alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-120 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

(Wednesday, August 13, 1997)

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

TO MEET SEPTEMBER 23 AND 25 IN LAS VEGAS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on

Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 94th technical meeting

September 23 and 25 in Las Vegas, NV.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 8:30

a.m. each day in Grand Ballroom B and C, at the Mirage Hotel,

3400 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Although meetings of the ACNW are open, they are not part of

the NRC's public hearing process. The ACNW was established in

1988 to advise the Commission on all aspects of nuclear waste

management. While anyone may attend the meeting, the committee

will consider only oral or written statements, arranged in

advance and limited to specific matters set forth in a Notice of

Meeting to be published in an upcoming issue of the Federal

Register.

Among the topics to be discussed during the meeting are the

status of NRC staff key technical issue efforts relating to highlevel waste, progress on the Yucca Mountain Project, and the

committee's defense-in-depth philosophy. The committee will also

prepare for its upcoming meeting with the Commission, and will

discuss proposed reports, topics for future consideration and

miscellaneous matters.

(ACNW schedules are subject to change. Anyone planning to

attend should confirm the schedule the day before the meeting by

calling (301) 415-5024.

#

(NOTE TO EDITORS: The use of self-contained tape recorders

in the meeting room is permitted during open portions of the

meeting when a transcript is being kept. The use of still,
motion picture and television cameras - the physical installation

and presence of which will not interfere with the course of the

meeting - will be permitted both before and after the meeting,

during any recess, and, at the discretion of the committee

chairman, while the meeting is in session.)
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateResearchFire Research Program

# Fire Research Projects

In orchestrating the Fire Research Program for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Fire Research Branch in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research plans, develops, and manages a variety of state-of-the-art projects. The following table lists the ongoing projects. See Chapter 7 of NUREG-1925 for additional detail on selected projects.

 

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, January 27, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Fire Research Projects
          - Collaborative Research
          - NRC High Energy Arc Fault (HEAF) Research

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, January 27, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1998 CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                       479
<INVENTORY>                                      5,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,543
<PP&E>                                           7,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,943
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,202
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,430
<SALES>                                         75,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,519
<CGS>                                           49,253
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   507
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  32
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,428
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,233
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,195
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,195
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        

</TABLE>
#### Anthony Campagna et al., Appellants, v. Morton Wasserman, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — • Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### Leon M. Prince, as Trustee, etc., Appellant, v. Globe and Rutgers Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Mo opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### HAMAKER et al, Respondents, v. CITY OF HIGHMORE, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant.

(197 N. W. 787.)

(File No. 5267.

Opinion filed March 18, 1924.)

Ai>peal and Error — Briefs—Court Rules — Judgment Affirmed Where Appeal Abandoned by Default in Piling Briefs.

Where no brief was filed by appellant within the time for filing appellant’s brief, and no other action of any kind was taken in prosecuting appeal or complying with the Supreme Court rules, the appeal will be deemed abandoned, and the judgment appealed from' will be affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hyde County; Hon. John F. Hughes, Judge.

*M. C. Cunningham,*of Highmore, for Appellant.

*M. Harry O’Brien,*of Highmore, for Respondent.

PRR CURIAM.

A certified copy of the notice of appeal was filed in this court on November 24, 1922. The appeal is from a judgment of the circuit court of Hyde county, entered November 9, 1921.

No other papers have been filed in this case. For all the reasons set forth in the case of Wederath v. Gigg, County Superintendent, 197 N. W. 786, and the further reason that no undertaking has been given as provided by law, the appeal in this case is deemed abandoned, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Not©.- — Reported in 197 N. W. 687. See, Headnote, Appeal and error, 3 C. J. Sec. 1607, 4 C. J. Sec. 2437, 3 C. J. Sec. 1603.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JOHN EDWARD RURA, III,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 438 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
BOCA RESEARCH, INC.

                   EXHIBIT 11 - CALCULATION OF SHARES USED IN
                        DETERMINING NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  JUNE 30, 1998

                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED    SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                    JUNE 30, 1998         JUNE 30, 1998
                                                  ------------------    ----------------
<S>                                                   <C>                    <C>

Shares outstanding at January 1, 1998 ...........     8,725,079              8,725,079
Shares issued January 1, 1997 in
  connection with the 1992 Employee
  Stock Purchase Plan ...........................        16,578                 16,578
                                                      ---------              ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding .............     8,741,657              8,741,657
                                                      ---------              ---------


<CAPTION>
                                  JUNE 30, 1997

                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED    SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                    JUNE 30, 1997         JUNE 30, 1997
                                                  ------------------    ----------------
<S>                                                   <C>                    <C>

Shares outstanding at January 1, 1997 ...........     8,678,883              8,768,883
Shares issued January 1, 1997 in
  connection with the 1992 Employee
  Stock Purchase Plan ...........................        12,178                 12,178
Shares issued in connection with a
  non-qualified stock option plan ...............        22,167                 20,037
                                                      ---------              ---------
Weighted average shares outstanding .............     8,713,228              8,711,098
                                                      =========              =========

</TABLE>

                                      -29-
98°W

98°W

96°W

96°W

94°W

94°W

92°W

92°W

90°W

90°W

88°W

88°W

86°W

86°W

84°W

84°W

82°W

82°W

22°N 22°N

24°N 24°N

26°N 26°N

28°N 28°N

30°N 30°N

32°N 32°N

98°W

98°W

96°W

96°W

94°W

94°W

92°W

92°W

90°W

90°W

88°W

88°W

86°W

86°W

84°W

84°W

82°W

82°W

22°N 22°N

24°N 24°N

26°N 26°N

28°N 28°N

30°N 30°N

32°N 32°N

Western Gulf of Mexico

Planning Area

Central Gulf of Mexico

Planning Area Eastern Gulf of Mexico

Planning Area

Note:

The Maritime boundaries and limits shown above,

as well as the division between planning areas,

are for initial planning purposes only and do not

prejudice or affect United States jurisdiction in

any way.

TX

LA

MS AL GA

FL

OFFSHORE ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES

GULF OF MEXICO REGION

Offshore Administrative Boundaries

Planning Area Boundary

U.S. 200 NM Limit

GULF OFFSHORE ADMINISTRATIVE

BOUNDARIES (PRELIMINARY)

LEGEND

March, 2006

Projection Geographic

North American Datum 1927

0 50 100 150 200 Statute Miles

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Kilometers
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We, Samuel A. Kovnat, Chief Executive Officer, and David D. Cryer, Chief Financial Officer, of Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)     The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





|August 26, 2005 | By: |                                             
|--------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                |     |                                             
|                |     | Samuel A. Kovnat
Its Chief Executive Officer
|August 26, 2005 | By: |                                             
|                |     |                                             
|                |     | David D. Cryer
Its Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of John A. Vanick, Petitioner, against John M. Beckmann, as Commissioner of Police of the County of Nassau, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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:  June 14, 2011 | /s/ Guy Bernstein                                                    |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                           | Guy Bernstein                                                        |
|                           | Chief Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer          |
|                           | (Principal Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial Officer) |

----
### [§§572a to 574. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, §7608(a)(2)(A), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4514]

Section 572a, added Pub. L. 97–258, §2(g)(3)(B), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1060, related to depositing of public moneys. See section 566(f) of this title.

Section 573, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 621, related to delivery of prisoners to a successor. See section 566(g)(1) of this title.

Section 574, added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 621, related to delivery of unserved process to a successor. See section 566(g)(2) of this title.
§ 15.16 Penalties. ( a ) *Misconduct.* ( 1 ) Whoever is found guilty of violating any of these rules and regulations is subject to a fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. (See 40 U.S.C. 318c.)
( 2 ) We will process any misconduct at NETC according to FEMA/NETC policy or instructions.
( b ) *Parking violations.* We may tow at the owner's expense any vehicles parked in violation of State law, FEMA, Mt. Weather, or NETC instructions.
----

**TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED**

**Chief Executive Officer Certification**

I, Zygmunt Switkowski (Chief Executive Officer), certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telstra Corporation Limited;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; and

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

Date:	    27   September 2002

Name: Zygmunt SwitkowskiTitle: Chief Executive Officer
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.174 Evidence of direct shipment. ( a ) *Documents constituting evidence of direct shipment.* The Center director may require that appropriate shipping papers, invoices, or other documents be submitted within 60 days of the date of entry as evidence that the articles were “imported directly”, as that term is defined in § 10.175. Any evidence of direct shipment required by the Center director shall be subject to such verification as he deems necessary.
( b ) *Waiver of evidence of direct shipment.* The Center director may waive the submission of evidence of direct shipment when he is otherwise satisfied, taking into consideration the kind and value of the merchandise, that the merchandise clearly qualifies for treatment under the Generalized System of Preferences.
[T.D. 76-2, 40 FR 60048, Dec. 31, 1975, as amended by T.D. 77-27, 42 FR 3162, Jan. 17, 1977]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 2153** 

DOUGLAS MICHAEL VANVLEET , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Mi ddle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 005 2 3

- JAB

- PTS )

Submitted : January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Douglas Michael Vanvleet, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Mic hael Vanvle e t seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice Vanvleet’s civil complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S .C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Vanvleet seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order because it is possible for Vanvle et to cure the deficiencies in the complaint as noted by the magistrate judge. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union , 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral a rgument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
#### Kielbert Construction Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Edward Frey and Another, Respondents.

Order so far as appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to withdraw demurrer and to reply on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.. No opinion. Order to be settled on notice. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §1401. Stockholder's derivative action

Any civil action by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation may be prosecuted in any judicial district where the corporation might have sued the same defendants.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 936.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §112 (part) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §51, 36 Stat. 1101; Sept. 19, 1922, ch. 345, 42 Stat. 849; Mar. 4, 1925, ch. 526, §1, 43 Stat. 1264; Apr. 16, 1936, ch. 230, 49 Stat. 1213).

For disposition of other provisions of section 112 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., see reviser's note under section 1391 of this title.

Words "civil action" were substituted for "suit," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Words "other than said corporation," after "same defendants," were omitted as superfluous. Obviously a corporation would not be suing itself.

Changes were made in phraseology.
[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.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Informationtechnology newsletter [electronic resource].**** 
SuDoc:GS 1.37/2:
ItemNumber:0559-J(online)
CGPsystem Number:000581001
 
March1995
May1995
Nov1995
Jan1996
March1996
 **
§ 334.4 Definitions. ( a ) *Graduated Mobilization Response* (GMR) is a system for integrating mobilization actions designed to respond to ambiguous and/or specific warnings. These actions are designed to mitigate the impact of an event or crisis and reduce significantly the lead time associated with a full national emergency action implementation.
( b ) *National security emergency* is any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or threatens the national security of the United States.
( c ) *Mobilization* is the process of marshalling resources, both civil and military, to respond to and manage a national security emergency.
( d ) *GMR Plans* are those agency documents that describe, in general, the actions that an agency could take in the early stages of a national security emergency, or upon receipt of warning information about a possible national security emergency. These actions would be designed to mitigate the impact of, or reduce significantly, the lead times associated with full emergency action implementation. Such plans are required by section 201(4)(b) of Executive Order 12656.
( e ) *A Costed Option Package* is a document that describes in detail a particular action that an agency could take in the early stages of a national security emergency. The general content of a GMR costed option package includes alternative response options; the resource implications of each option; shortfalls, costs, timeframes and political feasibility.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-10646 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JERIAH LEE GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:10-CR-64-1
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * T h e F e d eral Public Defender appointed to represent Jeriah L e e G o m e z h a s moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2 0 1 1 )

. Gomez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevan t p ortions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 6, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-10646 Document: 00511778869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2012No. 11-10646

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-10646 Document: 00511778869 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2012
#### §§ 206.101-206.109 [Reserved]