto may assign this agreement or any rights, interests
or contracted obligations hereunder without the prior written approval of the other party. Any purported assignment in violation of this
paragraph shall be void and ineffectual and shall not operate to transfer or assign any interest or title to the purported assignee.


 


This agreement shall be governed by, construed in accordance with,
and interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to its choice of law principles.


 






     


     


    

 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 
	 	Nocturne Acquisition Corporation
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Henry Monzon
	 	 	Name: Henry Monzon
	 	 	
    Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



  


AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:


 


	Nocturne Sponsor LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Henry Monzon	 
	 	Name: Henry Monzon	 
	 	Title:  Managing Member	 


 


 


[Signature page to Administrative Services Agreement]
§ 150.8 Presentation of awards. ( a ) Presentation of the President's Award shall be made at such time, place and circumstances as the Executive Office of the President directs. There shall not be more twelve President's Awards given out during any calendar year.
( b ) Presentation of the Distinguished Public Safety Service Award shall be made by the Attorney General or the Administrator of FEMA or a designee at such time, place and circumstances as the Administrator of FEMA or the Attorney General determines. There is no limit on the number of these awards made during any calendar year.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-30 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (Monday, July 13. 1998)

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

NRC PROPOSES TO FINE ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY $50,000

FOR VIOLATIONS AT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a civil penalty of $50,000

against Arizona Public Service Co., for violations of NRC requirements involving the apparent

falsification of test records at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, about 50 miles west

of Phoenix, Az.

The violations were identified during an NRC investigation completed on February 13,

and were the subject of a predecisional enforcement conference on March 31.

The NRC’s Office of Investigations found that on or about March 10, 1993, four licensed

operators failed to test the availability of offsite power sources within a one-hour time limit as

required when an emergency diesel generator is out of service. Instead, the operators in the

Unit 3 control room falsified records to make it appear that the test had been conducted. The

falsified records were discovered by NRC in December 1997.

In a letter to APS officials, NRC Region IV Administrator Ellis Merschoff said the failure

of the operators to perform the required test had low risk significance and no safety

consequences. “Nonetheless,” he said, “the NRC considers this a matter of significant

regulatory concern based on the lack of integrity shown by individuals entrusted with operating

the plant.” Two of the individuals involved were the shift supervisor and the assistant shift

supervisor for Unit 3, the most senior individuals responsible for plant operations during the

night shifts.

The violations cited include a failure to: (1) to perform required testing within the

required time frame; (2) maintain required records that are complete and accurate in all

respects; and (3) report the missed test to NRC as required by regulations.

The NRC staff classified these violations as a single Severity Level III problem, which

carries a base civil penalty of $50,000. In determining the penalty, the NRC considered the

age of the violation, the low significance of the record falsified, and the improved work

environment since 1993. However, the NRC staff concluded the civil penalty is warranted

because several licensed operators, including supervisors, were involved and the operators
allowed the falsified records to remain uncorrected.

Separately, the NRC also issued actions against the four individuals. After reviewing all

the circumstances of the case, including the disciplinary action already taken by APS, the fact

that the incident occurred over five years ago, and the individuals’ cooperation during the NRC

investigation, the NRC limited its action to issuance of Notices of Violation to each of the

individuals.

APS has 30 days to respond in writing to the NRC’s Notice of Violation. During this

time, the company may pay the fine or file a protest.

##
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-45 May 7, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE ON APPARENT VIOLATIONS OF NRC

REQUIREMENTS AT CLINTON PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet May 15 with

representatives of Illinois Power Co. for a predecisional enforcement

conference on apparent violations of NRC requirements at the Clinton Nuclear

Power Station. The plant is near Clinton, Illinois.

The meeting will be at 1 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room of the

NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. It will be open

to public observation.

The enforcement conference will cover apparent violations of NRC

requirements in the utility's failure to take prompt and appropriate

corrective action to address recurring examples of degraded lubricants on

several types of circuit breakers. The lubrication problem resulted in the

binding of various breaker components and the failures of safety-related and

critical non-safety-related circuit breakers during testing and during

operation.

The degraded lubrication problem resulted from inadequate

breaker preventive maintenance and the use of unapproved

lubricants.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean the NRC has

determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes

and safety significance; to provide the utility an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable

the company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decisions on apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement

action, such as a fine, will be made at this conference. Those decisions will

be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

####
#### Roy H. Suss, Respondent, v. Gerald N. Ferguson, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Kimball and Piper, JJ.
#### Rudolph Marwede, Respondent, v. Commercial Hotel, Inc., et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-00-08 February 2, 2000

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC NAMES NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT LASALLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Lisle, Illinois, have announced the assignment of

Eric Duncan as the agency’s Senior Resident Inspector at the LaSalle Nuclear Power Plant in

Marseilles, Illinois.

Duncan, who joined the NRC in 1991, last worked as a nuclear engineer in the NRC Region

III’s Division of Reactor Safety before beginning his current assignment at LaSalle in September. Prior

to working for the NRC, he served in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS Andrew Jackson as a nuclear

trained officer. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan in 1984 in nuclear

engineering.

Duncan, his wife Diane and two sons live in Bolingbrook, Illinois.

Duncan joins NRC Resident Inspector Paul Krohn at LaSalle. They can be reached at the

LaSalle plant at (815) 357-8611.

#####
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MARIO E.G. HERNANDEZ,

 Appellant,

v.

CITY OF EL PASO,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00291-CV

Appeal from

327th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012-DTX04029)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellant, Mario E. G. Hernandez, to 

dismiss the appeal pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1) because the dispute between the parties 

has been resolved. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. Costs of the appeal are taxed 

against Appellant. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d)(“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax 

costs against the appellant.”).

February 4, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.2003 Filing of claim for preferential tariff treatment upon importation. ( a ) *Basis of claim.* An importer may make a claim for PANTPA preferential tariff treatment, including an exemption from the merchandise processing fee, based on either: ( 1 ) A written or electronic certification, as specified in § 10.2004, that is prepared by the importer, exporter, or producer of the good; or
( 2 ) The importer's knowledge that the good is an originating good, including reasonable reliance on information in the importer's possession that the good is an originating good.
( b ) *Making a claim.* The claim is made by including on the entry summary, or equivalent documentation, the letters “PA” as a prefix to the subheading of the HTSUS under which each qualifying good is classified, or by the method specified for equivalent reporting via an authorized electronic data interchange system.
( c ) *Corrected claim.* If, after making the claim specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the importer has reason to believe that the claim is based on inaccurate information or is otherwise invalid, the importer must, within 30 calendar days after the date of discovery of the error, correct the claim and pay any duties that may be due. The importer must submit a statement either in writing or via an authorized electronic data interchange system to the CBP office where the original claim was filed specifying the correction (*see* §§ 10.2031 and 10.2033).
### §106. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 106 was editorially reclassified as section 6569 of this title.
### Request for Information WM Ae rial Innovations (FAA-2015-4843) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Mendoza: This letter is to inform you that the following inform ation is missing from your peti tion (Docket No. FAA-2015-4843). This information is necessary for the Federal Av iation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information described above by January 22, 2016. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please feelfree to contact me at (202) 267-2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : Friday , January 08, 2016 7:16 AM To: wmaerialinnovations@gmail.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22022-KMW

JOSEPH PEELER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MIAMI DADE COUNY CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s report 

and recommendation (the “Report”) regarding Plaintiff’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 8). Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and the time to do so 

has now passed. Upon an independent review of the Report, the record, and applicable 

case law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 8) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 15th day of December, 

2020.

Case 1:20-cv-22022-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CC:

Joseph Peeler 

180163045

Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center 

7000 NW 41st Street 

Miami, FL 33166

Case 1:20-cv-22022-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/16/2020 Page 2 of 2
§ 307.7 Revolving Loan Fund award requirements. ( a ) For Eligible Applicants seeking to capitalize or recapitalize an RLF, EDA will review applications for the following, as applicable: ( 1 ) Need for a new or expanded public financing tool to: ( i ) Enhance other business assistance programs and services targeting economic sectors and locations described in the CEDS; or
( ii ) Provide appropriate support for post-disaster economic recovery efforts in Presidentially Declared Disaster areas;
( 2 ) Types of financing activities anticipated; and
( 3 ) Capacity of the RLF organization to manage lending activities, create networks between the business community and other financial providers, and implement the CEDS.
( b ) RLF Grants shall comply with the requirements set forth in this part, as well as relevant provisions of parts 300 through 303, 305, and 314 of this chapter and in the following publications: ( 1 ) EDA's RLF Standard Terms and Conditions; and
( 2 ) The Compliance Supplement, which is appendix XI to 2 CFR part 200 and is available on the OMB Web site at *https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default .*
[79 FR 76133, Dec. 19, 2014, as amended at 82 FR 57055, Dec. 1, 2017]
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. 98-121 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, July 15, 1998)

NRC ISSUES PROPOSED REVISIONS TO REGULATIONS

ON RESPIRATORY PROTECTION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations

governing the use of respiratory protection equipment and other controls to restrict

internal exposures to radioactive material.

The revised rules would provide greater assurance that workers’ radiation

exposures will be maintained as low as is reasonably achievable and would approve for

licensee use advances in respiratory protection equipment and procedures. The NRC

believes the proposed rule would save licensees about $2 million per year, with no

reduction in worker health or safety.

When the Commission’s overall radiation protection regulations were significantly

revised in 1992, the rules for respiratory protection were not similarly revised because

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) was working on consensus guidance

in this area. The new ANSI guidance, “American National Standard Practice for

Respiratory Protection,” is now available and is essentially the technical basis for the

proposed rule. The Commission’s proposed rule is consistent with the general

mandate of the Technology Transfer Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-113) to utilize

consensus standards.

The proposed changes emphasize the use of process or engineering controls,

decontamination of work areas, access controls, and other procedures instead of the

use of respiratory protection devices, which tend to increase external radiation doses

and worker stress.

The proposed rule also recognizes the new respiratory protection devices that

have been proven effective, discourages the use of other devices that are now

considered less effective based on field tests, and revises requirements for respiratory

protection procedures such as testing to evaluate the fit of a respirator on a particular

individual.
The rule also revises the “assigned protection factors”--expected workplace

levels of respiratory protection that would be provided to properly fitted and trained

users by properly functioning respirators--to be consistent with ANSI evaluations.

Further details of the proposed rule are contained in a Federal Register notice to

be published shortly. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the

proposal within 75 days after publication of the Federal Register notice to the Secretary,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be submitted electronically,

as described in the Federal Register notice.

###
§ 208.25 Obsolete equipment. ( a ) The Assistant Administrator will periodically identify obsolete items on the Equipment Cache List and provide such information to Sponsoring Agencies.
( b ) Neither funds that DHS provides nor matching funds required under a Preparedness Cooperative Agreement may be used to maintain or repair items that DHS has identified as obsolete.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-53552, No. 333-108178and No. 533-118010) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-83024 and No. 333-115771) of Tripath Technology Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2003, relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K/T. 

 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

San Jose, California 

February 2, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.211 Motions. ( a ) *Contents.* All motions must state the relief being requested, as well as the grounds and any authority for that relief. A motion must be filed, served, and accompanied by a certificate of service (*see* § 134.204).
( b ) *Statement of whether motion is opposed.* Except when filing a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary decision, the moving party must make reasonable efforts before filing the motion to contact any non-moving party and determine whether it will oppose the motion and must state in the motion whether each non-moving party will oppose or not oppose the motion. If the moving party cannot determine whether a non-moving party will oppose the motion, the moving party must describe in the motion the efforts made to contact that non-moving party.
( c ) *Response.* All non-moving parties must file and serve a response to the motion or be deemed to have consented to the relief sought. The response is due no later than 15 days after the motion is served, unless the Judge sets a different deadline. On motion, or on his or her own initiative, the Judge may permit a reply to a response and/or oral argument on the motion.
( d ) *Service of orders.* OHA will serve upon all parties any written order issued in response to a motion.
( e ) *Motion to dismiss.* A respondent may file a motion to dismiss any time before a decision is issued. If an answer or response to the appeal petition has not yet been filed, the motion to dismiss stays the respondent's time to answer or respond.
( f ) *Motion for an extension of time.* Except for good cause shown, a motion for an extension of time must be filed at least two business days before the original deadline.
[61 FR 2683, Jan. 29, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 35766, June 30, 1998; 67 FR 47248, July 18, 2002; 75 FR 47441, Aug. 6, 2010]