alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 204.62 Duplication and recovery of assistance. ( a ) *Duplication of benefits.* FEMA provides supplementary assistance under the Stafford Act, which generally may not duplicate benefits received by or available to the applicant from insurance, other assistance programs, legal awards, or any other source to address the same purpose. An applicant must notify FEMA of all benefits that it receives or anticipates from other sources for the same purpose, and must seek all such benefits available to them. FEMA will reduce the grant by the amounts available for the same purpose from another source. FEMA may provide assistance under this Part when other benefits are available to an applicant, but the applicant will be liable to FEMA for any duplicative amounts that it receives or has available to it from other sources, and must repay FEMA for such amounts.
( b ) *Duplication of programs.* FEMA will not provide assistance under this part for activities for which another Federal agency has more specific or primary authority to provide assistance for the same purpose. FEMA may disallow or recoup amounts that fall within another Federal agency's authority. FEMA may provide assistance under this part, but the applicant must agree to seek assistance from the appropriate Federal agency and to repay FEMA for amounts that are within another Agency's authority.
( c ) *Negligence.* FEMA will provide no assistance to an applicant for costs attributable to applicant's own negligence. If the applicant suspects negligence by a third party for causing a condition for which FEMA made assistance available under this Part, the applicant is responsible for taking all reasonable steps to recover all costs attributable to the negligence of the third party. FEMA generally considers such amounts to be duplicated benefits available to the recipient or subrecipient, and will treat them consistent with (a) of this section.
( d ) *Intentional acts.* Any person who intentionally causes a condition for which assistance is provided under this part shall be liable to the United States to the extent that FEMA incurs costs attributable to the intentional act or omission that caused the condition. FEMA may provide assistance under this part, but it will be conditioned on an agreement by the applicant to cooperate with FEMA in efforts to recover the cost of the assistance from the liable party. A person shall not be liable under this section as a result of actions the person takes or omits in the course of rendering care or assistance in response to the fire.
[66 FR 57347, Nov. 14, 2001, as amended at 79 FR 63546, Oct. 24, 2014; 82 FR 42, Jan. 3, 2017]
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.1007 Must a protest of size status relate to a particular procurement and be specific?

(a) *Particular procurement.* A protest challenging the size of a concern which does not pertain to a particular procurement or sale will not be acted on by SBA.

(b) *A protest must include specific facts.* A protest must be sufficiently specific to provide reasonable notice as to the grounds upon which the protested concern's size is questioned. Some basis for the belief or allegation stated in the protest must be given. A protest merely alleging that the protested concern is not small or is affiliated with unnamed other concerns does not specify adequate grounds for the protest. No particular form is prescribed for a protest. Where materials supporting the protest are available, they should be submitted with the protest.

(c) *Non-specific protests will be dismissed.* Protests which do not contain sufficient specificity will be dismissed by SBA. The following are examples of allegation specificity:

# Example 1:

An allegation that concern X is large because it employs more than 500 employees (where 500 employees is the applicable size standard) without setting forth a basis for the allegation is non-specific.

# Example 2:

An allegation that concern X is large because it exceeds the 500 employee size standard (where 500 employees is the applicable size standard) because a higher employment figure was published in publication Y is sufficiently specific.

# Example 3:

An allegation that concern X is affiliated with concern Y without setting forth any basis for the allegation is non-specific.

# Example 4:

An allegation that concern X is affiliated with concern Y because Mr. A is the majority shareholder in both concerns is sufficiently specific.

# Example 5:

An allegation that concern X has revenues in excess of $5 million (where $5 million is the applicable size standard) without setting forth a basis for the allegation is non-specific.

# Example 6:

An allegation that concern X exceeds the size standard (where the applicable size standard is $5 million) because it received Government contracts in excess of $5 million last year is sufficiently specific.

[61 FR 3286, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 69 FR 29206, May 21, 2004]
Docket No: FAA - 2015 - 5808 Dir ID: 2015 - NM - 111 - AD
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. 99-217 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday October 14, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS: MEETING RESCHEDULED

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has

rescheduled a Rockville, Maryland, meeting of its subcommittee on human factors. The

meeting will now be held on November 19, in room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint

North building at 11545 Rockville Pike, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

All other information regarding the meeting, which was previously scheduled for October

22, remains unchanged from the previous announcement. For further information, interested

individuals should contact Noel Dudley, at 301-415-6888.

###
**EXHIBIT32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

       In connection with the Annual Report of RoyalPhoenix  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Joseph Scott Wilson, President and ChiefAccounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
/s/Joseph ScottWilson                                
JosephScott Wilson

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

August22, 2003
### §178. Injunctions during national emergency

#### (a) Petition to district court by Attorney General on direction of President

Upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such strike or lock-out or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out—

(i) affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or with foreign nations, or engaged in the production of goods for commerce; and

(ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike or lockout, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders as may be appropriate.

#### (b) Inapplicability of chapter 6

In any case, the provisions of chapter 6 of this title shall not be applicable.

#### (c) Review of orders

The order or orders of the court shall be subject to review by the appropriate United States court of appeals and by the Supreme Court upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28.

(June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title II, §208, 61 Stat. 155; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §32(a), 62 Stat. 991; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §127, 63 Stat. 107.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Chapter 6 (§101 et seq.) of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), is a reference to act Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70, popularly known as the Norris-LaGuardia Act.

#### Codification

In subsec. (c), "court of appeals" substituted for "circuit court of appeals" on authority of act June 25, 1948, as amended by act May 24, 1949. The words "United States" immediately preceding "Court of appeals" were inserted on authority of section 43 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

In subsec. (c), "section 1254 of title 28" substituted for "sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (U.S.C. title 28, secs. 346 and 347)" on authority of act June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 869, section 1 of which enacted Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23273]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster <greek-i>3620]


State of Florida; Amendment <greek-i>5

    In accordance with a notice received from the Department of 
Homeland Security--Federal Emergency Management Agency--effective 
October 4, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to 
extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a 
result of this disaster to December 11, 2004.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for 
filing applications for economic injury is June 6, 2005.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: October 12, 2004.
Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-23273 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

Walnut Creek Field Office

1450 Maria Lane, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5378

RIV-97-33 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 12, 1997

NRC NAMES NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials at the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas,

have announced the assignment of Don Allen as a resident inspector at the Diablo Canyon

nuclear power plant near Avila Beach, California.

Mr. Allen joined NRC in January 1996 through the agency's resident inspector

development program. Between 1980 and 1996, he had worked as a startup test engineer on

Westinghouse commercial nuclear power plants for the Impell Corp., Combustion Engineering,

ABB, Raytheon Engineering, Ebasco and NUS Halliburton.

Mr. Allen earned his bachelor's degree in physics from Bradley University in Peoria,

Illinois. He served in the U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command from 1969 to 1973. He was

employed as a nuclear plant engineer by Westinghouse from 1973 to 1976, and as a start-up

test engineer for boiling water reactors by General Electric from 1976 to 1980.

Mr. Allen and his wife are the parents of two grown children. He joins Michael Tschiltz,

NRC senior resident inspector, at Diablo Canyon, which is operated by the Pacific Gas and

Electric Corp.
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 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-02 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Thursday, January 7, 1999)

NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT SUMMER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have announced the assignment

of Malcolm Widmann as the new Senior Resident Inspector at the V.C. Summer Nuclear

Plant in Jenkinsville, South Carolina.

Before being assigned to Summer, Widmann was a resident inspector at Southern Nuclear

Operating Company’s Vogtle Nuclear Plant near Waynesboro, Georgia. Before his Vogtle

assignment, he was a project engineer in the NRC’s Region II office in Atlanta. Widmann

joined the NRC in 1991 as a technical reviewer in the NRC’s Rockville, Maryland

headquarters. He previously worked for the U.S. Department of Defense, Dupont Chemical

and Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Widmann has a B.S. Degree in mechanical

engineering from Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Widmann joins NRC Resident Inspector Mark King and Site Secretary Pamela Bush at the

Summer plant. The NRC inspectors at Summer can be reached at 803-345-5683.

#
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Regulatory Responsibilities for Byproduct Materials in Non-Power Reactors

## HPPOS-218 PDR-9111220023

See the memorandum from D. M. Crutchfield to F. J. Congel (and others) dated March 8, 1988.

Byproduct materials within non-power reactors is covered under the reactor license. NMSS does not normally issue separate licenses which authorize possession of licensed material within an operating reactor facility. All byproduct material inserted into or removed from the reactor, is covered by the reactor license while the material is within the facility. The facility boundaries for non-power reactors are normally defined in the FSAR or TS, and exceptions should be referred immediately to HQ.

In a memorandum dated June 8, 1987, Region IV requested guidance for determining cases where licensed material in a non-power reactor facility may be covered by an NRC license or an Agreement State license, rather than the reactor license. This issue becomes important in determining compliance and issuing notices of violation involving licensed material in a reactor facility. All Regions were asked to comment on this issue, and after consideration of these comments, NRR provided the following guidance. The guidance was coordinated with NMSS, GPA, and OGC.
        - Generic guidance related to this issue is contained in Inspection Manual Chapter 2882, Appendices 1 and 2. Normally, material within a non-power reactor facility will generally be assumed to be possessed by the reactor licensee, unless there is prior documentation approved by NRC or some other clear demonstration that the licensed material is covered under another license.
        - Consistent with (1) above, NMSS does not normally issue separate licenses which authorize possession of licensed material within an operating reactor facility. If a reactor facility license is silent with regard to possession of byproduct material, it should be amended. NRC normally exercises exclusive federal jurisdiction within operating reactor facilities.
        - All byproduct material which is to be inserted into a reactor, or which is removed from the reactor, must be covered by the reactor license while the material is within the facility.
        - The facility boundaries for a non-power reactor are normally defined by the Safety Analysis Report or Technical Specifications. In the absence of identifiable facility boundaries, the Regions should establish a facility boundary with the license for compliance purposes, and the boundary should be specified in the TS or FSAR.
        - As indicated in Manual Chapter 2882, Appendix 2, there are exceptions to the above guidelines, and specific cases can be complex. Questionable cases should be referred to HQ for resolution along with a proposed course of action.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 50, Technical Specifications

**Subject codes:** 3.3, 11.5, 12.9

**Applicability:** Non-Power Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, October 18, 2017
§ 4.322 What must an appeal contain? ( a ) Each appeal must contain a written statement of the errors of fact and law upon which the appeal is based. This statement may be included in either the notice of appeal filed under § 4.321(a) or an opening brief filed under § 4.311(a).
( b ) The notice of appeal must include the names and addresses of the parties served.
[73 FR 67288, Nov. 13, 2008]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO.: 20-CV-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

 INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al., 

____________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTERY OF PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission respectfully request the entry of the 

Proposed Order filed simultaneously herewith, to which Defendant Lisa McElhone has 

consented (Exhibit A). If entered, this Order would resolve the pending issues concerning the 

entry of a preliminary injunction and other relief.

September 2, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: s/ Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Senior Trial Counsel 

 Florida Bar No. 630020 

 Direct Dial: (305) 982-6322 

 Email: berlina@sec.gov 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

 COMMISSION 

 801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1800 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 982-6300 

 Facsimile: (305) 536-4154 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 221 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 2nd day 

of September 2020 via cm-ecf on all defense counsel in this case. 

 s/ Amie Riggle Berlin 

 Amie Riggle Berlin 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 221 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2020 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.107 How does SBA determine a concern's “primary industry”?

In determining the primary industry in which a concern or a concern combined with its affiliates is engaged, SBA considers the distribution of receipts, employees and costs of doing business among the different industries in which business operations occurred for the most recently completed fiscal year. SBA may also consider other factors, such as the distribution of patents, contract awards, and assets.
### §13. Powers and duties of bureau

It shall be the duty of the Women's Bureau to formulate standards and policies which shall promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment. The said bureau shall have authority to investigate and report to the Department of Labor upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of women in industry. The director of said bureau may from time to time publish the results of these investigations in such a manner and to such extent as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe.

(June 5, 1920, ch. 248, §2, 41 Stat. 987.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Part of section 2 of act June 5, 1920, constitutes section 12 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of Labor, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Labor, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 6 of 1950, §§1, 2, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1263, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
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. 96-163 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, November 21, 1996)

NRC ISSUES REPORT

ON CONTROL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a report prepared by a joint NRC-state

working group that makes recommendations to tighten control over devices containing

radioactive material.

The devices, which are regulated by the NRC or the states, include gauges used to

measure the thickness of material, self-illuminated exit signs, gas chromatographs used in

chemical analysis, static eliminators, and teletherapy machines used in medicine.

The working group was formed to consider problems related to loss of control over and

accountability for the devices. As a result of inadequate control, some devices have been

inadvertently mixed with metal scrap intended to be melted down and recycled into other

products. In some cases, the devices have been accidentally smelted in steel mills, resulting in

radioactive contamination of the mills themselves, of their metal products, and of slag and

furnace dust. In the United States, the costs of mill decontamination, waste disposal and

temporary mill closings following such contaminated smeltings have been as high as $23 million

per event. There also is a risk of radiation exposure to unsuspecting workers and members of the

public.

The report recommends increased regulatory oversight, significant penalties for losing

devices, and that NRC ensure proper disposal of devices containing NRC-licensable material that

have found their way into the public domain and for which no one else claims responsibility. It

also recommends that states implement similar measures for naturally occurring radioactive

material, which is not regulated by the NRC, and that the NRC issue information to nonlicensees who are likely to come into contact with lost devices.

The working group included seven members from the NRC and Agreement States (29

states that have assumed, by mutual agreement, part of the NRC’s regulatory authority). The
group held a public workshop in January and five public meetings.

Copies of the document, “Final Report of the NRC-Agreement State Working Group to

Evaluate Control and Accountability of Licensed Devices,” (NUREG-1551) are available for

review and copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20555-0001. They may also be purchased from the Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

37082, Washington, D.C. 20402-9328.

#
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7404

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNIS ALLEN BREWER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-91-342-A, CA-97-1089-AM) Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Allen Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Fay Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Dennis Allen Brewer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brewer , Nos. CR-91- 342-A; CA-97-1089-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 31, 1998). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED