alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 13,096.

#### Lockard *v.*Industrial Commission et al.

(13 P. [2d] 1117)

Decided June 20, 1932.

Rehearing denied September 12, 1932.

Mr. W. Penn Collins, Mr. J. H. Richard, Mr. Guy D. Duncan, for plaintiff in error.

*213Mr. Clarence L. Ireland, Attorney General, Mr. Arthur L. Olson, Assistant, Messrs. Yeaman, Gove .& Huffman, for defendants in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Hilliard

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case has been here twice before. *Industrial Commission v. Lockard,*89 Colo. 428, 3 P. (2d) 416; *Industrial Commission v. Lockard,*90 Colo. 333, 9 P. (2d) 286. The facts sufficiently appear in those decisions.

On the first review the district court was directed to require the commission to determine, in the exercise of its discretion, whether’ on its own motion it would reopen the proceeding, and to make a ruling based thereon. §4484, C. L. 1921. By such command the commission did examine the record, and in the exercise of its discretion refused to reopen and reconsider the matter, and so recorded its conclusion. On complaint to that end the district court directed the commission to make “findings, and set forth with reasonable certainty the facts, conditions and circumstances which moved it, in the exercise of its discretion, to refuse to reopen the case.” That order of the district court led to the second review here. "We concluded that unless from the record proper, on which the commission had based its refusal to reopen the case, it appeared that the action of the commission was the result of fraud or clear abuse of discretion, the order of the commission refusing to reopen the case should have been affirmed by the district court, and ordered reversal.

In the light of our second opinion the district court examined the record on which the commission had based its refusal to reopen the case, and finding that neither fraud nor abuse of discretion appeared, ordered affirmance of the commission’s action. Error is assigned, but we perceive none. Before the case reached this court *214the first time the record was in such condition that the sole reliance of the plaintiff in error rested in the discretionary power of the commission to reopen the case on its own motion. In harmony with judicial fairness we required the commission to exercise its discretion, but we could not order its findings. Only fraud or abuse of discretion, here to be ascertained only from an examination of the record, and none appears, would have justified the district court in making an order other than was made; and the rule precludes us as well. *Mantor v. Industrial*Commission, 89 Colo. 90, 299 Pac. 11. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Burke concur.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-67

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Tuesday, September 16,

1997)

NRC STAFF ISSUES ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY PERFORMANCE

AT VOGTLE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NEAR AUGUSTA

Level Of Safety Performance Superior In All Functional Areas Assessed

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a new Systematic Assessment of

Licensee Performance (SALP) report for Southern Nuclear Operating Company’s Vogtle

commercial nuclear power plant which assesses the level of safety performance at the facility as

Category 1, which is considered superior.

NRC officials said performance at the two-unit Vogtle plant was assessed for a period from

January 28, 1996 through August 2, 1997.

In a letter to the company dated September 15, the NRC’s Region II Administrator in Atlanta,

Luis A. Reyes, said Vogtle’s high level of performance during the assessment period was due to

“the strong focus and teamwork” of plant employees and the fact that “senior managers set high

standards of safety performance” while being actively involved in site activities and making

conservative decisions related to facility operations.

Reyes also informed Vogtle officials that, because of the superior level of safety performance,

the next SALP evaluation period will be extended from the normal 18 months to 24 months and

that the plant will receive an appropriate level of reduced NRC inspection, reflective of its

superior performance.

The NRC has three resident inspectors stationed at Vogtle who will continue to monitor the

plant’s performance of regulatory safety requirements.

The NRC staff assesses performance in four areas at each licensed commercial nuclear power

plant in the United States on a periodic basis. Those areas are Plant Operations, Maintenance,

Engineering and Plant Support. Ratings fall into three categories with Category 1 considered

superior while Category 2 is considered good and Category 3 is considered acceptable.
In its previous assessment, which ran from July 3, 1994 through January 27, 1996, Vogtle was

rated Category 1, or superior, in each category except Plant Support which was Category 2. The

current assessment rated Vogtle’s regulatory safety performance as Category 1, superior, across

the board.

NRC officials will discuss details of the current SALP report with company officials during a

public meeting at Vogtle at 10:30 a.m. on September 24.

#

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this office. SALP reports are also

available on the NRC’s Internet web site (www.nrc.gov/OPA) and by e-mail subscription. To

receive SALP reports by e-mail as they are issued, send an e-mail to listproc@nrc.gov with the

following message: subscribe salp yourfirstname yourlastname.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Hike Cottonwood Spring

Joshua Tree National Park
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. 00-049 March 20, 2000

NRC AND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SUBMIT PROPOSAL TO CONGRESS

TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Labor have jointly

submitted proposed language to Congress to amend the Energy Reorganization Act to further protect

nuclear industry employees from retaliation by their employers for raising safety issues with their

employers or the NRC by providing them with earlier relief.

The proposed language would strengthen a section of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

that provides a process under which employees (or former employees) in the nuclear industry who

believe they have been discriminated against for raising safety concerns may seek a reinstatement to

their former position, or another remedy. The Department of Labor has responsibility for administering

this section of the Act.

In a letter proposing the legislative changes, Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor, and

Richard A. Meserve, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that shortcomings in the

current law that weaken the protections given to nuclear industry employees who report safety concerns

would be strengthened.

The proposed language they said would “revise section 211 by setting more realistic time limits

for steps in the adjudicatory process and specifying explicit time frames for steps for which no time

limits are currently provided. It would also provide a clearer description of the procedural steps that are

involved, giving parties better notice of how the process works. The bill would afford more timely

relief to complainants by providing for a preliminary order of reinstatement of the complainant, if the

Secretary of Labor determines at the conclusion of the investigation conducted at the outset of the

process that a violation has occurred.”

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

§ 10.917 Accumulation. ( a ) Originating materials from the territory of a Party that are used in the production of a good in the territory of another Party will be considered to originate in the territory of that other Party.
( b ) A good that is produced 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 § 10.914 of this subpart and all other applicable requirements of General Note 32, HTSUS.
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.190 Where does an applicant apply for a loan? An applicant for a business loan should apply to: ( a ) A Lender for a guaranteed or immediate participation loan;
( b ) A CDC for a 504 loan;
( c ) An Intermediary for a Microloan; or
( d ) SBA for a direct loan.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elmer David ESPINA-MOSCOSO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40732.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Elmer David Espina-Moscoso (Espina) pleaded guilty to one count of reentering the United States without permission after *357having been deported. Because Espina’s prior deportation followed an aggravated-felony conviction, he was subject to the inereased-penalty provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). Espina contends that the treatment of felonies and aggravated felonies as sentencing factors under § 1326(b)(1) and (2) is unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that he should be resentenced subject to the two-year maximum set forth in § 1326(a).

Espina’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Espina contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi,*we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Espina properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tufco
Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                      |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                              
|--------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 14, 2012 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael B. Wheeler                                                       
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Michael B. Wheeler                                                           
|                      |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer



22
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23241]


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

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION


Facility Tours

AGENCY: Postal Rate Commission.

ACTION:  Notice of Commission visit.

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

SUMMARY: Postal Rate Commissioners and staff members will tour mail 
preparation facilities located in the vicinity of East Hartford, 
Connecticut on November 4 and 5, 2004. The purpose is to familiarize 
attendees with various postal-related operations, including those 
related to barcoding and sorting First-Class Mail.

DATES: 1. November 4, 2004 (afternoon): PSI presentation/facility tour. 
2. November 5, 2004 (morning): Pitney Bowes Tech Center tour; 
(afternoon): Pitney Bowes Management Services Mail Recovery Center 
tour.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 
202-789-6818.

Steven W. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-23241 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-18 May 17, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 708/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 708/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $100,000 FINE AGAINST COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.

FOR VIOLATIONS OF NRC SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AT BRAIDWOOD PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$100,000 fine against Commonwealth Edison Company for numerous

instances of failure to maintain the proper alignment of plant

safety-related systems and for failing to take corrective actions

to prevent recurring problems.

Problems which brought about this enforcement action

occurred during 1995 and have continued this year. For the most

part, they involve work on systems which have been taken out of

service. Both NRC and Commonwealth Edison have found an adverse

trend in this regard.

In a letter informing Commonwealth Edison of the civil

penalty, Hubert J. Miller, NRC regional administrator in Lisle,

Illinois, said this record of recurring problems of this sort

"represents a significant lack of attention towards licensed

responsibilities." He noted that the utility's own trend

analysis identified a number of root causes, "including poor

accountability and commitment, poor planning and scheduling,

unclear expectations, poor communications, and poor root cause

investigations."

Mr. Miller's letter and the accompanying notice of violation

listed these incidents this year which were associated with the

proposed fine:

ˇ Jan. 23-24: Hydrogen monitor system made inoperable

when operators improperly shut some valves.

ˇ March 5: Flange bolts loosened, leaving a potential

for making the emergency core cooling system inoperable

during pump maintenance.

ˇ March 12: A ventilation fan was approved for operation

after maintenance even though it was still

disassembled.

ˇ March 13: A containment chill water pump was uncoupled
from a motor without proper authorization.

ˇ March 18: A reactor alarm signal activated while a

worker was hanging "out-of-service" cards.

ˇ March 23: Reactor cooling system drain valves

mispositioned.

ˇ April 16: Valve internals removed without proper

isolation causes a 3,000-gallon water spill inside the

plant.

ˇ April 24: An air system was cross-connected to a water

system.

Commonwealth Edison has until June 15 to pay the fine or to

protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by

the NRC staff, the utility may request a hearing.

####
#### First National Bank of Sedalia, Respondent, *v.*Cord Kruse, Appellant.

May 4, 1885.

The court affirms the judgment, because of failure of appellants to file brief or assignment of errors.

Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court, Hon. John P. Strother, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Geo. P. B. Jackson, for respondent.

I. The appellant claims there was a failure of consideration, and sets up the failure of a contemporaneous collateral agreement. The breach of this collateral agreement, if true, is no defence to the note. The collateral agreement could not be shown by parol, nor its breach set up in *law.*— Bricher y. *Payne,*7 Mo. 462 ; *Atwood*y. *Lewis,*6 Mo. 392; *Walker*v. *Fngler,*30 Mo. 130 ; *Kenshaw*y. *Dutten,*59 Mo. 139; *Cress*y. *Blodget,*64 Mo. 449.

II. It ivas his own default in the payment of his note, that occasioned the breach of the collateral agreement, so that even if he had offered and been permitted to show the agreement, he should not have been permitted to avail himself of-the breach of it, asa defence to an action on the *note.*— Clark v. *Condit,*11 Mo. 79.

III. Outside of the question of the collateral agreement, a partial failure of title to the land sold will not .constitute a.ffefence to the note; there the party must seek his remedy on the covenants of the *deed.*— Chase v. *Weston,*12 N. Y. 413; *Smith*v. *Sinclair,*15 Mass. 171; *Talmadge*v. *Wallis,*25 Wend. 107.

*512IV. ‘"When a party takes land under a quit claim deed, it is no defence to the note given for the purchase money, that the vendor had no title. The facts of this case place the appellant in the same *attitude.*— QlasscocTc v. *Rand, 14*Mo. 551; *darter*v. Harder, 18 Mo. 204.

V. But there is no defence appearing in the record.

No brief on file for appellant.

Opinion by

Ellison, J.

The appellant in this cause having failed to file brief or assignment of errors as required bylaw, the'judgment of the court below is affirmed.

The other judges concur.
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

I-96-65 September 19, 1996

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Roger Hannah

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $8,000 FINE AGAINST VA MEDICAL CENTER

IN PHILADELPHIA FOR ALLEGED HARRASSMENT OF EMPLOYEE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed to fine

the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VA) in

Philadelphia $8,000 for allegedly discriminating against an

employee who raised safety concerns.

In March, the acting district director of the U.S.

Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division in Philadelphia

found that the VA discriminated against the radiation safety

officer at the medical center after she raised safety concerns to

the NRC.

The NRC staff has determined that NRC regulations

prohibiting such discrimination were violated, based on the Labor

Department official's decision and on information provided by the

VA during a predecisional enforcement conference on August 26.

VA has 30 days either to pay the proposed fine or to request

in writing that part or all of it be withdrawn.

#
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10(xxv)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4
                                     TO THE
                         KULICKE & SOFFA INDUSTRIES INC.
                           EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

     WHEREAS, Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc. (the "Company") maintains the
Kulicke & Soffa Industries Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the
"Plan") as amended and restated effective October 1, 1999 for the benefit of its
eligible employees; and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan, with the consent of the
participants therein, to revise the definition of "Special Circumstance":

     NOW THEREFORE, effective October 3, 2002, Section 1.24 of the Plan is
hereby amended to read as follows:

          1.24 Special Circumstance means, effective October 3, 2002, the
     reporting by K&S of consolidated net losses equal to or in excess of
     $225,000,000, over a measuring period not exceeding two fiscal years of K&S
     (beginning with a fiscal year in which a loss for the year is reported). A
     Special Circumstance shall be deemed to occur on the date on which K&S
     makes an announcement of quarterly or annual earnings showing consolidated
     net losses, which together with losses reported previously during the
     measuring period, equal or exceed such $225,000,000 amount.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 4 to be
executed by its duly authorized officers this 3rd day of October 2002.

[Corporate Seal]                            KULICKE & SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.



Attest:__________________                   By:________________________________
Editorial Note on Part 124
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 124 appear at 72 FR 50040, Aug. 30, 2007, and 76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011.

§ 124.4 What restrictions apply to fees for applicant and Participant representatives? ( a ) The compensation received by any packager, agent or representative of an 8(a) applicant or Participant for assisting the applicant in obtaining 8(a) certification or for assisting the Participant in obtaining 8(a) contracts, or any other assistance to support program participation, must be reasonable in light of the service(s) performed by the packager, agent or representative.
( b ) In assisting a Participant obtain one or more 8(a) contracts, a packager, agent or representative cannot receive a fee that is a percentage of the gross contract value.
( c ) For good cause, the AA/BD may initiate proceedings to suspend or revoke a packager's, agent's or representative's privilege to assist applicants obtain 8(a) certification, assist Participants obtain 8(a) contracts, or any other assistance to support program participation. Good cause is defined in § 103.4 of these regulations. ( 1 ) The AA/BD may send a show cause letter requesting the agent or representative to demonstrate why the agent or representative should not be suspended or proposed for revocation, or may immediately send a written notice suspending or proposing revocation, depending upon the evidence in the administrative record. The notice will include a discussion of the relevant facts and the reason(s) why the AA/BD believes that good cause exists.
( 2 ) Unless the AA/BD specifies a different time in the notice, the agent or representative must respond to the notice within 30 days of the date of the notice with any facts or arguments showing why good cause does not exist. The agent or representative may request additional time to respond, which the AA/BD may grant in his or her discretion.
( 3 ) After considering the agent's or representative's response, the AA/BD will issue a final determination, setting forth the reasons for this decision and, if a suspension continues to be effective or a revocation is implemented, the term of the suspension or revocation.
( d ) The AA/BD may refer a packager, agent, or other representative to SBA's Suspension and Debarment Official for possible Government-wide suspension or debarment where appropriate, including where it appears that the packager, agent or representative assisted an applicant to or Participant in the 8(a) BD program submit information to SBA that the packager, agent or representative knew was false or materially misleading.
[76 FR 8253, Feb. 11, 2011]