alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-98-29 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, April 10, 1998)

NRC STAFF PLANS PERFORMANCE REVIEW MEETING AT WESTINGHOUSE

COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL DIVISION IN COLUMBIA, SC

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a meeting with officials of

Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Columbia, South Carolina at noon on Thursday,

April 16 at the company’s Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division to discuss the plant’s

regulatory performance.

NRC officials will discuss the latest licensee performance review which

evaluated safety operations, safeguards, radiological controls, facility support and

licensing activities from January 1, 1996 through January 31 of this year. The NRC

uses this periodic assessment of licensed fuel facilities to plan its inspection program

for the next year as well as to give the company feedback on its performance.

The NRC identified several strengths in worker safety training and the overall

reduction in worker exposures to radioactivity. In a letter to Westinghouse, NRC

Regional Administrator Luis Reyes also said the NRC staff recognized the company’s

effort to enhance the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan. He also noted a

recent improvement in communications with NRC in reporting events at the facility.

The NRC review also found several areas needing improvement, especially the

management control program to assure plant activities are in compliance with license

conditions. In his letter, Reyes identified additional challenges such as assuring

management expectations are being met by workers and ensuring the quality of safety

programs despite staffing cuts.

Based on the review, the NRC has decided to generally maintain its current

overall level of inspection effort. Increased inspections in nuclear criticality safety and

management controls will be offset by fewer inspections in radiation protection and

waste management. The NRC staff will also pay particular attention to Westinghouse

actions to improve emergency preparedness.

The April 16 meeting is open to interested members of the public and the media

for observation, and NRC officials will be available at the conclusion of the meeting to

answer any questions.
###

EDITORS: Copies of the cover letter and summary outline of the NRC licensee

performance review of Westinghouse are available from this office.
### §565. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–382, title III, §391(i), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4023

Section, Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6306(b), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1541, related to study and report respecting failure to provide internationally recognized worker rights.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.1001 Scope of rules. ( a ) The rules of practice in this subpart apply to VOSB or SDVOSB status protests. A VOSB or SDVOSB status protest is the process by which an interested party (*see* § 134.1002(b)) may challenge a concern's inclusion in the SBA Veteran Small Business Certification Program database or the VOSB or SDVOSB status of an apparent successful offeror on a VOSB or SDVOSB contract, including a joint venture submitting an offer under § 128.402 of this chapter. OHA will also consider a protest challenging whether a prime contractor is unduly reliant on a small, non-similarly situated entity subcontractor or if such subcontractor performs the primary and vital requirements of the contract.
( b ) Except where inconsistent with this subpart, the provisions of subparts A and B of this part apply to protests listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) The protest procedures described in this subpart are separate from those governing size protests and size appeals. All protests relating to whether a VOSB or SDVOSB is a “small” business for purposes of any Federal program are subject to part 121 of this chapter and must be filed in accordance with that part. If a protester protests both the size of a VOSB or SDVOSB and the concern's eligibility for the SBA Veteran Small Business Certification Program, SBA will process each protest concurrently, under the procedures set forth in part 121 of this chapter and this part. SBA does not review issues concerning the administration of a VOSB or SDVOSB contract.
( d ) Appeals of denials and cancellations of certification for inclusion in the Veteran Small Business Certification Program are governed by subpart K of this part.
Exhibit 32(a)**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rocky Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thefiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Mike Brooks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Mike Brooks   Mike Brooks, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  July 31, 2007
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-16 April 1, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT BYRON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance

remains acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the Byron nuclear

power plant, located near Byron, Illinois.

The review covers April 1 of last year through January 31.

Geoffrey Grant, NRC Region III Division Director, in a letter to Commonwealth

Edison Company, said, “Overall performance at Byron Generating Station was

acceptable. The operation of the facility was conducted in a safe and controlled

manner. The material condition of the plant was very good due to engineering support

and the high quality of maintenance work, which resulted in a dual unit run for most of

the assessment period with few challenges to the operating staff.”

“However, recurring configuration control issues and human performance errors

represented significant challenges which had not yet been effectively addressed,” Grant

continued. “The plant support programs such as radiation protection, chemistry, and

security were well implemented.”

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

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

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

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

plant performance and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is utilizing to monitor

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

suspending the Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a

new assessment program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every

12 to 24 months.
The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will

provide quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators

and on inspection findings. This program will be tested at eight sites beginning in June

and will be extended to all plants next January. A full description of the new program is

available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

###
#### § 6.54 Agreement to alternative amendments.

If the denial of a request to amend a record includes proposed alternative amendments, and if the requestor agrees to accept them, he or she must notify the official who signed the denial. That official immediately shall instruct the system manager to make the necessary amendments in accordance with § 6.52.
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Michael B. Wheeler, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of TufcoTechnologies, Inc., certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TufcoTechnologies, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this Report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this Report is beingprepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004
/s/ Michael B. Wheeler
### §1437b. Support for out-of-area covered employees

#### (a) In general

All covered employees whose location of employment is outside of the Washington, DC area (referred to in this section as "out-of-area covered employees") shall have equitable access to the resources and services provided by the Office and under this chapter as is provided to covered employees who work in the Washington, DC area.

#### (b) Office of Congressional Workplace Rights

The Office shall—

(1) establish a method by which out-of-area covered employees may communicate securely with the Office, which shall include an option for real-time audiovisual communication; and

(2) provide guidance to employing offices regarding how each office can facilitate equitable access to the resources and services provided under this chapter for its out-of-area covered employees, including information regarding the communication methods described in paragraph (1).

#### (c) Employing offices

It is the sense of Congress that each employing office with out-of-area covered employees should use its best efforts to facilitate equitable access to the resources and services provided under this chapter for those employees.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title V, §510, as added Pub. L. 115–397, title III, §307(a)(2), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5325.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 104–1, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 3, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1301 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 510 of Pub. L. 104–1 was renumbered section 511 and is classified to section 1438 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon expiration of the 180-day period beginning on Dec. 21, 2018, with provisions for effect on pending proceedings, see section 401 of Pub. L. 115–397, set out as an Effective Date of 2018 Amendment note under section 1301 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 43—UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES**

Sec.
631.
Appointment and tenure.
632.
Character of service.
633.
Determination of number, locations, and salaries of magistrate judges.
634.
Compensation.
635.
Expenses.
636.
Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment.
637.
Training.
638.
Dockets and forms; United States Code; seals.
639.
Definitions.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1972**—Pub. L. 92–239, §3, Mar. 1, 1972, 86 Stat. 47, substituted "Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment" for "Jurisdiction and powers" in item 636.

**1968**—Pub. L. 90–578, title I, §101, Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1108, substituted "MAGISTRATES" for "COMMISSIONERS" in chapter heading, and "Character of service" for "Park commissioners; jurisdiction and powers; procedure" in item 632, "Determination of number, locations, and salaries of magistrates" for "Fees and expenses" in item 633, "Compensation" for "Salaries of park commissioners; disposition of fees" in item 634, "Expenses" for "Park commissioners; residence" in item 635, "Jurisdiction and powers" for "Accounts" in item 636, "Training" for "Oaths, acknowledgments, affidavits and depositions" in item 637, "Dockets and forms; United States Code; seals" for "Seals" in item 638, and "Definitions" for "Dockets and forms; United States Code" in item 639.

**1954**—Act Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 728, §1(c), 68 Stat. 704, inserted "and expenses" after "Fees" in item 633.

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

#### Change of Name

"UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES" substituted for "UNITED STATES MAGISTRATES" in chapter heading and "magistrate judges" substituted for "magistrates" in item 633 pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.
### §1851. Criminal sanctions

#### (a) Violations of chapter or regulations

Any person who willfully and knowingly violates this chapter or any regulation under this chapter shall be fined not more than $1,000 or sentenced to prison for a term not to exceed one year, or both. Upon conviction for any subsequent violation of this chapter or any regulation under this chapter, the defendant shall be fined not more than $10,000 or sentenced to prison for a term not to exceed three years, or both.

#### (b) Violations of section 1324a(a) of title 8

If a farm labor contractor who commits a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1324a(a) of title 8 has been refused issuance or renewal of, or has failed to obtain, a certificate of registration or is a farm labor contractor whose certificate has been suspended or revoked, the contractor shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 or sentenced to prison for a term not to exceed three years, or both.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title V, §501, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2596; Pub. L. 99–603, title I, §101(b)(1)(D), Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3372.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 99–603 substituted "paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1324a(a) of title 8" for "section 1816 of this title".

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–603 applicable to employment, recruitment, referral, or utilization of services of an individual occurring on or after first day of seventh month beginning after Nov. 6, 1986, see section 101(b)(2) of Pub. L. 99–603, as amended, set out as a note under section 1802 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7414

WILLIAM SMOAK FAIREY, Jr., a/k/a Doak Fairey,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (4:09-cv-01610-RMG)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Smoak Fairey, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Smoak Fairey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 petition 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 Fairey has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We also deny Fairey’s motion to stay state court 

proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
### **CHAPTER 8A—REGULATION OF LOBBYING**
**Exhibit 16.1**
[LETTERHEAD OF HOYMAN, DOBSON & COMPANY, P.A.]
April 11, 2002
Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20549
Re:    Summit Brokerage Services, Inc., a Florida corporation
Ladies and Gentlemen:
     We were previously the independent accountants for the Company and onFebruary 27, 2001, we reported on the financial statements of the Company forthe calendar years ended December 31, 1999 and 2000. On or about October 4,2001, the client-auditor relationship between the Company and Hoyman, Dobson &Company, P.A. ceased.
     We have read the Company’s statements included under Item 8 of its AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 and we agreewith such statements.
/s/ Hoyman, Dobson & Company, P.A.
### §157. Right of employees as to organization, collective bargaining, etc.

Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 158(a)(3) of this title.

(July 5, 1935, ch. 372, §7, 49 Stat. 452; June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title I, §101, 61 Stat. 140.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1947—Act June 23, 1947, restated rights of employees to bargain collectively and inserted provision that they have right to refrain from joining in concerted activities with their fellow employees.

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

#### Effective Date of 1947 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section 104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of this title.
454 P.2d 974

#### Bernard C. McCLESKEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. N. C. RIBBLE COMPANY, Employer, and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, Insurer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 8859.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 13, 1969.

Ordered that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Apeáls Cause No. 271, 80 N.M. 345, 455 P.2d 849 be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.