alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §954. Vacancy in clerk position; absence of clerk

When the office of clerk is vacant, the deputy clerks shall perform the duties of the clerk in the name of the last person who held that office. When the clerk is incapacitated, absent, or otherwise unavailable to perform official duties, the deputy clerks shall perform the duties of the clerk in the name of the clerk. The court may designate a deputy clerk to act temporarily as clerk of the court in his or her own name.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 926; Pub. L. 92–310, title II, §206(f), June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 203; Pub. L. 104–317, title II, §204(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3850.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§8, 222 and 327 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§4, 125, 221, 36 Stat. 1087, 1132, 1153).

Section consolidates parts of sections 8, 222 and 327 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

Sections 8, 222 and 327 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., related only to district courts, courts of appeals and the Supreme Court, respectively. This section applies to all Federal courts and is in conformity with section 548 [546] of this title relating to death of a United States marshal.

The provision for continuance of the salary of the clerk of the Supreme Court until his successor is appointed and qualifies was inserted to preserve existing law as declared in the unpublished opinion of Chief Justice Taft, March 23, 1932 (filed in the Department of Justice), with respect to a deceased clerk of the Supreme Court.

Other provisions of sections 8, 222 and 327 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 671, 711, and 751 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–317 substituted "Vacancy in clerk position; absence of clerk" for "Death of clerk; duties of deputies" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

"Upon the death of any clerk of court, his deputy or deputies shall execute the duties of the deceased clerk in his name until his successor is appointed and qualifies.

"The compensation of a deceased clerk of the Supreme Court may be paid to his personal representatives until his successor is appointed and qualifies."

1972—Pub. L. 92–310 struck out "and remedies against" before "deputies" in section catchline and repealed provisions which related to the default or misfeasance of a deputy in connection with the bond of a deceased clerk of a Federal court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140757 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140757 

 COA: 284499 

Saginaw CC: 07-029124-FC 

JERRY WILLISON LONG, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §588. Expenses

Necessary office expenses of the United States trustee shall be allowed when authorized by the Attorney General.

(Added Pub. L. 95–598, title II, §224(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2664.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 408(c) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, which provided for the repeal of this section and the deletion of any references to United States Trustees in this title at a prospective date, was repealed by section 307(b) of Pub. L. 99–554. See note set out preceding section 581 of this title.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 99-07 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson March 22, 1999

OFFICE: 817-860-8128

PAGER: 888-876-2331

E-Mail: bwh@nrc.gov

WOLF CREEK PERFORMANCE REMAINS ACCEPTABLE

IN NRC’S LATEST PLANT REVIEW

Public meeting scheduled to discuss results of the Plant Performance Review

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found in its latest Plant Performance

Review (PPR) that safety performance remains acceptable at the Wolf Creek nuclear power

plant, located near Burlington, Kansas.

NRC’s review covers the period from April 19, 1998, to January 25, 1999. Officials from

the NRC and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Co. (WCNOC), the operator of Wolf Creek, will

discuss the PPR during a meeting set for 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 25, in the Eisenhower

Learning Center. The meeting is open for public observation. NRC officials will be available

afterwards to speak with reporters, state and local officials, or members of the public.

In a letter to WCNOC President Otto L. Maynard summarizing the review findings, NRC

Branch Chief David N. Graves said, “Overall, performance at Wolf Creek Generating Station

was acceptable. Management has been involved in all functional levels.” In each area that was

inspected by the NRC, Mr. Graves characterized management as “effective” in maintaining safe

conditions and practices and concluded that only the “core inspection” program will be

conducted during the coming six months.

The Plant Performance Review, which is conducted every six months, is an interim

measure NRC is utilizing to monitor nuclear power plants’ safety performance. NRC began

using it after suspending the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)

program pending development of a new assessment mechanism.

Previously, SALP reports were the principal means by which the NRC assessed nuclear

power plant performance and informed the public of its findings. The new plant assessment

regimen will be tested in a pilot program at eight plants beginning in June. If successful, it will

be applied nationwide in January of next year. A full description of the new program can be

found on the NRC website at www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

Plant Performance Reviews are conducted by the NRC staff to determine the amount of

inspection that will be required at a given plant during the coming six months. The information

is also used by senior NRC managers during their annual review of the performance of all the

nation’s nuclear plants. No grading system is applied and the only terms used to describe

overall performance are acceptable or unacceptable.
The full text of the Plant Performance Review letter can be obtained by calling Region IV

public affairs, or on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

###
EXHIBIT 10.62

**AMENDMENT NO. 4TOAMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

            This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment’) dated as of May 5, 2009, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Keith B.Pitts (the “Executive”).

            **WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Amended and Restated Employment  Agreement,  dated as of September 23, 2004, as further amended (collectively, the“EA”), to secure the services of the Executive as Vice Chairman; and

            **WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $685,000, effective as of April 1, 2009.

            **NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:

            1.         Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided inthe EA.

            2.**        **Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby  deleted and replaced withthe following new Section 6(a):

                        “(a)  *Base Salary.*  Effective April 1, 2009, the Executive’s base salary hereunder                        shall be $685,000 per year, payable semi-monthly. Commencing July 1, 2010,the                        Board shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustments from                        time to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be                        reduced from the base salary in effect from time to time.”

            3.         Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby  ratified  by the Company and theExecutive.

1

----

            **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year first setforth above.

                                                                       **Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.**

                                                                       By:/s/ Ronald P. Soltman                                                                                                                    Ronald P. Soltman                                                                                   Executive Vice President

                                                                       **Executive**:

****

**                                                                      **/s/ Keith B/Pitts                                                                                                                     Keith B. Pitts

2
|   | 1) | such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended                June                30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of                Ener1,                Inc., for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                Ener1, Inc. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |                                                                                                                                                                       |                                 |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|         |                                                                                                                                                                       |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                  |                            |
|         |                                                                                                                                                                       | /s/ Gerard              Herlihy |
|         | Gerard              Herlihy                                                                                                                                                |
|         | Chief                Financial Officer(Duly                Authorized Principal Financial andAccounting                Officer and Duly Authorized                Officer) |
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Technical Assistance Request, Clarification of 10 CFR 35.50 (b) (1)

## HPPOS-280 PDR-9306150132

See the memorandum from J.E. Glenn to W. E. Cline dated November 12, 1991.

This memo responds to a Region II request for clarification of the performance of dose calibrator consistency checks as described in 10 CFR 35.50 (b) (1). Specifically, "is it appropriate for a licensee to preform this test on the cobalt-57 (Co-57) setting although technetium-99m (Tc-99m) is the most frequently used isotope?"

Medical licensees are required to perform a dose calibrator daily constancy check. 10 CFR 35.50 (b) (1) requires, in part, that a licensee check each dose calibrator for constancy with a dedicated check source at the beginning of each day of use, and that the test be done on a frequently used setting. Based on numerous nuclear medicine inspections in Region II, the most frequently used setting is Tc-99m, and based on the requirements of 10 CFR 35.51 (b) (1), the licensees who use Tc-99m more frequently should perform this test on the Tc-99m setting with a dedicated sealed source (which is usually Co-57). However, some licensees perform this test on the Co-57 setting although Tc-99m is the most frequently used setting.

While this issue is not addressed in the Statements of Consideration for either the proposed or final rule on 10 CFR Part 35, effective April 1, 1987, it is believed that the rule is intended to assure that the licensee determines the consistency of the dose calibrator, on each day of use, under the actual conditions of use. Since most medical licensees use Tc-99m for patient dosage administrations more frequently than any other isotope, such licensees must check the Tc-99m setting, on each day of use, with a dedicated check source. If the licensee frequently uses the Tc-99m setting to measure patient dosages but only does a constancy check on the Co-57 setting, it appears appropriate to cite against 10 CFR 35.50 (b) (1) unless the licensee can show that the Co-57 setting is frequently used to measure patient dosages.

It is recommended that Co-57 be used as a standard to measure the constancy of the Tc-99m setting because of the close proximity of its energies. Cobalt-57 has principal energies of 122 and 136 keV and Tc-99m has a principal energy of 140 keV. It is also recommended that dose calibrators having pre-calibrated settings or potentiometers be tested on both the Co-57 and Tc-99m settings because discrepancies or fluctuations have been observed between the two settings when tested for constancy with the same check source. If such discrepancies are observed, it could indicate that there is a problem with one or both of the settings. Inspectors should encourage licensees to do a daily constancy check of all commonly used isotope settings, not only Tc-99m to ensure the accuracy of all administered patient dosages.

**Regulatory references:** 10 CFR 35.50

**Subject codes:** 6.4, 6.6

**Applicability:** Byproduct Materials

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 30, 2017
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO CAIRA, a/k/a Rangeen Khan, a/k/a

Claude Bernard, a/k/a Jorge Miladeh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-86-5, CR-86-162, CA-94-3014-2-8)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alberto Caira, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as

amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law. Co-op.

Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Caira, Nos. CR-86-5;

CR-86-162; CA-94-3014-2-8 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to expedite the appeal in light of this disposition.

We dispense with oral 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
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Fiscal year ... annual report**
 
1997
 
SuDoc:E 1.1:
Item Number:0429-A-01 (MF)
CGP systemNumber:000514879
 
November 1, 2017
§ 130.350 SBDC advisory boards. ( a ) *State/Regional Advisory Boards.* ( 1 ) The Lead Center will establish an advisory board to advise, counsel, and confer with the SBDC Director on matters pertaining to the operation of the SBDC network.
( 2 ) This advisory board will be referred to as a State SBDC Advisory Board in a state/territory having only one recipient organization, and a Regional SBDC Advisory Board in a state having more than one recipient organization.
( 3 ) These advisory boards must include small business owners and other representatives from the entire area of service.
( 4 ) New Lead Centers must establish a State or Regional SBDC Advisory Board by the beginning of the second project period.
( 5 ) A State or Regional SBDC Advisory Board member may also be a member of the National SBDC Advisory Board.
( 6 ) The reasonable cost of travel of any Board member for official Board activities may be paid out of the SBDC's budgeted funds. Federal and program funds are not to be used to compensate advisory board members for non-travel related expenses such as time and effort.
( b ) *National SBDC Advisory Board.* ( 1 ) The SBA will establish a National SBDC Advisory Board, appointed by the SBA Administrator, and comprised of members who are not Federal employees. The Board will elect a chairperson. Three members of the Board will be from universities, or their affiliates and the remainder will be from small businesses or associations representing small businesses. Board members will serve staggered three-year terms. The SBA Administrator may appoint successors to fill unexpired terms.
( 2 ) The National SBDC Advisory Board shall advise and confer with SBA's AA/SBDCs on policy matters pertaining to the operation of the SBDC program. The Board shall meet with the AA/SBDCs at least semiannually.
( 3 ) The reasonable cost of travel of any National SBDC Advisory Board member for official Board activities will be paid by SBA out of SBDC line-item program funds.
( 4 ) Each member of the Board will be entitled to be reimbursed for expenses as a member of the Board.
( 5 ) The Board will meet at least semiannually and at the call of the Chairman of the Board.
[60 FR 31056, June 13, 1995. Redesignated and amended at 88 FR 76642, 76643, Nov. 7, 2023]
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. 96-178 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, December 05, 1996)

NRC AMENDS REGULATIONS GOVERNING

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its

regulations which govern the construction, operation and closure

of a deep-underground, geologic repository for the disposal of

high-level radioactive wastes which consist predominantly of used

reactor fuel.

NRC has adopted these amendments to clarify existing

requirements that govern the protection of workers and the public

from radiation caused by a range of normal conditions and by

accidents which might occur before a repository is permanently

closed.

The amendments also make existing requirements more

consistent with other NRC regulations governing similar types of

facilities, such as independent spent fuel storage installations.

Among other things, the amendments:

ˇ Modify the definition of structures, systems and

components that are "important to safety";

ˇ Add requirements for the establishment of a pre-closure

controlled area from which members of the public could

be excluded if necessary;

ˇ Provide radiation dose criteria for protection of the

public during accident conditions; and

ˇ Clarify the radiation protection requirements for

workers and members of the public during normal or

otherwise anticipated conditions.

This final rule, which amends Part 60 of the Commission's

regulations, reflects minor changes made as the result of

comments received after publication of a proposed rule in March

of last year. NRC began the rulemaking partly in response to a

petition submitted by the Department of Energy. More information
is available in a notice published in the December 4 edition of

the Federal Register.

###
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Walnut Creek Field Office, Region IV

1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek California 94596

CONTACT: Mark Hammond Feb. 4,

1997

Office: (510) 975-0254 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Home: (415) 674-1024 RIV-0997

Pager: (800) 916-4952 email:

mfh2@nrc.gov

NRC SCHEDULES DESIGN INSPECTION MEETING

FOR WASHINGTON NUCLEAR PROJECT-2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public exit

meeting with officials of the Washington Public Power Supply System to

discuss the results of a special NRC design inspection at the Washington

Nuclear Project-2. The meeting will be on Thursday, Feb. 6, at 8:30 a.m. at

Supply System headquarters, 3000 George Washington Way, in Richland, Wash.

The inspection was conducted on various dates between late November

and Jan. 16. It was led by Peter Koltay of NRC's headquarters in Rockville,

Maryland, and supported by five inspectors from the engineering firm Stone

& Webster.

Similar inspections have been and will be conducted at other plants in

the nation. The NRC initiated these inspections after finding that the

Millstone plant in Connecticut and other facilities performed full-core

offloads during refueling outages without performing necessary safety

evaluations. It was also discovered that the configuration and operation of

some facilities were inconsistent with design basis information.

During the WNP-2 inspection, no issues were discovered that raised

immediate operability concerns. A written report on the inspection is

expected in mid-March.

#