alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982; 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983; and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

#### § 4.5 What is the Administrator's obligation with respect to Federal interagency coordination?

The Administrator, to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected Federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and FEMA regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

No. III-00-06 January 26, 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 D.C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

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

Kevin A. Coyne as the agency’s resident inspector at the D.C. Cook nuclear power plant in

Stevensville, Michigan.

Prior to joining the NRC’s Region III staff in October, Coyne was a project engineer for the

NRC in its Region 2 office which is located in Atlanta, Georgia. Before joining the NRC, he was a

shift test engineer at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Norfolk, Virginia. He earned a bachelor’s degree in

engineering and two master’s degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering, all from the University

of Virginia.

Coyne, his wife Elizabeth, and two sons live in St. Joseph, Michigan.

Coyne joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Bruce Bartlett and Resident Inspector Joseph

Maynen at D.C. Cook. They can be reached at the D.C. Cook plant at (419) 898-2775.

#####
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60896-60897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Institute of Inspection Cleaning and 
Restoration Certification

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Institute of Inspection 
Cleaning and Restoration Certification (``IICRC'') has filed written 
notifications

[[Page 60897]]

simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization, and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Institute of 
Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification, Vancouver, WA. The 
nature and scope of IICRC's standards development activities are: to 
engage in a segment of the cleaning, restoration and inspection 
industry, primarily involving floor coverings, upholstery, personal 
property, water and fire damage restoration of structures and contents, 
and model remediation of structures and contents.

Dorothy B. Fountain
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-22894 Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1999 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the three months ended September 30,
1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               5,950
<SECURITIES>                                         3,214
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                           414
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    13,290
<PP&E>                                               3,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1,919
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      27,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,581
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                96
<OTHER-SE>                                          18,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        27,729
<SALES>                                              8,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     8,402
<CGS>                                                5,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        5,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2,991
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        546
<INCOME-TAX>                                           263
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    283
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           283
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.03



</TABLE>
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Notice of 

GRANT AVIATION, INC. Docket DOT OST~ 

Intent to terminate service at Clark's Point, Alaska 

Pursuant to 49 USC 41734 

9C.Hlay Notice of Termination of Service 

Correspondence with regard to this document should be addressed to: 

R Bruce McGlasson 

CEO 

Grant Aviation, Inc 

P.O. Box 92200 

Anchorage, AK 99509 

907 529-6999 

bmcg!asson@flygrant.com 

March16, 2015 
Notice of 

GRANT AVIATION, INC 

Intent to terminate service at Clark's Pomt, Alaska 

Pursuant to 49 USC 41734 

Docket DOT-OST90 Day Notice ofTermination of Service 

Pursuant to 49 USC 41734, Grant Aviation, Inc h r by gives notice of its intent to terminate scheduled service to Clark's 

Point, AI ka eff ctiv Jun 14, 2015 

in accordance w1th Section 41734, Grant Av ation In upplies e · !o g information: 

1 Identification of Carner 

Grant Aviation, Inc 

P.O Box 92200 

Anchorage, AK 99509 

Communications with re p ct to ttu document should be directed to: 

R Bruce McGlasson 

CEO 

Grant Aviation, Inc 

P.O. Box 92200 

Anchorage, AK 99.509 

907 529-6999 

bmcglasson@flygrant.com 

2. At the time of this notice Grant Aviation provides scheduled service to C!ark's Point, Alaska. 

3. Grant Aviation's service to Clark's Point consists of 3 flights weekly 

4. Grant Aviation, inc provides the only scheduled air service to Clark's Point, Alaska, transporting passengers, cargo, 

and U.S. Mall to and from Dillingham, Alaska, the closest regional hub providing mainline air service. 

5. The effective date of this notice is March 16, 2015. Grant Aviation is hereby providing public notice of its intent to 

terminate scheduled air service to Clark's Point, Alaska on June 14, 2015, providing the 90 days notice as required. 

Any objections to this Notice to Terminate Service must be filed within 20 days from the date of this filing. 

R. Bruce McGlasson 

CEO 

Grant Aviation, Inc 

P .0. Box 92200 

Anchorage AK 99509-2200 
I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing Notice of Termination to be served on March 15, 2015 to each of 

the persons named below. 

Kevin Schlemmer 

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

kevin.schlemmer@dot.gov 

Rich Sewell 

Aviation Policy Planner 

Division of Statewide Aviation 

Alaska DOT/PF 

Betty Gardiner, City Clerk 

City of Clark's Point 

P.O. Sox 110 

Clark's Point, AK 99569 

cityofdark.spoint@gd.net 

907.236.1221 

Nadine Wassillie 

Tribal Administrator 

Native Village of Clarks Point 

907.236.1427
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4825 

To criminalize the intentional obstruction of roadways on the Interstate 

System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. CRAMER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To criminalize the intentional obstruction of roadways on 

the Interstate System. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Passage on Inter5 states Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 65 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4825 IS

1 ‘‘§ 1370. Obstruction of interstate highways 

2 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘inter3 state highway’ means a highway on the Interstate System 

4 (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23). 

5 ‘‘(b) OFFENSE.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful to 

7 knowingly engage in an activity described in para8 graph (2) on an interstate highway with the intent 

9 to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of 

10 the interstate highway. 

11 ‘‘(2) ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—The activities 

12 described in this paragraph are— 

13 ‘‘(A) deliberately delaying traffic on an 

14 interstate highway; 

15 ‘‘(B) standing or approaching a motor ve16 hicle on an interstate highway; or 

17 ‘‘(C) endangering the safe movement of a 

18 motor vehicle on an interstate highway. 

19 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

20 apply to any lawful activity conducted or authorized 

21 by the United States, a State, or a political subdivi22 sion of a State. 

23 ‘‘(c) PENALTIES.— 

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who violates 

25 subsection (b) shall be fined not more than $10,000, 

26 imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4825 IS

1 ‘‘(2) OBSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY VEHI2 CLE.—Any person who, in the course of violating 

3 subsection (b), knowingly obstructs the passage of 

4 an authorized emergency vehicle (as defined in sec5 tion 1001.4 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, 

6 or any successor regulation) shall be fined not more 

7 than $15,000, imprisoned for not more than 20 

8 years, or both. 

9 ‘‘(3) VIOLATION RESULTING IN DEATH.—Any 

10 person who commits a violation of subsection (b) 

11 that results in the death of any other person shall 

12 be fined not more than the applicable amount under 

13 paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, imprisoned 

14 for any term of years or for life, or both.’’. 

15 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

16 The table of sections for chapter 65 of title 18, United 

17 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing: 

‘‘1370. Obstruction of interstate highways.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.612 Loans eligible to back Certificates. ( a ) Pool Certificates are backed by the SBA guaranteed portions of loans comprising the Pool. An Individual Certificate is backed by the SBA guaranteed portion of a single loan. Any such loan must: ( 1 ) Be current as of the date the Pool is formed or the individual guaranteed portion of a loan is initially sold in the Secondary Market;
( 2 ) Be guaranteed under the Act; and
( 3 ) Meet such other standards as SBA may determine to be necessary for the successful operation of the Secondary Market program.
( b ) The loans that back a Pool must meet the SBA requirements in effect at the time the Pool is formed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6583

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CECIL VANN GILBERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:14-cr-00051-FL-1; 4:15-cv-00104-

FL)

Submitted: November 30, 2018 Decided: December 3, 2018

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cecil Vann Gilbert, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cecil Vann Gilbert seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilbert has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-22935-FAM

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, LLC,

Defendant.

/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff WINDY LUCIUS (“Plaintiff”) respectfully submits this Notice of Settlement, and 

informs the Court as follows:

1. Plaintiff has reached an agreement with Defendant MOD SUPER FAST PIZZA, 

LLC (“Defendant”) to resolve the claims against it.

2. The parties are in the process of finalizing a confidential settlement agreement and 

will be filing a Notice of Dismissal with the Court within sixty (60) days.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com

Case 1:20-cv-22935-FAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 8, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22935-FAM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit “3”

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1843-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2024 Page 1 of 2
Insider Investors

Confirmation 

Number / 

Claim Number

Who is the current creditor? Asserted Claim 

Amount 

Allowed Claim 

Amount

20167 MHL Union Alliance LLC-AGM Capital Fund 66,969,888.87 -

20168 MHL Union Alliance LLC - AGM Cap Fund 2 18,431,806.84 - 

409 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 2,000,000.00 1,200,000.08 

410 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 5,346,666.68 2,293,333.25 

476 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 3,139,374.98 1,860,208.47 

477 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 1,757,500.01 531,666.51 

478 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 4,956,666.61 1,442,677.99 

483 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 10,710,333.32 2,559,191.39 

484 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 2,281,666.66 544,166.66 

499 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 241,875.00 68,437.50 

500 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 164,375.00 36,250.00 

501 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 75,249.98 21,291.77 

502 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 3,981,250.00 1,419,010.46 

544 Redacted - Chehebar Investor 15,500,000.00 6,134,479.11 

$ 18,110,713.19 135,556,653.95 $ 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1843-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2024 Page 2 of 2
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. 97-133 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Monday, September 15,

1997)

NRC AMENDS OPERATING LICENSE OF WATTS BAR TO PERMIT

LIMITED PRODUCTION OF TRITIUM FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has amended the

license of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar nuclear

power plant to allow a limited amount of tritium to be produced

for the Department of Energy.

Under the terms of the license amendment, four special

assemblies, each holding eight rods containing lithium, will be

loaded into the Watts Bar commercial reactor, near Spring City,

Tenn., during its current refueling outage.

As the reactor operates, these rods will soak up excess

neutrons, converting some of the lithium they contain into

tritium. After 18 months inside the reactor, the rods will be

removed from the reactor and stored in the spent fuel pool. Then

they will be placed in shipping casks and shipped by DOE to a

facility in Richland, Washington, for examination. About one

ounce of tritium is expected to be produced during the

demonstration test but will not be used in any weapons.

The United States has not produced tritium -- a radioactive

form of hydrogen used in the fusion stage of nuclear weapons --

since 1988, when DOE closed a special production facility at the

Savannah River plant, near Aiken, S.C. Current, short-term

tritium needs are being met by recycling tritium from dismantled

nuclear weapons.

DOE is responsible for establishing the capability to

produce tritium by the end of 2005, in accord with a Presidential

directive. DOE is considering plans to produce tritium in

commercial light-water reactors, either by purchasing a reactor

for its use, or by contracting with private industry at an

existing NRC-licensed facility. Under the terms of a joint

DOE/NRC Memorandum of Understanding of May 22, 1996, NRC is

providing assistance to DOE in assessing and resolving technical

and licensing issues involved in using commercial reactors for

this purpose.
The NRC staff held a public meeting in Sweetwater, Tenn., on

August 7 to provide a review and opportunity for public comment

on the proposed demonstration test at Watts Bar. TVA submitted

its license amendment request to the NRC staff on April 30.

According to DOE, the primary purpose of the Watts Bar

demonstration is to build confidence among prospective licensees,

who may contract with DOE to produce tritium.

#
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No. 97-63-II FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Tuesday, September 2, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $55,000 FINE AGAINST SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $55,000 civil penalty against

Virginia Power for violations of NRC requirements relating to maintenance at the Surry nuclear

power plant near Surry, Virginia.

The violations are directly related to Virginia Power’s failure to meet the requirements of

10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear

Power Plants.” That regulation, called the maintenance rule, became effective in July 1996 and

was designed to ensure licensees evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance to minimize the

likelihood of failure of safety-significant equipment. The maintenance rule sets forth

requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance and not for performing

maintenance.

In a letter to Virginia Power, NRC Regional Administrator Luis Reyes writes that “Surry

has a good performance record in the maintenance area” and that the company has improved the

condition of the plant and replaced unreliable equipment. However, the letter says Virginia

Power had not fully integrated the maintenance rule into appropriate programs at Surry and “the

failure to implement requirements of the maintenance rule is considered to be a significant

regulatory concern.”

The first violation cited involved the failure to include some equipment in a program to

monitor performance against established goals as required by the maintenance rule. The second

violation included seven examples of failures to demonstrate that structures, systems or

components within the scope of the rule had appropriate preventive maintenance to remain

capable of performing their function. Other violations were related to a significant failure to

establish and implement maintenance rule procedures at the plant. The NRC staff has proposed a

$55,000 civil penalty for all the violations.

The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the fine or

protest its imposition.

#