alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 98-24 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, February 5, 1998)

NRC WITHDRAWS PROPOSAL ON STRATEGIES FOR ASSESSING

LICENSEES’ SAFETY-CONSCIOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has withdrawn a proposal for

setting up specific regulatory measures to ensure that licensees

establish and maintain a safety-conscious work environment. It has

taken this action after analyzing public comments received since the

proposal was announced almost a year ago.

The standardized approach NRC announced last February would have

(1) required licensees to establish and maintain a safety-conscious

work environment with clearly defined attributes; (2) established

indicators that could be monitored and which collectively could show

evidence of an adverse trend; and (3) outlined specific remedial

actions NRC might require when it found that a licensee lacked a

safety-conscious work environment.

Virtually all who commented agreed that the proposed standardized

approach is not warranted and that regulatory actions need to be

flexible enough to address situations on a case-by-case basis. After

considering these comments, the Commission has concluded that its

expectations on achieving safety-conscious work environment were

clearly and sufficiently outlined in a May 1996 policy statement and

that it has enough regulatory tools to deal with instances when those

expectations are not met.

A more detailed discussion of this matter is contained in a

notice now available at the NRC Public Document Room in Washington.

The notice also will be published shortly in the Federal Register.

###
Exhibit
      18


December
      18, 2006








To
      the
      Audit Committee of the Board of


Directors
      of YP Corp.:





Gentlemen:





Pursuant
      to your request we have read the statements contained in Note 3 to the financial
      statements included in the Form 10- of YP Corp. for the year ended September
      30,
      2006. As stated in Note 3, the Company changed its method of accounting for
      customer acquisition costs such that customer acquisition costs are expensed
      as
      incurred rather than capitalized and amortized over the estimated attrition
      period of those customers. Additionally,
      Note 3 states that the Company believes that this is a preferable method as
      it
      has become more difficult to allocate cost to pools of customers and to track
      attrition rates.





You
      have
      requested a letter from us as your Independent Registered Public Accounting
      Firm
      that you can file with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating whether
      or not we believe the aforementioned change in method of accounting is
      preferable under your particular circumstances. This letter is submitted to
      you
      solely for that purpose.





Based
      on
      our reading of the information set forth in the Form 10-K of YP Corp. for the
      year ended September 30, 2006, we believe (a) the newly adopted accounting
      principle is a generally accepted accounting principle (b) the method of
      accounting for the effect of the change is in conformity with generally accepted
      accounting principles, (c) the Company has justified the use of the newly
      adopted accounting principle on the basis that it is preferable as required
      by
      Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20 as superseded Financial Accounting
      Standards Board Statement No. 154, and the Company’s justification for the
      change is reasonable, and (d) there are no unusual circumstances such that
      the
      selection and application of the newly adopted accounting principle would make
      the financial statements taken as a whole misleading.





While
      there are two methods of accounting for customer acquisition costs that are
      acceptable under generally accepted accounting principles, we believe that,
      under your particular circumstances, the aforementioned change is a preferable
      alternative accounting principle.





Very
      truly yours,








/s/
      EPSTEIN, WEBER & CONOVER. PLC
#### Sui Kang LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,1 Respondent.

No. 04-6411-AG.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 17, 2006.

Sui Kang Li, New York, New York, for Petitioner, pro se.

Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Western District of North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. GUIDO CALABRESI, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, and Hon. PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as respondent in this case.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the petition for review is DENIED.

Sui Kang Li, *pro se,*petitions for review of an order of the BIA affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history of the case.

This Court reviews the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *Jin Hui Gao v. United States Attorney Gen.,*400 F.3d 963, 964 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam); *Zhou Yun*
      *25
      *Zhang v. INS,*386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s credibility finding because Li gave wildly inconsistent testimony regarding matters at the heart of his claim, including when he began practicing Falun Gong, when he was almost arrested, and when he entered the United States. Li failed to establish a consistent, logically coherent timeline for such events.

Contrary to Li’s assertions, the BIA did not err by failing to address the points raised in Li’s brief. This Court has upheld the BIA’s streamlining procedure, which allows a single member of the Board to affirm an IJ’s decision without opinion. *See Yu Sheng Zhang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*362 F.3d 155, 156-57 (2d Cir.2004).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. Having completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DENIED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(d)(1).
### [§934A. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–514, title XII, §1275(c)(3), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2599]

Section, added Pub. L. 97–455, §1(a), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2497, related to income tax rate on Virgin Islands source income.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1986, with certain exceptions and qualifications, see section 1277 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as an Effective Date of 1986 Amendment note under section 931 of this title.
August 26, 2013

Docket FAA-2012-0506

Docket Management Facility

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption No. 10556 – Request for Update

Dear Sir or Madam:

On June 8, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) granted Exemption No. 10556 in response 

to the Regional Airline Association’s (RAA’s) May 2, 2012 request for exemption from certain sections of Title 

14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The exemption was granted until June 30, 2014 unless sooner 

superseded or rescinded.

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations Final Rule which renumbered or removed certain regulations that impact this exemption. 

Therefore, RAA respectfully requests the FAA update Exemption No. 10556 to reflect the correct regulatory 

references. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Stacey Bechdolt, Esq.

Director, Safety & Technical Affairs

Regional Airline Association

2025 M Street, NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

202-367-1252

Bechdolt@raa.org
### §1309. Portability assistance

The corporation shall provide advice and assistance to individuals with respect to evaluating the economic desirability of establishing individual retirement accounts or other forms of individual retirement savings for which a deduction is allowable under section 219 of title 26 and with respect to evaluating the desirability, in particular cases, of transferring amounts representing an employee's interest in a qualified plan to such an account upon the employee's separation from service with an employer.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4009, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 1014; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §7891(a)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2445.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–239 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

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

#### Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7891(f) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.
#### Isaak Rubinstein et al., in Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Whose Assignors or Who Themselves Contributed Labor and Materials to the Improvement of Premises 27 and 30 Johnstone Road, Great Neck, Appellants, v. Jamaica National Bank of New York et al., Respondents.

Ho opinion. Present — Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
----

Communication from the Commission to sugar beet and sugar producers

(2006/C 27/06)

The Commission draws the attention of sugar beet and sugar producers to the situation on the Community sugar market as scheduled for the 2006/07 marketing year.

As a result of the stocks accumulated during the 2004/05 marketing year and the rules and limits on exports laid down by the World Trade Organisation, the 2006/07 marketing year may commence with considerable quantities of sugar available in stock, but with fewer possibilities for disposal than in the past.

Under these circumstances, the reform of the common market organisation for sugar and the resultant restructuring of sugar production will not be sufficiently advanced to ensure market balance in the 2006/07 marketing year.

Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the Commission may have to take special management measures for sugar beet sown for harvest in 2006/07.

Such measures, to be laid down as transitional measures under the powers which the Council could confer on the Commission, may relate to the quantity of production eligible under the quotas for the 2006/07 marketing year and provisions on the disposal of C sugar produced during the 2005/06 marketing year.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (464)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          69,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,364)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         23,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,086
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,744
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,259
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,066
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,066
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,066
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 quarterly report of Willbros Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
F. Curran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.


Date: November 21, 2005                     /s/ Michael F. Curran
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael F. Curran
                                            Chief Executive Officer



                                       39
EXHIBIT 10.27

September 12, 2003

## 

Dale S. St. Arnold9563 E. Monument DriveScottsdale, AZ 85262

Re:       Letter of Understanding

Dear Dale:

On behalf of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”), I am pleased to make the following commitment to you in respect of severance pay:

            Termination of Employment Prior to a Change of Control

            In the event the Company terminates your employment without cause prior to June 30,             2004 and prior to a Change of Control (as defined in a certain Severance Protection             Agreement between you and the Company) of the Company, you will be entitled to             receive from the Company severance pay, payable $31,500 per month, for a period of             twelve (12) months after your termination  and you will also be entitled to continued             participation for 12 months in the Company’s medical, dental and vision plans under             COBRA on an employer subsidized basis.

Sincerely,

VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

By:/s/ Jim Johnston                                               Jim Johnston            Senior Vice President Human Resources

cc:        Larry Hough            Ronald Soltman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61443-CIV-SMITH

JOSEPH PETRIE, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

DELEGAL’S PLUMBING, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF FINAL DISMISSAL

This cause is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal without Prejudice 

[DE 18]. Upon consideration, it is hereby:

ORDERED that:

1. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

3. This case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida this 22nd day of February, 2021.

Copies furnished to all counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61443-RS Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/22/2021 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certifications



I, Alan D. Feldman, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my
knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|                                                     
|/s/    ALAN D. FELDMAN                               
|                                                     
|Alan D. Feldman President and Chief Executive Officer



Date:
March 18, 2004



I, William M. Guzik, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  
|/s/    WILLIAM M. GUZIK                                           
|                                                                  
|William M. Guzik Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



Date:
March 18, 2004
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: "Kudlinski James F (Jim)" <Jim.Kudlinski@srpnet.com> Date: 7/21/2010 3:43 PM Subject: Re: SRP Request for Time Extension Attachments: pic19368.gif; SRP ICR Extension Request.pdf Greetings, EPA has reviewed your extension requ est for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire for the following Salt River Project's (SRP) facilities: Coronado Generating Station Desert Generating Station Kyrene Generating Station Navajo Generating Station Santan Generating Station The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 and Version 2 of the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please note that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and remains 120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are granted for Version 3 or 4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for plants receiving these questionnaires remains 90 days after receipt. If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560. Sincerely, (Embedded image moved to file: pic19368.gif)

From: "Kudlinski James F (Jim)" <Jim.Kudlinski@srpnet.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 07/07/2010 10:43 AM Subject: SRP Request for Time Extension

Ms. Alicea:

Attached as a PDF file is SRP’s request for a time extension for completing the CWA Section 308 Information Collection Request that was received at our Coronado, Desert Basin, Kyrene, Navajo and Santan Generating Stations. If you have any questions regarding this request,please feel free to contact me at your convenience. An original signature copy will follow via U.S. Mail. Thank you.

Jim Kudlinski Salt River Project Phoenix, AZ 602-236-2351

(See attached file: SRP ICR Extension Request.pdf)
§ 8365.1-7 State and local laws. Except as otherwise provided by Federal law or regulation, State and local laws and ordinances shall apply and be enforced by the appropriate State and local authorities. This includes, but is not limited to, State and local laws and ordinances governing: ( a ) Operation and use of motor vehicles, aircraft and boats;
( b ) Hunting and fishing;
( c ) Use of firearms or other weapons;
( d ) Injury to persons, or destruction or damage to property;
( e ) Air and water pollution;
( f ) Littering;
( g ) Sanitation;
( h ) Use of fire;
( i ) Pets;
( j ) Forest products; and
( k ) Caves.
### §2711. Application for warrant

A United States attorney or assistant United States attorney or a person authorized by the Attorney General—

(1) upon his own affidavit or that of another credible person, stating the existence of either of the grounds of attachments enumerated in section 2710 of this title and

(2) upon production of legal evidence of the debt

may apply for a warrant of attachment to a judge, or, in his absence, to the clerk of any court of the United States having original jurisdiction of the cause of action.

(Added Pub. L. 86–682, §9, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 707.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was derived from R.S. §925, which was originally classified to section 738 of former Title 28. Following the general revision and enactment of Title 28 by act June 25, 1948, R.S. §925 was reclassified to section 838 of Title 39. R.S. §925 was repealed by section 12(c) of Pub. L. 86–682 (section 1 of which revised and enacted Title 39), and reenacted by section 9 thereof as section 2711 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 1, 1960, see section 11 of Pub. L. 86–682, 74 Stat. 708.
EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 302-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 302-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### Kathrine C. Gould, Respondent, v. Howard Gould, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.