alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-57 September 19, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC OPERATIONAL SAFETY TEAM TO PRESENT FINDINGS

AT FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Tuesday

(September 24) with Detroit Edison Company officials to discuss

the findings of an operational safety inspection at the Fermi 2

Nuclear Power Plant at Monroe, Michigan.

The meeting, which is open to public observation, will begin

at 1:00 p.m. (EDT). It will take place in the Monroe City

Council Chambers, 120 East First Street, Monroe, Michigan.

This special inspection team evaluated the effectiveness of

the corrective action program -- a program which identifies and

resolves problems -- developed by the utility. The team also

assessed the performance capability of selected safety systems.

Onsite inspections were done August 22 - August 30 and

September 9 - September 13.

NRC staff scheduled the special inspection after reviewing

the plant's performance history including the NRC's latest

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). The SALP

report noted that many of the weaknesses identified in the

previous SALP report were still evident and one of the plant's

major challenges will be implementing an effective problem

identification and corrective action program.

In order to conduct an independent review, the inspection

team members were drawn from NRC headquarters in Rockville,

Maryland. The team also includes outside consultants. The

eight-person team is headed by Peter Koltay, a senior operations

officer from NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The team will issue a written report in several weeks.

####
### [§373. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(a)(52), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1773]

Section, acts Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 123; June 29, 1956, ch. 463, §3, 70 Stat. 403, related to loss not recognized in certain railroad reorganizations.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1976, see section 1901(d) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date of 1976 Amendment note under section 2 of this title.
Exhibit 23




            CONSENT OF BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON, INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We have issued our report dated July 28,  2000,  accompanying  the  consolidated
financial statements of North Arkansas  Bancshares,  Inc. which are incorporated
within the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB for the year ended June 30,  2000.  We
hereby  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference  of  said  report  in the
Corporation's Form S-8.




                                                  BAIRD, KURTZ & DOBSON

                                                 /s/ Baird, Kurtz & Dobson

Little Rock, Arkansas
September 26, 2000
#### Press-On, Inc., Appellant, v. Jacob O. Goodman, Individually and Doing Business as Mendaire Products Manufacturing Company, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We agree with the conclusion of the Special Term, except that we think the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from copying the plaintiff’s slogans and legends in connection with the sale of the defendant’s product, not including, however, the words *11*Mending Tape.”

The judgment should accordingly be reversed, without costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff to the extent indicated, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

Judgment unanimously reversed, without costs, and judgment directed in favor of the plaintiff to the extent indicated in opinion, without costs. Settle order on notice. [See *post,*p. 949.]
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SANDIE P. C HU,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. PATR IC K R . DONAHOE, POSTM ASTER

GENER AL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SER

VIC E, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-16467 D.C . No. 4:12-c v-02660-YGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d August 16, 2016 ** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Sandie P. C hu a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in he r e m ploy m e nt a c tion a lle ging ra c e and na tiona l origin disc rim inat ion in viola tion 

# FIL ED AUG 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).of Title VII. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo,

Haw n v . Ex e c . J

e t Mgmt., Inc . , 615 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th C i r. 2010), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on C hu’ s Title VII ra c e disc rim ination c la i m be c a use C hu fa ile d to ra ise a

ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r sim ila

rly situa te d e m ploy e e s we re tre ate d m ore favora bly or whe the r de fe n d ant’ s a sse rte d non-disc rim inatory re a son for involunta

rily re a s signing he r wa s pre t e xtua l. Se e id. at 1155-56 (providing fra m e work for ana ly z ing a

disc rim i nat ion c la im

unde r Title VII); se e also Earl v . N ie l se n Me dia Re se arc h , Inc . , 658 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th C ir. 2011) (disc u ssing wa y s pla intiff c an de m onstra

te pre te xt a

nd e xpla ining tha

t, a lthough plaintiff’ s burde n is not one rous, pla intiff m

ust produc e spe c ific and substa n tia l fa c t s to c re ate a

tria b le disputea s to pre te xt). AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 4 6 7 2
‘SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT
= National Monument Boundary
— Wikiemess

== Anza Nasonal Historic Trail

EE indian Reservation

@ Mittary

® State Wildlife Area

F Permit Required - Contact BLM

i Kiss
Wy Hepp
Lp
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.212 Summary judgment. ( a ) *On motion by a party.* At any time before the close of record, a party may move for summary judgment as to all or any portion of the case, on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law. ( 1 ) *Contents of motion.* The motion must include a statement of the material facts believed to be undisputed and the party's legal arguments. The motion may include supporting statements in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746. The motion must be filed, served, and accompanied by a certificate of service (*see* § 134.204).
( 2 ) *Response.* No later than 15 days after the service of a motion for summary judgment, all non-moving parties must file and serve a response to the motion or be deemed to have consented to the motion for summary judgment.
( 3 ) *Cross-motions.* In its response to a motion for summary judgment, a party may cross-move for summary judgment. The initial moving party must file and serve a response to any cross-motion for summary judgment within 15 days after the service of that cross-motion or be deemed to have consented to the cross-motion for summary judgment.
( 4 ) *Stay.* If an answer or response to the appeal petition has not yet been filed, the motion for summary judgment stays the respondent's time to answer or respond. If the Judge denies the motion and an answer or response has not yet been filed, the respondent must file the answer or response within 15 days after the order deciding the motion unless otherwise ordered by the Judge.
( b ) *On the Judge's own initiative.* The Judge may issue an order granting summary judgment as to all or any portion of the case in absence of a motion if there is no genuine issue to any material fact, and a party is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law.
( c ) *Appeal of an SBA determination.* If the SBA determination being appealed was based on multiple grounds, SBA may move for summary judgment on one or more of those grounds. If the Judge finds, as to any ground, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the SBA is entitled to a decision in its favor as a matter of law, the Judge will grant the motion for summary judgment and dismiss the rest of the appeal.
[75 FR 47441, Aug. 6, 2010]
#### Walter Ray BEASLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PIEDMONT REGIONAL JAIL, Medical; Edward I. Gordon, Doctor; Mrs. Price; Mrs. Cook; Mrs. Garriot; Nurse Chaffin, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6492.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Walter Ray Beasley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Walter Ray Beasley appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Even considering Beasley’s assertion on appeal that he received pain medication for only three days, he has not shown deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Beasley v. Piedmont Regional Jail,*No. CA-01-1811-AM (E.D.Va. Jan. 24, 2002). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
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. 98-155 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, September 2, 1998)

NRC AMENDS DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING RULE

FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulation

on decommissioning funding for nuclear power plants to reflect

conditions expected from rate deregulation of the electric power

industry.

The amended rule, which takes effect 60 days after its

forthcoming publication in the Federal Register, will:

ˇ Identify which licensees may use what is known as the

external sinking fund method of financial assurance for

decommissioning. This method sets aside funds in an

account segregated from the licensee’s assets and

administrative control. It can be a trust, escrow

account, government fund, certificate of deposit,

government securities or other payment acceptable to

the NRC.

ˇ Describe additional decommissioning financial assurance

mechanisms.

ˇ Define a “Federal licensee” as any licensee which has

the full faith and credit backing of the United States

government. Only such licensees could use statements

of intent to meet decommissioning financial assurance

requirements for power reactors.

ˇ Require nuclear power plant licensees to report to the

NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds by

March 31, 1999, and at least once every two years

thereafter. They will be required to report annually,

starting within five years of the planned end of

operation. An annual status report also will be

required when conditions indicate that the plant will

close within five years before its license expires or
in instances when the plant already has closed. NRC’s

present rule contains no such requirements because

state and Federal rate-regulating bodies actively

monitor these funds. A deregulated utility would have

no such monitoring.

ˇ Permit nuclear power plant licensees to take credit on

earnings for prepaid decommissioning trust funds and

external sinking funds from the time the funds are set

aside through the end of the decommissioning period.

The present rule does not permit such credit because it

is assumed that inflation and taxes would erode any

investment return. The NRC has decided, however, that

this position is not borne out by historical

performance of inflation-adjusted funds invested in

U.S. Treasury instruments.

Further details will be available in the Federal Register

notice to be published shortly.

In adopting this amendment, NRC considered 650 comments

received in response to an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking

published in April 1996 and more than 200 comments received after

a proposed rule was published last September.

#
§ 3504.26 May I create overriding royalties on my Federal lease? Yes, but: ( a ) BLM may order you to suspend or reduce your overriding royalties to as low as one percent if we determine your overriding royalty could: ( 1 ) Cause you to abandon your lease prematurely; or
( 2 ) Prevent mining of marginally economic or low-grade deposits.
( b ) Where more than one overriding royalty interest is involved, BLM will apply any suspension or reduction to these interests in the manner agreed upon by the interest holders. If there is no agreement, we will order suspensions and reductions starting with the most recent interest and continuing in reverse order of the dates the overriding interests were created.
( c ) If you apply for a royalty rate reduction under subpart 3513, of this part, we may request that you reduce your overriding royalties.
#### James F. Van Vooren, Appellant, v. George Cook et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Motion for reargument denied. Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 88.J
Clean Power Plan Comment for Thursday, July 31

To cut carbon by approximately 30% is a good beginning point, but we must consider doing better. Methane and nuclear waste are not mentioned in the clean power plan, nor the carbon we export to other countries, which after being extracted here, is not counted in the 30% for the U.S.A. This plan falls short because extraction and development of dirty energy is not curtailed.
Clean energy development should be financially supported in this plan as most Americans, as shown by recent studies, would pay more for clean solar and wind. To be realistic, a no-carbon future needs to be the goal now. Germany is leading the way and we should be as ambitious. The expense of climate-change storms, fires, and rising seas are financially greater than clean energy development.
Nuclear propped up, as it is in Illinois, and new plants, as in Georgia are funded by rate and tax payers. As I said above, people want to pay for wind and solar. Propping up old nuclear plants and developing new will not only suppress real clean energy growth, but will cost more in terms of carbon pollution.
I say nuclear will grow carbon pollution, because it is considered clean, and, at least in Illinois where I live, these clean credits are proposed to be traded so we can increase dirty coal mining. Also in Illinois we face the industrialization of horizontal fracking which is methane-laden. Not only are fracking and coal mining depleting and polluting our climate and water , it appears the mining will involve horizontal fracking of coal seams. This dirty extraction can create coal seam fires along with carbon pollution. All horizontal fracking creates methane leaks and should be prohibited. To protect people from carbon pollution is only a beginning, therefore fossil-fuel extraction must be considered in terms of all methane producing ramifications as well. Methane adds more to global climate change than does carbon.
To sum up, all carbon and methane needs to stay in the ground, whether natural gas, oil, or coal. To export these, which is intended, is to increase over the 30% in the clean power plan. We must reduce consumption and use our stockpiles judiciously while we grow wind, solar, and other clean energy sources.



### Pa u lu

1 8 0 

### 6 

### Mar: 0 r1 0

- 1 - 1,Jheolt 

### , 73- 

### (0 0 187 63c) '+6q 1 1643 j i li cini 

## v2 3 e corn cAs

- 4 

### Au+
EXHIBIT 31.2

SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



|I, W. Kerry Jackson, certify that:
|----------------------------------
|                                  
|1.                                
|                                  
|2.                                
|                                  
|3.                                
|                                  
|4.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|5.                                
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  
|                                  

|Date: | June 14, 2007 | By:/s/ W. Kerry Jackson      | 
|----- | ------------- | ---------------------------- | 
|      |               | W. Kerry Jackson             | 
|      |               | Executive Vice President and | 
|      |               | Chief Financial Officer      | 



---
#### § 66.4 Appointment of consultation coordination officer.

The Federal Insurance Administrator may appoint an employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or other designated Federal employee, as the Consultation Coordination Officer, for each community when an analysis is undertaken to establish or to modify flood elevations pursuant to a new study or a restudy. When a CCO is appointed by the Federal Insurance Administrator, the responsibilities for consultation and coordination as set forth in § 66.5 shall be carried out by the CCO. The Federal Insurance Administrator shall advise the community and the state coordinating agency, in writing, of this appointment.

[47 FR 771, Jan. 7, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]
<PAGE>

[KPMG LOGO]


                                                                      Exhibit 23



                              Consent of KPMG LLP


The Board of Directors
Midas, Inc.



We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-44625, 333-44797, 333-58363 and 333-42196 on Form S-8 of Midas, Inc. of our
report dated February 21, 2002 relating to the balance sheets of Midas as of the
end of fiscal years 2001 and 2000, and the related statements of operations,
cash flows and changes in shareholders' equity for each of the fiscal years
2001, 2000 and 1999, which report is incorporated by reference in the 2001
annual report on Form 10-K of Midas, Inc.



                                         [KPMG LLP LOGO APPEARS HERE]


Chicago, Illinois
March 21, 2002
KAPLAN ZEENA LLP

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, One Biscayne Tower Suite 3050, Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 530-0800; Facsimile: (305) 530-0801

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP,

INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANT LISA MCELHONE’S NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE

Defendant, Lisa McElhone, notifies the Court that she has produced corporate records and 

made disclosure to the Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission, in accordance with the 

directives in the Court’s Order dated February 20, 2024 (ECF No. 1805).

Dated: March 21, 2024.

KAPLAN ZEENA LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Lisa McElhone

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3050

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 530-0800

Facsimile: (305) 530-0801 

By: /s/ Noah E. Snyder

JAMES M. KAPLAN

Florida Bar No.: 921040

james.kaplan@kaplanzeena.com 

elizabeth.salom@kaplanzeena.com

service@kaplanzeena.com 

NOAH E. SNYDER

Florida Bar No.: 107415

noah.snyder@kaplanzeena.com

maria.escobales@kaplanzeena.com

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1832 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2024 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of March, 2024, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on counsel of record via transmissions of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF.

By: /s/ Noah E. Snyder

NOAH E. SNYDER

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1832 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2024 Page 2 of 2
#### § 108.330 Grant issuance fee.

An Applicant must pay to SBA a grant issuance fee of $5,000. An Applicant must submit this fee in advance, at the time of application submission. If SBA does not select an Applicant as a Conditionally Approved NMVC Company or designate an Applicant as a NMVC Company, SBA will refund this fee to the Applicant.
### §794. Law clerks and secretaries

The judges of the United States Court of Federal Claims may appoint necessary law clerks and secretaries, in such numbers as the Judicial Conference of the United States may approve for district judges, subject to any limitation of the aggregate salaries of such employees which may be imposed by law. A law clerk appointed under this section shall be exempt from the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 63 of title 5, unless specifically included by the appointing judge or by local rule of court.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 924; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §121(c)(1), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 34; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1003(a)(3), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4665; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §§902(a)(1), 905, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516, 4517.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §270 (Feb. 24, 1925, ch. 301, §2, 43 Stat. 965; May 29, 1928, ch. 852, §711, 45 Stat. 882; June 23, 1930, ch. 573, §1, 46 Stat. 799; Oct. 16, 1941, ch. 443, 55 Stat. 741).

The first sentence of the revised section makes express provision for appointment of stenographers and necessary clerical employees.

Other provisions of section 270 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 456 and 792 of this title.

Specific provision for $5 per diem for stenographers is omitted as unnecessary and inconsistent with section 962 of this title. Travel and subsistence allowances of Government employees are governed by sections 822–833 of title 5, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court" and inserted "for district judges" after "may approve" in first sentence.

1988—Pub. L. 100–702 inserted at end "A law clerk appointed under this section shall be exempt from the provisions of subchapter I of chapter 63 of title 5, unless specifically included by the appointing judge or by local rule of court."

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "Law clerks and secretaries" for "Stenographers and clerical employees" as section catchline and, in text, substituted "The judges of the United States Claims Court may appoint necessary law clerks and secretaries, in such numbers as the Judicial Conference of the United States may approve, subject to any limitation of the aggregate salaries of such employees which may be imposed by law" for "The Court of Claims shall appoint stenographers and other clerical employees in such numbers as may be necessary each of whom shall be subject to removal by the court".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.