alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-29 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson May 12, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

NRC PROPOSES TO FINE ENTERGY $55,000

FOR VIOLATIONS AT WATERFORD 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a civil penalty of $55,000 against Entergy

Operations, Inc., operator of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, a nuclear power plant near Taft, La., for

violations of NRC requirements in the design, testing and operation of the plant's containment cooling system.

The violations were identified during inspections conducted February 3-28, and were the subject of a

predecisional enforcement conference on April 8.

The NRC concluded that Entergy failed to assure that component cooling water flow rates through

containment fan coolers met the plant's technical specification requirement of 1325 gallons per minute. The

containment fan coolers would help to reduce containment temperature and pressure in the event of a loss-ofcoolant or main steam line break accident. Also, the NRC found that Entergy failed to take prompt corrective

action to resolve discrepancies between measured containment fan cooling flows and technical specification

requirements following system tests in August 1996 when the problem with the cooling water flow was

identified.

In a letter to Entergy, NRC Regional Administrator Ellis Merschoff said, "The NRC acknowledges

Entergy's position that the actual safety significance of the violations is low. However, we note that such a

conclusion was reached only after extensive engineering analysis to justify reduced CFC flows and to show that

peak containment pressure would not have been exceeded in the event of an accident."

Mr. Merschoff also pointed out in the letter that Entergy missed an opportunity to identify these

problems in October 1995 when containment fan cooling flow balance testing was conducted. As a result, the

plant operated out of compliance with its technical specifications for containment fan cooling flow rates for 10

months.

Entergy has conducted an engineering analysis that demonstrates that containment fan cooler flows,

although less than assumed in design documents and less that required by the technical specifications, were

always adequate to maintain containment peak pressure within design values. The company submitted revisions

to the technical specifications for containment fan coolers on April 11. NRC is reviewing the revisions.
The violations are considered a Severity Level III problem on the NRC's four-level scale, with Severity

Level I being the most serious. Entergy has 30 days to respond in writing to the NRC's Notice of Violation.

The response must document specific actions taken to prevent recurrence of the violations. During this time the

company may pay the fine or file a protest.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.178 Direct costs of processing operations performed in the beneficiary developing country. ( a ) *Items included in the direct costs of processing operations.* As used in § 10.176, the words “direct costs of processing operations” means those costs either directly incurred in, or which can be reasonably allocated to, the growth, production, manufacture, or assembly of the specific merchandise under consideration. Such costs include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) All actual labor costs involved in the growth, production, manufacture, or assembly of the specific merchandise, including fringe benefits, on-the-job training, and the cost of engineering, supervisory, quality control, and similar personnel;
( 2 ) Dies, molds, tooling, and depreciation on machinery and equipment which are allocable to the specific merchandise;
( 3 ) Research, development, design, engineering, and blueprint costs insofar as they are allocable to the specific merchandise; and
( 4 ) Costs of inspecting and testing the specific merchandise.
( b ) *Items not included in the direct costs of processing operations.* Those items which are not included within the meaning of the words “direct costs of processing operations” are those which are not directly attributable to the merchandise under consideration or are not “costs” of manufacturing the product. These include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Profit; and
( 2 ) General expenses of doing business which are either not allocable to the specific merchandise or are not related to the growth, production, manufacture, or assembly of the merchandise, such as administrative salaries, casualty and liability insurance, advertising, and salesmen's salaries, commissions, or expenses.
[T.D. 76-2, 40 FR 60049, Dec. 31, 1975]
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-35 July 2, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 708/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 708/829-9662

Internet e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

NRC CHAIRMAN TO HOLD NEWS BRIEFING JULY 12

FOLLOWING VISITS TO WISCONSIN NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson

will visit two nuclear power stations in Wisconsin and conduct a

news briefing on July 12 at the close of her plant visits.

On July 11 she will visit the Kewaunee Nuclear Power

Station, operated by Wisconsin Public Service Co. near Kewaunee.

On July 12 she will visit the Point Beach Nuclear Power Station,

which is operated by Wisconsin Electric Power Co. near Two

Rivers.

The briefing for news media representatives will be at 2:30

p.m., July 12, in the Energy Information Center at the Point

Beach Nuclear Power Station. The Point Beach facility is located

on Nuclear Road east of Highway 42 and north of Two Rivers.

The visits to the two plants are part of a series of visits

to nuclear facilities across the country by Chairman Jackson.

She has been Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since

July 1, 1995.

While at the plants, she will tour the facilities, meet with

the NRC resident inspectors and other NRC personnel, and meet

with utility and plant management.

#####
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23278]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster <greek-i>P065]


State of New York

    As a result of the President's major disaster declaration for 
Public Assistance on October 1, 2004 the U.S. Small Business 
Administration is activating its disaster loan program only for private 
non-profit organizations that provide essential services of a 
governmental nature. I find that Allegany, Broome, Columbia, Delaware, 
Monroe, Onondaga, Steuben, Sullivan, Ulster, and Warren Counties in the 
State of New York constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by 
severe storms and flooding occurring on August 29, 2004 and continuing 
through September 16, 2004. Applications for loans for physical damage 
as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business 
on November 30, 2004 at the address listed below or other locally 
announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 
1 Office, 360 Rainbow Blvd., South, 3rd Floor, Niagara Falls, NY 14303.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere      2.900
  Non-profit organizations with credit available elsewhere...      4.875
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is P06506.


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59008)

    Dated: October 8, 2004.
Cheri L. Cannon,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-23278 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
### §3304. State plan

Each State desiring to receive funds under this subchapter for any fiscal year shall submit and have approved a unified State plan in accordance with section 3112 of this title or a combined State plan in accordance with section 3113 of this title.

(Pub. L. 113–128, title II, §224, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1617.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as a note under section 3101 of this title.
#### Lucia Panettieri, Respondent, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
#### §§ 208.28-208.30 [Reserved]
§ 9.15 Planning programs affecting land use. The Agency shall take floodplain management into account when formulating or evaluating any water and land use plans. No plan may be approved unless it: ( a ) Reflects consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management and wetlands protection; and
( b ) Prescribes planning procedures to implement the policies and requirements of the Orders and this regulation.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle, Ill. 60532

RIII-00-15 March 31, 2000

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662

E-MAIL: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC CHAIRMAN RICHARD A. MESERVE TO HOLD NEWS CONFERENCE

ON APRIL 5 FOLLOWING VISIT TO PERRY NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Richard A. Meserve will visit the Perry Nuclear Power

Station, operated by FirstEnergy Corporation, on April 4 and 5. The plant is located in North Perry, Ohio, east

of Cleveland.

At the plant, Dr. Meserve will observe portions of an NRC security team inspection, called an

Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation. He will also tour the site and meet with plant officials and

members of the NRC staff. He will hold a news conference at the close of his plant visit on Wednesday,

April 5.

The news conference will begin at 2:30 p.m. in the Training Building at the plant site, which is located

on Center Road north of Highway 20 in North Perry, Ohio. The Training Building is the first building on the

left after entering the plant site.

The Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) is a special NRC review to assess the

capabilities of the plant’s security systems and staff to respond to simulated security incidents at the plant. The

OSRE team includes NRC inspectors and contractors who are experts in security and counter-terrorism

activities.

The OSRE program began in 1991. With the completion of the review at Perry, all nuclear power plants

will have been evaluated except one. The remaining OSRE review, at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station in

Illinois, is scheduled for May.

Dr. Meserve was sworn in as Chairman of the NRC on October 29. A brief biography can be found on

the NRC's web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRC/WHATIS/meserve.vitae.html .

#####
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets of commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis Panel, Bayer G13.                    

*Date:*                         December 1, 2004.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 2 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Library of Medicine, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 301, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Hua-Chuan Sim, MD, Health Science Administrator, National Library of Medicine, Extramural Programs, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 14, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-23652  Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Affirmed a nd Memorandum Opinion filed July 11 , 202 4

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 602

- C R

TREYIVION ROSS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , A ppellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris Co unty, Texas Trial C our t Ca u se No

. 1811267

MEM ORANDUM OPINIO N
Appellant appeal s his conviction for murder

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19 .02(b)

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeal is wholly frivo lous and wit hout merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Califo r nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation
of the record and dem onstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 8 07 , 811

– 13 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counse l’s brief was delivered t o appellant. Appellant was advised2 of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. Although more th an 30 day s have elap sed since the record was pr ovided to appellant, he has not filed any response.

W e have carefully reviewe d the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no rev ersible error in

t he record. We ar e not to address the merits of each claim ra ised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for
review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

. The judgmen t of the trial court i s affirmed.

PER CURIAM

P anel consists of Justices Wise, Bourliot , and Wilson.
Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI-DADE DIVISION

SCANZ TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEWMON ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,

 

 Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-22957-RNS

DECLARATION OF ELAD BOTWIN

In Support of Supplement to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 136-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 1 of 3
DECLARATION OF ELAD BOTWIN

I, Elad Botwin, declare:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice in the State of Florida and am an 

associate of Squire Law Group, P.A., counsel for Plaintiff Scanz Technologies, Inc. in this 

matter.

2. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and if called to testify I could and 

would competently testify thereon based upon my personal knowledge.

3. I was present at the June 11, 2021 deposition of Tim Burr (“Mr. Burr”), CEO and founder 

of Scopic Software, LLC (“Scopic”), providing support for attorney Jeffrey D. Feldman, Esq. in 

conducting the deposition and marshalling the documents presented or produced by Mr. Burr. 

4. I submit this declaration in support of the Supplement to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend Complaint (DE123) to authenticate the transcript of the deposition of Mr. Burr, given 

that Plaintiff is not yet in possession of the certified version thereof as the deposition occurred 

only two days ago. A true and correct copy of the rough draft of the transcript, which was 

received on June 11, 2021, is filed herewith as Exhibit A. This transcript is equal to my 

recollection of the deposition of Mr. Burr and there is no distance between the transcript and my 

memory of what transpired.

5. Additionally, I make this declaration to apprise this Court of the fact that, during a meet 

and confer call held on June 12, 2021, in which I participated, Defendants’ counsel orally 

confirmed for the first time that Defendants retained the services of a software developer prior to 

the execution of the License Agreement and prior to negotiations concerning the License 

Agreement. On the evening of June 12, 2021, I sent Defendants an email documenting Plaintiff’s 

recollection of the meet and confer. A true and correct copy of this June 12, 2021 email is 

appended hereto as Exhibit B.

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 136-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 2 of 3
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: June 14, 2021 __________________________________ 

ELAD BOTWIN, ESQ.

Case 1:20-cv-22957-RNS Document 136-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/14/2021 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------



                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference to the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of Union Community  Bancorp (the  "Company"),  File Number
000-23543,  of our report dated January 28, 2003 on the  consolidated  financial
statements  of the Company  which  report is  incorporated  by  reference in the
Company's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed
pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.




/s/ BKD,LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 28, 2003
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-236

November 4, 1999

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

(ACRS) has scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena on

November 17 in Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittee will review the industry effort coordinated by the Electric Power

Research Institute to address the issue of water hammer in low-pressure fluid systems as it

relates to the resolution of Generic Letter 96-06, and to continue its look at the Commission

code review guideline documents.

The meeting will be open to the public, except when proprietary information may be

discussed. It will be held in Room T-2B1 of the agency’s Two White Flint North Building, at

11545 Rockville Pike, from 8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.

Those who wish to make oral or written statements or seek additional information on

the meeting or changes to the agenda should contact Paul Boehnert, at 301-415-8065, or

by e-mail at PAB2@NRC.gov

###
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Walnut Creek Field Office, Region IV

1450 Maria Lane Walnut Creek California 94596

RIV-5097 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Mark Hammond Sept. 9, 1997

Office: (510) 975-0254

NRC SCHEDULES DESIGN INSPECTION MEETING

FOR DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a

public exit meeting with officials of the Pacific Gas and

Electric Co. to discuss the results of a special NRC design

inspection at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near Avila

Beach, California. The meeting will be on Thursday, Sept. 11, at

3 p.m. at the Embassy Suites, 333 Madonna Road in San Luis

Obispo.

The inspection, which began Aug. 4 and lasted about a

month, was led by Morris Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, and

supported by inspectors from the engineering firm Sargent &

Lundy.

Similar inspections have been and will be conducted at other

nuclear plants in the nation. The NRC initiated these inspections

last year 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 the

documented basis upon which they were designed.

A written report on the inspection is expected in the fall.

-- 30 --
# U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

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 t h a t creates a jurisdictional dispute. See, e.g., Int'l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Loca l 62-B v. N.L.R.B. (Alaska Timber), 781 F.2d 91 9 , 9 2 4-26 (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 dispu t e i s still between Shank/BB and the electrical union. And the NLRB precedent, w h ich 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 participant s. 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'"