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. 96-50 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, March 8, 1996)

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $100,000 FINE FOR APS

IN PALO VERDE WHISTLEBLOWER CASE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$100,000 fine against the Arizona Public Service Co. for a

violation of NRC requirements that protect employees who raise

safety concerns from discrimination. APS operates the Palo Verde

Nuclear Generating Station 50 miles west of Phoenix.

A Department of Labor proceeding and a subsequent NRC

investigation determined that Thomas Saporito was unlawfully

discriminated against in December 1991 when an APS supervisor did

not select him to work on a Palo Verde Unit 1 refueling outage.

Mr. Saporito, an instrumentation and control technician, worked

for a contractor, The Atlantic Group.

Mr. Saporito alleged that the APS supervisor discriminated

against him because he had made nuclear safety-related complaints

in the past at Palo Verde and other nuclear plants and filed a

complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. In May 1993 a DOL

administrative law judge issued a decision that found APS had

discriminated against Mr. Saporito.

The supervisor was terminated by APS and later admitted in

U.S. District Court that he had discriminated against Mr.

Saporito. Last September, he was fined $50 and sentenced to a

year's probation for the wrongdoing. In 1993, APS and Mr.

Saporito reached a settlement of the case filed before the

Department of Labor.

L. Joe Callan, Regional Administrator of the NRC Region IV

office in Arlington, Texas, informed APS of the fine in a letter

on Thursday.

``...[T]his violation is significant because it went

undiscovered and uncorrected for more than 19 months, during

which time the overall environment at Palo Verde for raising

safety concerns was in need of substantial attention,'' Mr.

Callan said.

``In addition, while APS eventually reported this violation

to the NRC, the report came only after [the APS supervisor] had
admitted to APS' attorneys that he provided false information

concerning his actions to the ALJ [administrative law judge].''

The supervisor admitted to APS attorneys in August 1993 that

he had discriminated against Mr. Saporito.

Mr. Callan indicated the NRC recognizes that APS has taken

corrective actions to assure an environment in which employees

and contractors may feel free to raise safety concerns without

fear of retaliation. He said the NRC does not disagree with APS'

assertion that the improved environment is evidenced by

statistics and employee surveys.

The NRC categorized the violation as a Severity Level III.

The NRC enforcement system uses four Severity Levels, with Level

I the most serious.

APS has 30 days to reply to the citation. During that time,

it may pay the fine or protest it. If a protest is denied and the

fine is imposed, the company may ask for a hearing.

####
#### In the Matter of James B. Hammond, Deceased.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### § 11.17 Referral to Department of Justice.

When Department of Justice approval or consultation is required under § 11.16, the referral or request shall be transmitted to the Department of Justice by the Chief Counsel or his or her designee.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 3
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 3
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-81 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 3 of 3
§ 303.3 Application requirements and evaluation criteria. ( a ) For Planning Investment awards, EDA uses the general application evaluation criteria set forth in § 301.8 of this chapter. In addition, applications for Planning Investments must include information about the following: ( 1 ) The proposed scope of work for the development, implementation, revision or replacement of the CEDS, or the relation of the CEDS to the proposed short-term planning activities or the State plan;
( 2 ) Qualifications of the Eligible Applicant to implement the goals and objectives resulting from the CEDS, short-term planning activities or the State plan;
( 3 ) The involvement of the Region's business leadership at each stage of the preparation of the CEDS, short-term planning activities or State plan;
( 4 ) Extent of broad-based representation and involvement of the Region's civic, business, labor, minority and other interests in the Eligible Applicant's economic development activities; and
( 5 ) Feasibility of the proposed scope of work to create and retain new and better jobs through implementation of the CEDS.
( b ) In addition to the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, funded Recipients are evaluated on the basis of the extent of continuing economic distress within the Region, their past performance, and the overall effectiveness of their CEDS.
( c ) For Planning Investment awards to a State, the Assistant Secretary also shall consider the extent to which the State will integrate and coordinate its CEDS with local and Economic Development District plans.
( d ) The Investment Rates for Planning Investments will be determined in accordance with § 301.4 of this chapter.
[71 FR 56675, Sept. 27, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 76129, Dec. 19, 2014]
### §632. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 90–202, §13, Dec. 15, 1967, 81 Stat. 607; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §2, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 19807, 92 Stat. 3781, which required the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to submit to Congress an annual report on the Commission's activities including an evaluation and appraisal of the effect of the minimum and maximum ages established by this chapter, terminated, effective May 15, 2000, pursuant to section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance. See, also, page 123 of House Document No. 103–7.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-05 January 22, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSAL TO TERMINATE

LICENSE OF SHELWELL SERVICES, INC., HEBRON, OHIO

*********************************************************

New Date for meeting previously scheduled for January 13

*********************************************************

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public

meeting on February 2 on the request by Shelwell Services, Inc.,

to terminate its NRC license. The Shelwell facility is located

at 645 East Main Street, Hebron, Ohio.

The meeting will start at 7 p.m. at AmeriHost Hotel, 122

Arrowhead Boulevard, in Hebron, Ohio.

The NRC staff will discuss the license termination process,

present an update on its reviews and inspections of the company,

receive comments from members of the public, and respond to

questions.

Shelwell is licensed by the NRC to use radioactive material

in well-logging and tracer studies of oil and gas wells. In

January of last year, the company asked the NRC to terminate its

license, as it will no longer be using radioactive material in

its business.

NRC inspectors in November of last year conducted

radiological surveys at Shelwell along with an NRC contractor,

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. The special

inspection was observed by a representative from the Ohio

Department of Health. Results from the inspection will be

discussed at the meeting.

A small volume of contaminated soil and nine sealed

radiation sources stored at the facility will need to be removed

prior to NRC terminating the company’s license. After removal of

the waste and sources, NRC inspectors will survey the storage

building to ensure that the site is suitable for unrestricted

use.
In 1983, Shelwell accidentally drilled into a cesium-137

sealed source which caused the spread of radioactive

contamination. The company substantially decontaminated the site

following the event and recently completed additional cleanup

activities.

NRC is currently preparing an environmental assessment of

Shelwell’s license termination request and the final findings

will be published in a Federal Register notice prior to a

decision by the NRC staff.

####

Note: This meeting was previously announced in News Release NRCIII-98-61, issued December 30, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LEVIATHAN
GAS PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AT MARCH 31, 1998 INCLUDED IN ITS FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,635
<PP&E>                                         309,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 410,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,810
<BONDS>                                        251,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   410,800
<SALES>                                          9,135
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,714
<CGS>                                            2,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,722
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,565)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (141)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,424)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 2932.40 Permit stipulations and terms.
#### § 64.2 Definitions.

The definitions set forth in part 59 of this subchapter are applicable to this part.

[41 FR 46986, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979]
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-20   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 1 of 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-20   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 2 of 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-20   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 3 of 4

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-20   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 4 of 4
#### § 9.3 Severability.

Any provision of this part held to be invalid or unenforceable as applied to any action should be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding is that the provision of this part is invalid and unenforceable in all circumstances, in which event the provision should be severable from the remainder of this subpart and shall not affect the remainder thereof.

[89 FR 57038, July 11, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                  UNITED TEXTILES & TOYS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X


     The schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
financial  statements  for the three months ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such statements.

</LEGEND> 
       
<S>                                                  <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         jun-30-1998
<CASH>                                                   488,130
<SECURITIES>                                                   0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                             72,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                            9,376,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      10,192,785
<PP&E>                                                 6,676,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (3,634,409)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        15,401,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 10,192,785
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   4,550
<OTHER-SE>                                           (2,926,630)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          15,401,980
<SALES>                                                6,358,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,358,709
<CGS>                                                  3,706,331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          3,706,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       2,784,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       165,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (221,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (221,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0     
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (221,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.05)

        



</TABLE>
Exhibit  99.1

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

I, Angelo Tullo, Chairman of YP.Net, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to
the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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




Dated: March 31, 2003



                                      /s/ ANGELO TULLO
                                      ----------------
                                      Angelo Tullo,
                                      Chairman


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

I, David Iannini, Chief Financial Officer of YP.Net, Inc. (the "Company"),
certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
     September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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




Dated: March 31, 2003



                                      /s/ DAVID IANNINI
                                      -----------------
                                      David Iannini,
                                      Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








As
independent registered public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-107721 on Form
S-8 of our report dated December 18, 2007, (except for Note 19, as to which the
date is May 12, 2008) relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
LiveDeal, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2007 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for
the year ended September 30, 2007, included in the 2007 Annual Report on Form
10-K/A of LiveDeal, Inc. and Subsidiaries.








/s/ Mayer Hoffman
      McCann P.C.Phoenix,
      ArizonaMay
      12, 2008
### §1905. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) the terms "Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults who are Deaf-Blind" and "Center" mean the Helen Keller National Center for Youths and Adults who are Deaf-Blind, and its affiliated network, operated pursuant to this chapter;

(2) the term "individual who is deaf-blind" means any individual—

(A)(i) who has a central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with corrective lenses, or a field defect such that the peripheral diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees, or a progressive visual loss having a prognosis leading to one or both these conditions;

(ii) who has a chronic hearing impairment so severe that most speech cannot be understood with optimum amplification, or a progressive hearing loss having a prognosis leading to this condition; and

(iii) for whom the combination of impairments described in clauses (i) and (ii) cause extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining a vocation;

(B) who despite the inability to be measured accurately for hearing and vision loss due to cognitive or behavioral constraints, or both, can be determined through functional and performance assessment to have severe hearing and visual disabilities that cause extreme difficulty in attaining independence in daily life activities, achieving psychosocial adjustment, or obtaining vocational objectives; or

(C) meets such other requirements as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation; and

(3) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Education.

(Pub. L. 98–221, title II, §206, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 34; Pub. L. 102–569, title IX, §§905, 908(c)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4482, 4486.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Par. (1). Pub. L. 102–569, §§905(1), 908(c)(1), substituted "Youths and Adults who are Deaf-Blind" for "Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults" in two places and struck out "section 313 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and continued under" after "operated pursuant to".

Par. (2). Pub. L. 102–569, §905(2), amended par. (2) generally, substituting present provisions for provisions defining "deaf-blind individual".
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00162-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-001350-1

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SHALANDRA DABBS, Appellant

V.

CHICORY COURT, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On November 12, 2020, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed 

as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant filed with 

the court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the 

brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: December 17, 2020
§ 321.5 Retention of industrial facilities. ( a ) Industrial properties, owned by the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Maritime Administration, shall be retained in the Industrial reserves (National Industrial Reserve, Departmental Industrial Reserve for the Department of Defense) of the department and agencies to the extent the capacity of said reserves is necessary for the production of defense or defense-supporting end items, materials or components in a mobilization period.
( b ) Each idle plant in the reserves shall be reviewed annually by the heads of the respective agencies to determine if the capacity of the plant continues necessary for mobilization purposes.
( c ) Upon the determination by the head of the agency that the capacity of a plant is excess to the mobilization requirements of the agency immediate steps will be taken to dispose of the plant through existing government channels for surplus disposal. The Federal Emergency Management Agency shall be informed by General Services Administration of each proposed surplus action prior to final determination.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417

No. II-97-45 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONCERNS WITH TVA

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional

enforcement conference with the Tennessee Valley Authority on Friday, June 27,

to discuss the events surrounding an inadvertent draining of some of the water

in the reactor coolant system on Unit 1 at the Sequoyah nuclear plant. The

events occurred on March 24 of this year while Unit 1 was shut down for a

refueling outage.

The meeting will be held in the NRC Atlanta office, located at 61 Forsyth

Street, Room 24T20, at 10:30 a.m. It will be open to observation by the

public.

The NRC staff is considering two apparent violations as a result of the

March event. The failure to take adequate corrective actions after a similar

event in 1993 is considered to be an apparent violation, and the failure of

operators to maintain control room oversight, stabilize plant conditions and

accurately log the plant’s status is also considered an apparent violation.

NRC officials said the decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that a determination has been made that a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes, and safety significance; to provide

the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been

made in NRC inspection reports; and to enable the company to outline its

proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement

action, such as a civil penalty, will be made at the conference. Those

decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

#