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. 99-75 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, April 13, 1999)

NRC APPROVES TRANSFER OF THREE MILE ISLAND PLANT

OPERATING LICENSE TO AMERGEN ENERGY CO.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of the operating license

for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, near Harrisburg, Pa., from GPU Nuclear Inc. to

AmerGen Energy Co.

AmerGen, jointly owned by PECO Energy Co. and British Energy Inc., has reached

agreement to acquire the plant from GPU and its co-owners -- Metropolitan Edison Co., Jersey

Central Power and Light Co., and Pennsylvania Electric Co.

Three Mile Island Unit 1 will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant directly purchased, in

part, by foreign interests. NRC approval of the sale and license transfer includes conditions with

these provisions relating to the foreign ownership:

ˇ At least half of the members of AmerGen’s Management Committee shall be U.S.

citizens, to be named by the non-foreign member group of AmerGen (currently PECO).

ˇ The chief executive officer, the chief nuclear officer and the AmerGen management

committee chairman must all be U.S. citizens. These officials shall ensure that the plant

is operated in accordance with NRC requirements to protect public health and safety, as

well as the common defense and security of the United States.

ˇ AmerGen must also inform the NRC of any filings with the Securities and Exchange

Commission that disclose “beneficial ownership” of PECO stock.

AmerGen also will be required to meet the NRC’s requirements for insurance or other

financial means to cover on-site property damage and public liability claims in the event of a

major nuclear accident. It must further provide decommissioning funding assurance of no less

than $303 million. Based on the information which the company has filed, the NRC has

concluded that AmerGen has the financial and technical qualifications to operate the facility and

eventually to decommission it.

The NRC received one request for a hearing on the license transfer after it published a

Federal Register notice in December concerning the application. The Commission denied this

request in February on the grounds that the petition had not met the criteria for hearings in the

NRC’s regulations. Comments by the petitioner, and by one other individual, were considered

by the NRC staff in its review of the AmerGen application.
This license transfer does not affect Three Mile Island Unit 2, which is permanently shut

down.

###

NOTE: The text of the NRC order approving the license transfer is posted on the NRC

w

e

b

p

a

g

e

a

t

:

:

h

t

t

p

:

/

/

w

w

w

.

n

r

c

.

g

o

v

/

O

P

A

/

r

e

p

o

r

t

s

/

t
miorder.htm
### §3907. Other judicial review prohibited

Except as expressly authorized by this chapter and chapter 5 of title 3, the compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of chapter 5 of title 3, and any action taken pursuant to chapter 5 of title 3, shall not be subject to judicial review.

(Added Pub. L. 104–331, §3(c), Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4071.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1997, see section 3(d) of Pub. L. 104–331, set out as a note under section 1296 of this title.
#### § 15.11 Distribution of handbills.

We prohibit the distribution of materials such as pamphlets, handbills or flyers, and the displaying of placards or posting of materials on bulletin boards or elsewhere at Mt. Weather and the NETC unless the Administrator, the Mt. Weather Executive Director, or the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the United States Fire Administration or designee, approves such distribution or display, or when such distribution or display is conducted as part of authorized government activities.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-124 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Mary M. Schroeder, Senior United States Circuit **

Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by

designation.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BEGOIA MORGANDE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON; D. K. SISTO,

Warden,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 12-16267

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01824-MMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge, Presiding**

Submitted September 24, 2013***

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

OCT 03 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-16267

California state prisoner Begoia Morgande appeals pro se from the district

court’s order denying his motion to reopen the time to file an appeal of the

judgment. We affirm.

Morgande contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to

reopen the time to file an appeal. We review for abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Withers, 638 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not

abuse its discretion when it denied Morgande’s motion under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) because it was filed more than two years after the

judgment had been entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B); In re Stein, 197 F.3d

421, 425 (9th Cir. 1999) (district courts lack discretion to grant motions to reopen

filed outside the 180-day period in Rule 4(a)(6)(B) even if appellant did not receive

notice of the judgment).

We construe Morgande’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-

1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.
### §2043. Authorization and direction to effectuate purposes of sections 2042 to 2047 of this title

The Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to carry into effect for the United States Senate the provisions of sections 2042 to 2047 of this title and to exercise the authorities contained herein, and any resolution of the Senate amendatory hereof or supplementary hereto hereafter adopted. Such authority and direction shall continue until the United States Senate shall by resolution otherwise order, or until the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration shall by resolution order the restaurants to be returned to the committee's jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 87–82, §3, July 6, 1961, 75 Stat. 199.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Herein, referred to in text, means Pub. L. 87–82, July 6, 1961, 75 Stat. 199, which enacted sections 2042 to 2047 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 174j–3 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 10.12

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This First Amendment ("Amendment") to the Employment Agreement
("Employment Agreement") between ICO, Inc., a Texas corporation (the "Company"),
and Timothy J. Gollin (the "Employee") is dated this 31st day of October, 2002.

         1.       Paragraph 2.7 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended,
effective as of November 1, 2002, to read as follows:

              "During the Employment Period, the Employee shall be entitled to
              fringe benefits in accordance with the policies of the Company as
              in effect immediately preceding the Effective Date or as in effect
              at any time thereafter with respect to other key employees. In
              lieu of use of a Company vehicle, and maintenance, repair,
              insurance, and fuel charges associated therewith, the Employee
              shall receive a monthly vehicle allowance in the sum of $1,380.00
              ("Vehicle Allowance"), paid in advance on the first payday of each
              month. The Vehicle Allowance shall be periodically adjusted to
              reflect inflation. As reimbursement for fuel and vehicle-related
              charges incurred by Employee when using Employee's personal
              vehicle on Company business, Employee shall be reimbursed at the
              IRS reimbursement rate of $0.365 per mile (or the prevailing
              rate)."

         2.       All terms and conditions in the Employment Agreement that are
not amended by this Amendment continue to be in full force and effect.


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

ICO, INC.

By:    /s/   Jon C. Biro                                 /s/ Timothy J. Gollin
    -------------------------------                      ----------------------
                                                         Timothy J. Gollin
Printed Name: Jon C. Biro

Title: CFO and Treasurer




                                      S-4
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.772 Accumulation. ( a ) An originating good or material produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties that is incorporated into a good in the territory of the other Party will be considered to originate in the territory of the other Party.
( b ) A good that is grown, produced, or manufactured in the territory of one or both of the Parties by one or more producers is an originating good if the good satisfies the requirements of § 10.770 of this subpart and all other applicable requirements of General Note 27, HTSUS.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 8 -00 589 -CR
G ar lan d Sc r og gin s , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 331S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3012 305 , HO NORAB LE B OB PERK INS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N This is an attempted appe al from the denial of a ppellant’s “Motion for

Nunc Pro Tunc Orde r to Correc t Invalid Affir mative Findingof a D eadly Weapon.” The de nial of a motion for a nunc pro tunc judgme nt is not an appea lable orde r. Ev e re tt v . S tate , 8 2 S.W .3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet dism’d). B eca use this appea l does not fall within the exceptions to the g ener al rule that appea l ma y be taken only from a final judgme nt of conviction, we have no jurisd ic tio n. Ac c or din g ly , w e dis mis s th e a pp e a l.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Oc tober 30, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
#### § 127.505 [Reserved]
#### Frank Taylor, Appellant, v. Lily B. M. Fenn, as Executrix, etc., Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals granted, and questions for review certified.
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-96-49

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Victor Dricks July 25, 1996

NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.

$80,000 FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FORMER WORKER

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has cited Niagara

Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) for alleged discrimination

against a former employee at its Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station

near Oswego, N.Y. The staff has proposed a fine of $80,000.

The NRC staff proposed the fine after a Department of Labor

administrative law judge determined last March that a former

employee was discriminated against for raising safety concerns.

The former worker's concerns about the adequacy of the plant's

alternate shutdown cooling procedure, are still being evaluated

by NRC staff.

According to the administrative law judge, NMPC

discriminated against the worker by terminating his employment at

the Nine Mile Point site in 1994, after he raised safety

concerns. Federal law protects workers who raise safety concerns

with management or with NRC staff about possible violations of

NRC rules and regulations. In a letter to NMPC officials, NRC

Region I Administrator Thomas T. Martin said the licensee's acts

of discrimination "are significant, because they could have a

chilling effect on other licensee or contractor personnel and

deter them from identifying and/or raising safety concerns."

To emphasize the importance of maintaining a work

environment in which employees are free to engage in protected

activities without fear of retaliation, the NRC staff proposed a

$80,000 fine against the licensee, the base civil penalty for a

Severity Level II violation. Since the civil penalty is based on

a recommended decision and order of the administrative law judge,

NMPC may delay payment until 30 days after the final decision of

the Secretary of Labor. However, the licensee is required,

within 30 days, to document the specific actions it has taken and

additional actions it plans to take to prevent recurrence and

counter the perceived "chilling effect" of the discriminatory

action.

***
#### § 102.24 Entry of textile or apparel products.

Textile or apparel products subject to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854), whether or not the requirements set forth in § 102.21 or § 102.22, as applicable, have been met, will be denied entry where the factory, producer, manufacturer, or other company named in the entry documents for such textile or apparel products is named in a directive published in the Federal Register by the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements as a company found to be illegally transshipping, closed or unable to produce records to verify production. In these circumstances, no additional information will be accepted or considered by CBP for purposes of determining the admissibility of such textile or apparel products.

[CBP Dec. 05-32, 70 FR 58013, Oct. 5, 2005, as amended by CBP Dec. 12-19, 77 FR 72719, Dec. 6, 2012]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAssessment of aerodynamic performance of V/STOL and STOVL fighter aircraftThe aerodynamic performance of V/STOL and STOVL fighter/attack aircraft was assessed. Aerodynamic and propulsion/airframe integration activities are described and small and large scale research programs are considered. Uncertainties affecting aerodynamic performance that are associated with special configuration features resulting from the V/STOL requirement are addressed. Example uncertainties relate to minimum drag, wave drag, high angle of attack characteristics, and power induced effects.Document ID19840014468Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsNelms, W. P.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1984Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberA-9690NASA-TM-85937NAS 1.15:85937Accession Number84N22536Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-43-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840014468.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §1922. Witness fees before United States magistrate judges

The fees of more than four witnesses shall not be taxed against the United States, in the examination of any criminal case before a United States magistrate judge, unless their materiality and importance are first approved and certified to by the United States attorney for the district in which the examination is had.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 956; Pub. L. 90–578, title IV, §402(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1118; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §828 (R.S. §981; May 28, 1896, ch. 252, §19, 29 Stat. 184).

Last clause of section 828 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., providing "and such taxation shall be subject to revision, as in other cases" was omitted as unnecessary in view of the inherent power of the court to revise costs taxed.

Changes were made in phraseology.

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

#### Change of Name

"United States magistrate judges" substituted for "United States magistrates" in section catchline and "United States magistrate judge" substituted for "United States magistrate" in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title. Previously, "United States magistrates" and "United States magistrate" substituted for "United States commissioners" and "United States commissioner", respectively, pursuant to Pub. L. 90–578. See chapter 43 (§631 et seq.) of this title.
### §121b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 121b was editorially reclassified as a note under section 6634 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.846 Requirements for maintaining and renewing PCLP status. ( a ) To maintain its status as a PCLP CDC, a CDC must continue to: ( 1 ) Meet the PCLP eligibility requirements in § 120.845.
( 2 ) Timely conform with all requirements and deadlines set forth in SBA's regulations and policy and procedural guidance concerning properly establishing, funding and reporting a PCLP Loan Loss Reserve Fund (LLRF).
( 3 ) Substantially comply with all Loan Program Requirements.
( 4 ) Remain an active CDC.
( 5 ) In accordance with statutory requirements set forth in section 508(i) of Title V, 15 U.S.C. 697e(i), establish a goal of processing at least 50 percent of its 504 loans using PCLP procedures.
( b ) SBA will notify the PCLP CDC in writing of a renewal or non-renewal of PCLP status. If PCLP status is not renewed, SBA will notify the CDC of the reasons for the decision.
[68 FR 57983, Oct. 7, 2003, as amended at 72 FR 18364, Apr. 12, 2007]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.814 Direct costs of processing operations. ( a ) *Items included.* For purposes of § 10.810(b) of this subpart, the words “direct costs of processing operations”, with respect to a good, mean those costs either directly incurred in, or that can be reasonably allocated to, the growth, production, or manufacture of the good in the territory of one or both of the Parties. Such costs include, to the extent they are includable in the appraised value of the good when imported into a Party, the following: ( 1 ) All actual labor costs involved in the growth, production, or manufacture of the specific good, including fringe benefits, on-the-job training, and the costs of engineering, supervisory, quality control, and similar personnel;
( 2 ) Tools, dies, molds, and other indirect materials, and depreciation on machinery and equipment that are allocable to the specific good;
( 3 ) Research, development, design, engineering, and blueprint costs, to the extent that they are allocable to the specific good;
( 4 ) Costs of inspecting and testing the specific good; and
( 5 ) Costs of packaging the specific good for export to the territory of the other Party.
( b ) *Items not included.* For purposes of § 10.810(b) of this subpart, the words “direct costs of processing operations” do not include items that are not directly attributable to the good or are not costs of growth, production, or manufacture of the good. These include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Profit; and
( 2 ) General expenses of doing business that are either not allocable to the good or are not related to the growth, production, or manufacture of the good, such as administrative salaries, casualty and liability insurance, advertising, and salesmen's salaries, commissions, or expenses.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

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

No. 00-075 April 25, 2000

NRC ADDS HOLTEC HI-STORM 100

FUEL STORAGE CASK DESIGN TO APPROVED LIST

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to add the Holtec HI-STORM

100 cask system to the list of approved designs that utilities may use -- under a general license and

without site-specific approval -- to store spent fuel at their nuclear power plants.

Under the terms of an NRC general license, any nuclear power reactor licensee can use a preapproved cask if the company notifies the NRC in advance, meets the conditions of the cask’s NRC

certificate of compliance, and complies with the NRC’s regulations. These regulations include a

requirement to ensure that the reactor site characteristics and potential site-boundary radiation doses are

within the scope of the cask’s safety analysis report and the reactor license.

The HI-STORM 100 certificate contains conditions for use that are similar to other NRCapproved casks. However, the certificate for each cask design may differ in some specifics, such as

operating procedures, training exercises and spent fuel specifications.

The NRC staff issued a safety evaluation report that finds that, if the conditions specified in the

certificate of compliance are met, adequate protection of public health and safety will be maintained.

The staff’s environmental assessment determined that use of the HI-STORM 100 cask design on

reactor sites would have no significant incremental impacts on the environment.

The rule will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, expected

shortly.

###
Exhibit 15.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTRERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-156686) of our reports dated May 15, 2017, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. included in this annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016.





|Tel- Aviv, Israel |  | /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
|----------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|May 15, 2017      |  | KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER    
|                  |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global