alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-2480

SHANK/BALFOUR BEATTY, a Joint Venture of 

M. L. Shank, Co., Inc. and Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc.,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS 

LOCAL 99, a/k/a IBEW LOCAL 99,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on August 6, 2007 is amended

as follows:

Delete the text of footnote 4 on page 15 in its entirety and

replace it with the following:

Shank/BB correctly argues that an affirmative claim for work

need not be explicit and that the actual performance of the work by

union-represented employees may be sufficient. Performance of the

work might in some instances be "evidence" of a claim on the work

that creates a jurisdictional dispute. See, e.g., Int'l

Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 62-B v. N.L.R.B.

(Alaska Timber), 781 F.2d 919, 924-26 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Int'l

Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 14 (Sierra Pacific),

314 N.L.R.B. 834, 936 (1994), aff'd 85 F.3d 646, 651-53 (D.C. Cir.

1996). It is not clear that these cases help the company, which

assigned the "electrical" work to other unions willing to do it.

The real dispute is still between Shank/BB and the electrical

union. And the NLRB precedent, which only plays the role of

background context for contract construction, involves NLRA

jurisdictional disputes, which by statute are resolved by a third

party, and not one of the disputing participants. See 29 U.S.C.

§ 158(b)(4)(D); id. § 160(k). 

Page 11, line 16: insert apostrophe after "laborers"

Page 16, line 19: insert "operating" before "engineers'"
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10(xxx)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4
                                     TO THE
                       KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.
                  1999 NONQUALIFIED EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN

                  WHEREAS, Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (the "Company")
established the Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. 1999 Nonqualified Employee
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), effective September 28, 1999, and amended the
Plan on three occasions thereafter, including an amendment to adjust the number
of shares to reflect a stock split pursuant to resolutions of the Compensation
Committee of the Company;

                  WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan at
any time, subject to certain inapplicable limitations;

                  WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to provide the
Company with greater flexibility in setting the vesting criteria applicable to
options granted thereunder;

                  NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of October 2, 2001, Section
5(b)(4)(A) of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

                        (4)  Exercise.

                             (A) General. Options shall be exercisable in such
           installments, on such dates, and/or upon fulfillment of such other
           conditions as the Committee may specify, provided that:

                                    * * * * *

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. has
caused this Amendment No. 4 to be executed this 2nd day of October, 2001.

[Seal]                                      KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.



Attest: __________________                  By: ________________________________
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region II

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-96-97 FOR

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Wednesday,

November 20, 1996)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 FINE AGAINST TVA AT SEQUOYAH

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $50,000

civil penalty against the Tennessee Valley Authority for alleged

noncompliance with federal requirements related to the fire

protection program at the Sequoyah nuclear power plant near

Chattanooga.

In a letter to TVA dated November 19, Stewart D. Ebneter,

Administrator of the NRC's Region II office in Atlanta, said the

fine was being proposed because TVA has not completed corrective

actions for long-standing fire protection program discrepancies.

These deficiencies include quality assurance issues identified by

TVA in 1992, 1994 and 1995; a number of fire dampers at the plant

that did not comply with design and installation requirements; and

the continued failure to control combustibles and transient fire

loads (such as temporary wooden scaffolding or cleaning rags) in

the plant in accordance with procedure requirements.

Ebneter said the carbon dioxide (CO2) fire suppression system

for the plant computer room was rendered inoperable in May of 1990

during modifications which added penetrations to the room but

failed to equip the penetrations with fire dampers designed to

close and isolate the room during CO2 activation. He added that

TVA also failed to perform a required 18-month test on Auxiliary

Building penetrations in high radiation areas and failed to

demonstrate the operability of fire hose stations in the reactor

buildings by failing to assure that hoses for those stations had

undergone hydrostatic tests.

Ebneter said TVA has stationed fire watch personnel to assure

compliance but that the violations "are of significant regulatory

concern because they represent a significant lack of attention and

priority to the overall fire protection program."

The company has 30 days to either pay the fine or to protest

its imposition.
#
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. 97-049 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, March 24, 1997)

NRC SEEKS NOMINATIONS FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE

ON MEDICAL USES OF ISOTOPES

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is inviting

nominations for three persons to serve three-year terms as

members of the Commission's Advisory Committee on the Medical

Uses of Isotopes. The openings are for a physician specializing

in nuclear cardiology, for a patients' rights and care advocate,

and for an individual with state or local government perspective

to fill current and upcoming vacancies.

The committee advises NRC on policy and technical issues

that arise in regulating the medical uses of radioactive

byproduct material for diagnosis and therapy. It also provides

guidance and comments on changes in NRC regulations and guides on

medical uses; evaluates certain non-routine uses of radioactive

byproduct material for medical uses; and provides technical

assistance in specific licensing, inspection, and enforcement

cases.

The present members of the committee include physicians with

specialties in therapeutic radiology and nuclear medicine

research, as well as medical physicists with emphasis in nuclear

medicine and therapy. Other members are a nuclear pharmacist, a

certified medical dosimetrist, a health care administrator, a

representative from the Food and Drug Administration and a

patients' rights and care advocate (whose term expires September

30). The staff is in the process of finalizing the appointment

of a nuclear medicine physician.

Nominees for the three open positions must be U.S. citizens

and be able to devote approximately 80 hours per year to

committee business. Members are compensated and reimbursed for

travel, secretarial and correspondence expenses.

Nominations should include four copies of a resume

describing educational and professional qualifications and a

current address and telephone number. They should be sent to the

Office of Personnel, Attention: Jude Himmelberg, Mail Stop

T2D32, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555.
#
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Election Assistance Commission

# AGENCY:

United States Election Assistance Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting agenda.

# Date and Time:

Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 10 a.m.-12 noon.

# Place:

U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 1225 New York Ave., NW., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005, (Metro Stop: Metro Center).

# Agenda:

The Commission will receive presentations from other Federal agencies regarding Election Day procedures. The Commission will also review the following: State preparations for the November 2nd election; the status of State administration of provisional voting; information gathered from on site visits to States and meetings with State election officials since January; tools in place for communicating with election officials to monitor Election Day developments; Election Day schedules of Commissioners. The Commission will also receive updates on the following: November Election Day Research Project; Title II Requirements Payments, HAVA College Program; EAC Poll Worker Initiative; EAC management topics.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (202) 566-3100.

Ray Martinez III,

Commissioner, U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-23502 Filed 10-15-04; 3:33 pm]

BILLING CODE 6820-YN-M
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-87 September 24, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 FINE AGAINST DETROIT EDISON COMPANY

FOR A VIOLATION OF NRC REQUIREMENTS AT FERMI PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$50,000 fine against Detroit Edison Company for failing to

adequately lubricate electrical switches at the Fermi Nuclear

Power Plant. The facility is near Monroe, Michigan.

Numerous safety-related systems and components (emergency

diesel generators, motor operated valves, the ventilation system,

and various pumps) receive power through these electrical

switches.

In 1995 and 1996, there were several occasions when switches

opened unexpectedly. Detroit Edison’s investigation found that

the switches were not latching properly due to excessive friction

in the mechanical components. Plant staff had not performed

switch lubrications during an 18-month period while searching for

a new switch lubricant following NRC-cited violations in 1994 and

1995 in which an unapproved lubricant caused failures in safetyrelated circuit breakers.

Earlier this year, several additional instances of switch

lubrication problems occurred. NRC inspectors, during

inspections at the plant from February to June, noted

inadequacies in the utility’s corrective actions for the earlier

switch problems. The utility had only done a limited lubrication

of switches and did not assess whether multiple non-lubricated

switches would fail during a seismic event.

(During a seismic event, switches which are not properly

latched could unlatch and open. This failure could affect

several safety related systems in the plant.)

NRC inspectors also discovered that the plant’s preventive

maintenance program did not specify a lubrication frequency for

the switches or address the vendor’s recommendation for twice-ayear visual inspection and operation.

In a letter to the utility, NRC's Regional Administrator,

A. Bill Beach said:
"Both industry information and previous NRC violations

should have triggered broad corrective actions to identify,

correct, and prevent potential [electrical] switch failures....

In addition, extensive NRC involvement was required to ensure

that your staff understood the safety significance of this issue

and the need to implement effective corrective action."

Subsequently, Detroit Edison extensively cleaned and

lubricated all 1120 switches in the plant, conducted training for

plant staff, and improved the preventive maintenance program.

The utility has until October 22 to pay the fine or to

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

the NRC staff, the licensee may request a hearing.

####
§ 72.3 Fee schedule. ( a ) For requests for CLOMRs, LOMRs, and PMRs based on structural measures on alluvial fans, an initial fee of $5,000, subject to the provisions of § 72.4, shall be paid to FEMA before FEMA begins its review of the request. The initial fee represents the minimum cost for reviewing these requests and is based on the prevailing private-sector labor rate. A revision to this initial fee, if necessary, will be published as a notice in the Federal Register.
( b ) For requests for CLOMRs, LOMRs, and PMRs based on structural measures on alluvial fans, the total fee will be calculated based on the total hours by FEMA to review and process the request multiplied by an hourly rate based on the prevailing private-sector labor rate. The hourly rate is published as a notice in the Federal Register. A revision to the hourly rate, if necessary, shall be published as a notice in the Federal Register.
( c ) For conditional and final map revision requests for the following categories, flat user fees, subject to the provisions of § 72.4, shall be paid to FEMA before FEMA begins its review of the request: ( 1 ) Requests for CLOMAs, CLOMR-Fs, and LOMR-Fs for single structures or single lots;
( 2 ) Requests for CLOMAs for multiple structures or multiple lots;
( 3 ) Requests for CLOMR-Fs and LOMR-Fs for multiple structures or multiple lots;
( 4 ) Requests LOMR-Fs for single structures or single lots based on as-built information for projects for which FEMA issued CLOMR-Fs previously;
( 5 ) Requests for LOMR-Fs for multiple structures or multiple lots based on as-built information for projects for which FEMA issued CLOMR-Fs previously;
( 6 ) Requests for LOMRs and PMRs based on projects involving bridges, culverts, or channels, or combinations thereof;
( 7 ) Requests for LOMRs and PMRs based on projects involving levees, berms, or other structural measures;
( 8 ) Requests for LOMRs and PMRs based on as-built information for projects for which FEMA issued CLOMRs previously, except those based on structural measures on alluvial fans;
( 9 ) Requests for LOMRs and PMRs based solely on more detailed data;
( 10 ) Requests for CLOMRs based on projects involving new hydrologic information, bridges, culverts, or channels, or combinations thereof; and
( 11 ) Requests for CLOMRs based on projects involving levees, berms, or other structural measures.
( d ) If a request involves more than one of the categories listed above, the highest applicable flat user fee must be submitted.
( e ) The flat user fees for conditional and final map amendments and map revisions are based on the actual costs for reviewing and processing the requests. The fees for requests for LOMR-Fs, LOMRs, and PMRs also include a fee of $35 to cover FEMA's costs for physically revising affected FIRM and FBFM panels to reflect the map changes.
( f ) Revisions to the fees, if necessary, shall be published as a notice in the Federal Register.
[62 FR 5737, Feb. 6, 1997]
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. 00-057 April 26, 2000

NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

ON HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced the opportunity to request an evidentiary

hearing on a request for renewal of the operating licenses for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Power Plant,

Units 1 and 2. The facility is operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., and is located

near Baxley, Georgia.

Southern Nuclear is seeking a 20-year extension of the current Hatch licenses, which expire on

August 6, 2014, for Unit 1, and June 13, 2018, for Unit 2. The NRC staff has begun reviewing both

safety and environmental aspects of the application, which was received on March 1, 2000.

The deadline for hearing requests is 30 days after the Federal Register notice is published. By

that time, petitions must be filed by anyone whose interest might be affected by the license renewal and

who wishes to participate as a party to the proceeding.

Petitions for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555, Attention: Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff. They may also be delivered to the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street

N.W. in Washington, D.C. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General

Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, and to H.L. Sumner,

Vice President -- Hatch Project, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center

Parkway, P.O. Box 1295, Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.

More information about the opportunity for hearing may be found in a Federal Register notice

published on April 3.
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 nas@nrc.gov

I-97-75 July 2, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC PROPOSES $2,750 CIVIL PENALTY FOR MARYLAND FIRM

FOR FAILING TO NOTIFY AGENCY OF NUCLEAR GAUGE USAGE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$2,750 fine for a Maryland construction services company that

uses NRC-licensed gauges containing radioactive material. The

civil penalty against Hagerstown Construction Services Inc., of

Hagerstown, Maryland, stems from the use of nuclear gauges in

areas under NRC jurisdiction without notifying the agency.

In addition, the NRC cited the company, but did not propose

a fine, for two other alleged violations. One pertains to the

use of a radioactive materials package in an impaired condition;

the other a failure to properly mark a transport package.

With respect to the alleged violation involving the gauges,

Hagerstown Construction Services has a license from the State of

Maryland to use the gauges in that state only. The

moisture\density gauges are used for various industrial and

construction purposes, such as measuring moisture levels in soil.

However, the firm did work in Pennsylvania and West Virginia

on numerous occasions, from approximately July 1996 until April

11 of this year, without filing the appropriate reciprocity forms

with the NRC. The forms were required in order to provide the

NRC with necessary notification that nuclear gauges possessed

under a Maryland license were being used in areas where the NRC

is responsible for oversight.

“Notification of the NRC is important since the NRC, rather

than the State of Maryland, regulates the use of the gauges in

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of West Virginia, and in

areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction within Maryland,” NRC

Region 1 Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote to Hagerstown

Construction Services.

“You should have known of the need to file these reciprocity

forms since your company had filed for reciprocity with the NRC

in 1993 to allow the use of gauges at a site in Somerset,

Pennsylvania,” Mr Miller continued. “Your Maryland license

states that it is valid only within the State of Maryland.”
2

Hagerstown Construction Services has 30 days to pay the

civil penalty or to request in writing that all or part of the

fine be withdrawn.
#### STATE, Respondent, v. WYATT, Appellant.

(200 N. W. 1019.)

(File No. 5182.

Opinion filed December 5, 1924.)

Intoxicating Idquors — Trial — Evidence — Evidence of Defendants’ Knowledge Material.

On trial for having liquor in his possession under Rev. Code ,1919, Sec. 10278, evidence of absence of defendant from state immediately preceding seizure of liquor by search, warrant and of his lack of knowledge thereof held material and rejection of such proof by trial court is error.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Yankton County; Hon. R. B. Tripp, Judge.

*H. A. Doyle,*of Yankton, for Appellant.

*A. L. Wyman,*Acting State Attorney, of Yankton County, *Byron S. Payne,*Attorney General, and *Ray F. Drewry,*Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

POLLEY, J.

Appellant was tried for violating the provisions of § 10278, Code 1919. The evidence shows that appellant was keeping a pool hall; that on the 31st day of July, 1921, officers of the law went to- his place of business and made a search for intoxicating liquor; that concealed in a room to the rear of the pool room they found a bottle of intoxicating liquor.

At the trial appellant offered to show that he did not place the liquor where it was found and that he had no' knowledge that *577it' was there'. He offered to show further that he had been absent ¡from the state for three days next prior to the finding of the liquor; that during his absence his business had been attended to by another party. The court refused to admit any of, this proof, and in so doing we think the court erred to defendant’s prejudice. If the defendant did not place the liquor where it was found, and did not know it was there, and w'as not responsible’ for its being there, then he was not keeping it within the provisions of §. 10278, C. .19x9. Whether defendant placed the liquor where it was found, or whether he knew it was there, are questions of fact that should have been submitted to- the jury. It was immaterial where the defendant had been during the three days prior to the-finding of the intoxicating liquor on his premises, except so far as this fact may throw light on the question of his guilty knowledge. In State v. Ryan (S. D.) 200 N. W. 1018, just decided, we held that similar circumstances were relevant and material to the question of whether the defendant was guilty of having liquor in his possession in a public place.

The judgment and order appealed -from are reversed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-61431-RAR

LEO FERRETTI, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Stipulated Dismissal with 

Prejudice [ECF No. 91], filed on June 22, 2022. The Court being fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED with 

prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of June, 2022.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 0:20-cv-61431-RAR Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 1 of 1