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

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-131 December 15, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

Plans for the long-term storage of spent fuel at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant

in Vernon, Vt., will be discussed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and plant

representatives on Thursday, December 17. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is

scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. in Room 4-B-6 at NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Md.

Vermont Yankee, which is operated by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation,

petitioned the NRC earlier this year for approval to increase the capacity of its spent fuel

storage pool. By installing three new stainless-steel racks in the pool, the plant would be able

to store up to 3,355 fuel assemblies, versus its current limit of 2,870 assemblies.

At the meeting, plant representatives will answer preliminary questions from NRC staff

regarding the request.

A final NRC decision on the request is not expected for about another year.

A boiling-water reactor, Vermont Yankee is licensed by the NRC to operate until March

2012.

#
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:20-cv-22479-UU

MEGAN FRASER,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL TRACING, LLC,

 Defendant.

____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT

AND DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s Order Approving 

Settlement Agreement and Recommending that the Case be Dismissed with Prejudice, D.E. 25.

THE COURT has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully 

advised in the premises. On August 24, 2020, the Honorable John J. O’Sullivan, Chief United 

States Magistrate Judge, issued an order following the settlement conference in this case, which: 

(1) approved the parties’ settlement agreement, including attorney’s fees and costs, under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. (“FLSA”), pursuant to Lynn Food Stores v. United 

States, 679 F.2d 1350, 1352-1353 (11th Cir. 1982); and (2) recommended that the undersigned 

dismiss this case with prejudice, while retaining jurisdiction until October 21, 2020, to enforce the 

terms of the settlement. D.E. 25. 

The Court has made a review of the entire file and record herein and agrees with Chief 

Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is

Case 1:20-cv-22479-UU Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation, D.E. 25, is

RATIFIED, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is HEREBY DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. The Court shall retain jurisdiction until October 21, 2020 to enforce the terms of 

the settlement. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court SHALL administratively close this 

case. All future hearings are CANCELLED and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _8th_ day of September, 

2020.

_______________________________

URSULA UNGARO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-22479-UU Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2020 Page 2 of 2
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

CONTACT: Mark Hammond Jan.

3, 1997

Office: (510) 975-0254 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Home: (415) 674-1024

RIV-0197

Pager: (800) 916-4952 email:

mfh2@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $1,100 FINE

AGAINST TEXAS WELL LOGGING COMPANY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed an

$1,100 fine against Robco Production Logging Inc. of Snyder,

Texas, for failing to notify the NRC of its intention to use

radioactive materials in a state in which in was not licensed to

operate.

An NRC inspection determined that Robco used radioactive

materials on three occasions, in August and September 1995, and

in June 1996, at jobsites in Oklahoma.

Robco is licensed by the state of Texas to possess and use

certain radioactive materials there. Texas is one of 29 so-called

agreement states under a program that has state governments carry

out regulatory responsibilities that otherwise would be handled

by the federal NRC.

Oklahoma is not an agreement state, and Robco is not

licensed to use radioactive materials there. The company is

required to file notifications with the NRC of its intention to

use radioactive materials in non-agreement states such as

Oklahoma.

L. Joe Callan, Regional Administrator of the NRC Region IV

office in Arlington, Texas, said the violation was significant

because it denied the NRC an opportunity to ensure that

activities were conducted by appropriately trained personnel and

in accordance with safety requirements.

The work in Oklahoma involved using the radioactive material

iodine-131 as a tracer in wells dug for the production of oil.

In 1996, Robco filed no paperwork to inform the NRC of its

intention to conduct work in Oklahoma during the year. In May

1995, Robco properly filed paperwork that informed the NRC of its
intention to conduct work in Oklahoma on certain dates in 1995.

However, it failed to later revise the filing to include dates in

August and September 1995, when it performed additional work in

Oklahoma.

Robco has 30 days to respond to the NRC's notice of

violation, during which time it may pay the penalty or file a

protest. If the protest is denied, the company may request a

hearing.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-9 January 28, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC, BG&E TO DISCUSS LICENSE RENEWAL INSPECTION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

officials of Baltimore Gas & Electric Company next week to

discuss an upcoming license renewal inspection at the Calvert

Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby, Md.

The meeting, which is scheduled from 1 to 4 p.m. on February

1 and continues from 8 to 11:30 a.m. on February 2, will be open

for public observation. It will be held in the public meeting

room of the NRC Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa.

In developing regulations for license renewal, the NRC

required that the plant be maintained and operated according to

the terms and conditions of its original license. This ensures

an acceptable level of safety is maintained because the

regulations have been modified to address unique age-related

degradation.

On February 8, a nine-member NRC team will begin the first

of three license renewal inspections at Calvert Cliffs. This

“scoping and screening” inspection, will verify that the

company’s license renewal program is implemented consistent with

the company’s license renewal application and pertinent

regulations. Subsequent inspections will verify that programs

are in place to manage the material conditions of the systems,

structures and components.

The inspection is expected to last a week. An inspection

report will be issued about 45 days later. Members of the team

will meet with the public following issuance of the report to

discuss their findings and its relevance. The meeting will be

announced well in advance.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a

nuclear power plant is issued for up to 40 years. The license may

be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met. The current operating licenses for Calvert Cliffs will

expire on July 31, 2014, for Unit 1 and on August 13, 2016, for
Unit 2. BG&E submitted its application for license renewal in

April of last year.

#
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 1, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00256

- CV

Jael RIVERA

, Appellant

v.

Gabriel FIGUEROA

, Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 03465 Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellee has filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief, requesting an extension of sixty days. We GRANT the motion. Appellee’s brief is due September 28, 2018. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

co urt on this 1st day of August, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
[Exhibit 32.2]

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Med Gen, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report'), I, Paul B. Kravitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

January 4, 2007


/s/ Jack Chien
-----------------------
Jack Chien,
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDIE P. CHU, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PATRICK R. DONAHOE,

POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED

STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-16467

D.C. No. 4:12-cv-02660-YGR

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 16, 2016** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Sandie P. Chu appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in

her employment action alleging race and national origin discrimination in violation

FILED

AUG 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of Title VII. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Chu’s Title VII

race discrimination claim because Chu failed to raise a genuine dispute of material

fact as to whether similarly situated employees were treated more favorably or

whether defendant’s asserted non-discriminatory reason for involuntarily

reassigning her was pretextual. See id. at 1155-56 (providing framework for

analyzing a discrimination claim under Title VII); see also Earl v. Nielsen Media

Research, Inc., 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing ways plaintiff

can demonstrate pretext and explaining that, although plaintiff’s burden is not

onerous, plaintiff must produce specific and substantial facts to create a triable

dispute as to pretext).

AFFIRMED.

2 14-16467
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23466]



[[Page 61695]]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated 
under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published 
regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act as Title 45 Part 670 
of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice to 
permit applications received.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or view with respect to this permit application by November 19, 2004. 
This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit 
Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address 
or (703) 292-7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed 
by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended 
by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has 
developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for 
various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and 
certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The 
regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas.
    The applications received are as follows:
Permit Application No. 2005-016
    1. Applicant: Julie Rose, 3616 Trousdale Parkway, AHF 301, Los 
Angeles, CA 90089-0371.
    Activity for Which Permit is Requested: Introduce a non-indigenous 
species to Antarctica. The applicant proposes to use marine 
phytoplankton cultures and non-fluorescent marine bacterial cultures to 
study the feeding rates of Antarctic protistan grazers. Marine 
phytoplankton samples will be collected during the course of the cruise 
and the samples will be taken back to the United States for further 
study.
    Location: Southern Oceans south of 60 degrees South, and Ross Sea.
    Dates: December 1, 2004 to February 1, 2005.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-23466 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
     UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 INCLUDED
     IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         7,599,577
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    362,612
<ALLOWANCES>                                      33,253
<INVENTORY>                                        1,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,983,356
<PP&E>                                         1,133,855
<DEPRECIATION>                                   236,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,257,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,684,849
<BONDS>                                        1,053,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                          185
<COMMON>                                           2,857
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,516,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,257,538
<SALES>                                           66,121
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,192,128
<CGS>                                             45,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    827,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,108,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  23,821
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               933,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,676,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (4,676,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,676,915)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (3.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (3.07)



</TABLE>
### §1962. Detail of police

The Capitol Police Board is authorized to detail police from the House Office, Senate Office, and Capitol Buildings for police duty on the Capitol Grounds and on the Library of Congress Grounds.

(Pub. L. 96–432, §5, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1853.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 212a–1 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

Provisions of this section were enacted as permanent law in Pub. L. 96–432. Similar fiscal year provisions were contained in the following appropriation acts and have not been repeated since 1983:

Pub. L. 98–51, title I, §112, July 14, 1983, 97 Stat. 271.

Pub. L. 97–276, §101(e) [S. 2939, title I], Oct. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 1189.

Pub. L. 97–51, §101(c) [H.R. 4120, title I], Oct. 1, 1981, 95 Stat. 959.

Pub. L. 96–536, §101(c) [H.R. 7593, title I], Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3167.

Pub. L. 95–391, title I, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 780.

Pub. L. 95–94, title I, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 671.

Pub. L. 94–440, title III, Oct. 1, 1976, 90 Stat. 1451.

Pub. L. 94–59, title III, July 25, 1975, 89 Stat. 285.

Pub. L. 93–371, Aug. 13, 1974, 88 Stat. 436.

Pub. L. 93–145, Nov. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 539.

Pub. L. 92–342, July 10, 1972, 86 Stat. 441.

Pub. L. 92–51, July 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 136.

Pub. L. 91–382, Aug. 18, 1970, 84 Stat. 817.

Pub. L. 91–145, Dec. 12, 1969, 83 Stat. 350.

Pub. L. 90–417, July 23, 1968, 82 Stat. 406.

Pub. L. 90–57, July 28, 1967, 81 Stat. 135.

Pub. L. 89–545, Aug. 27, 1966, 80 Stat. 363.

Pub. L. 89–90, July 27, 1965, 79 Stat. 275.

Pub. L. 88–454, Aug. 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 544.

Pub. L. 88–248, Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 811.

Pub. L. 87–730, §104, Oct. 2, 1962, 76 Stat. 694.

Pub. L. 87–130, §104, Aug. 10, 1961, 75 Stat. 334.

Pub. L. 86–628, §104, July 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 460.

Pub. L. 86–176, §104, Aug. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 412.

Pub. L. 85–570, §104, July 31, 1958, 72 Stat. 453.

Pub. L. 85–75, §104, July 1, 1957, 71 Stat. 256.

June 27, 1956, ch. 453, §104, 70 Stat. 370.

Aug. 5, 1955, ch. 568, §104, 69 Stat. 520.

July 2, 1954, ch. 455, title I, §104, 68 Stat. 409.

Aug. 1, 1953, ch. 304, title I, §106, 67 Stat. 332.

July 9, 1952, ch. 598, §106, 66 Stat. 478.

Oct. 11, 1951, ch. 485, §106, 65 Stat. 403.

Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, §106, 64 Stat. 608.

June 22, 1949, ch. 235, §106, 63 Stat. 230.

June 14, 1948, ch. 467, §106, 62 Stat. 437.

July 17, 1947, ch. 262, §106, 61 Stat. 377.

July 1, 1946, ch. 530, §106, 60 Stat. 408.

June 13, 1945, ch. 189, §106, 59 Stat. 259.

June 26, 1944, ch. 277, title I, §105, 58 Stat. 354.

June 28, 1943, ch. 173, title I, 57 Stat. 230.

June 8, 1942, ch. 396, 56 Stat. 340.

July 1, 1941, ch. 268, 55 Stat. 456.

June 18, 1940, ch. 396, 54 Stat. 471.

June 16, 1939, ch. 208, 53 Stat. 831.

May 17, 1938, ch. 236, 52 Stat. 390.
### §158a. Providing facilities for operations of Federal Credit Unions

Provision by an employer of facilities for the operations of a Federal Credit Union on the premises of such employer shall not be deemed to be intimidation, coercion, interference, restraint or discrimination within the provisions of sections 157 and 158 of this title, or acts amendatory thereof.

(Dec. 6, 1937, ch. 3, §5, 51 Stat. 5.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section was not enacted either as part of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which comprises this chapter, or as part of the National Labor Relations Act, which comprises this subchapter.
### SCAD-18-0000796

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner,

vs. WILLIAM H. WHITEHEAD, III,

Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC 18-O-007)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C

. J
. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J
. )



### Upon consideration of the reply filed by Respondent William H. Whitehead III to this court’s November 7, 2018 notice and order of contemplated reciprocal discipline, pursuant to Rule 2.15(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai # i (RSCH), and the record in this matter, it clearly appears that the conduct established therein does not warrant discipline in this jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the imposition of reciprocal discipline is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 6, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-18-0000796 06-FEB-2019 01:42 PM
453 P.2d 597

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob Leroy MINNS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8830.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

April 29, 1969.

Ordered that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 241, 80 N.M. 269, 454 P.2d 355, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
§ 352.24 Provision of technical assistance and Federal facilities and resources. ( a ) Under a determination under subpart A (44 CFR 352.5(f) and 352.4(e)) that a decline or fail situation exists, FEMA and other Federal agencies will provide technical assistance to the licensee. Such assistance may be provided during the pendency of an appeal under § 352.29.
( b ) The applicable criteria for the use of Federal facilities and resources are set forth in subpart A (44 CFR 352.6(c)(1)(2)). Upon a determination under subpart A (44 CFR 352.6(d)) that Federal resources or facilities will be required, FEMA will consult with the FRPCC, the RAC, the individual Federal agencies, and the licensee, to determine the extent of Federal facilities and resources that the government could provide, and the most effective way to do so. After such consultation, FEMA will specifically request Federal agencies to provide those Federal facilities and resources. The Federal agencies, in turn, will respond to confirm the availability of such facilities and resources and provide estimates of their costs.
( c ) FEMA will inform the licensee in writing of the Federal support which will be provided. This information will identify Federal agencies which are to be included in the plan, the extent and purpose of technical assistance to be provided and the Federal facilities and resources to be committed, and the limitations of their use. The information will also describe the requirements for reimbursement to the Federal Government for this support.
( d ) FEMA will coordinate the Federal effort in implementing the determinations made under subpart A (44 CFR 352.5(f) and 352.6(d)) so that each Federal agency maintains the committed technical assistance, facilities, and resources after the licensee offsite emergency response plan is completed. FEMA and other Federal agencies will participate in training, exercises, and drills, in support of the licensee offsite emergency response plan.
( e ) In carrying out paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, FEMA will keep affected State and local governments informed of actions taken.
[54 FR 31925, Aug. 2, 1989, as amended at 74 FR 15357, Apr. 3, 2009]