alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.708 Effect of noncompliance; failure to provide documentation regarding third-country transportation. ( a ) *Effect of noncompliance.* If the importer fails to comply with any requirement under this subpart, including submission of a complete declaration under § 10.704 of this subpart, when requested, the Center director may deny preferential tariff treatment to the imported good.
( b ) *Failure to provide documentation regarding third country transportation.* Where the requirements for preferential tariff treatment set forth elsewhere in this subpart are met, the Center director nevertheless may deny preferential treatment to a good if the good is shipped through or transshipped in a country other than Jordan or the United States, and the importer of the good does not provide, at the request of the Center director, evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Center director that the good was “imported directly”, as that term is defined in § 10.711(a) of this subpart.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-97-108 August 20, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC PROPOSES $55,000 FINE FOR VIOLATION AT INDIAN POINT 3

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has cited the New

York Power Authority (NYPA) for a violation of NRC requirements

at its Indian Point 3 nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y. The staff

has proposed a $55,000 fine.

Based on an NRC engineering team inspection conducted at

Indian Point between April 7 and May 1, and information gathered

at a July 30 predecisional enforcement conference, the NRC staff

has determined a violation of NRC requirements has occurred.

The violation involves three examples of the failure to

correctly translate plant design basis information into emergency

operating procedures (EOPs). Design basis refers to the plant’s

original design information, including the facility’s safety

features, as well as details of modifications made over the

years. Specifically, the repositioning of certain throttling

valves in the component cooling water system and other flow rate

considerations at Indian Point 3 were not properly translated

into procedures.

In a letter to NYPA, NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J.

Miller said, “These three examples represent a significant

regulatory concern because they are indicative of inadequate

controls to properly incorporate design basis information into

the EOPs. Apparently, your process did not require sufficient

reviews of EOPs by engineering staff. Furthermore, all three of

these examples were identified by the NRC, raising significant

questions regarding the adequacy of your self assessments of

EOPs. As such, these violations represent a breakdown in control

of licensed activities, and raise questions both of the adequacy

of your EOPs, as well as the effectiveness of the EOP reviews.”

NYPA has revised the affected procedures and taken a number

of steps to prevent recurrence of the violation, including

planning to perform a broad review of procedures and to review

all EOPs to ensure all applicable design information has been

incorporated.
NYPA has 30 days either to pay the proposed fine or to

request in writing that all or part of the penalty be withdrawn.

#
11/09/2010 11:56 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 12 

DEPARTMENT OF 

TriANSPORWION 

' OKET OPERATIONS 

-q P |: lb 

Robert Yotsuuye 

3014 43rd AVE NE 

Tacoma, WA 98422-2822 

October 28, 2010 

Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt 

800 iridependence Avenue, SWRoom 1010 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Support tliese clianges to the FAA's Right Time/Duty Time NPRM 

Dear Administrator Babbitt: 

As a US oommercial pilot reviewing the FAA Notice of Proposed Ruiemaicing (NPRM) on Flight 

crew member Duty and Rest Requirements I am pleased that the majority of the NPRM 

represents an improvement to current regulations and covers all commercial operations in the 

spirit of "One Level of Safety." However, there are some specific items that need to be changed in 

order to mitigate fatigue for the professional pilot. 1) The flight time limit should not be 

increased 25% from 8 hours to 10 hours. 2) The augmented (3 person) flight time limit should 

not be increased 25% from 12 to 15 hours. 3) Rest requirements should be 10 hours domestic 

and 14 hours intemationaJ. 9 hours, reducible to 8 hours is not enough time to achieve restorative 

sleep, eat, and attend to personal hygiene between duty periods. 4) Domestic augmentation 

should not be allowed. As a professional commercial aviator worl<ing at high speed in congested 

airspace, and through arduous weather conditions, I can tell you that fatigue mitigation is 

paramount to improving the safety of the traveling public. The NTSB has held fatigue on its "Most 

Wanted List" for thirty years because it is a problem that flight crews deal with on a daily basis. 

This FAA NPRM will go a long way to reducing fatigue and increasing safety if these items are 

addressed. 

Sincerely, 

Robert Haaiaki Yotsuuye 

Pilot, UPS Airlines 

253.927.1125
#### § 111.57 Determination by appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade.

The appropriate Executive Director, Office of Trade, will make a determination on whether or not charges should be preferred, and will notify the processing Center of the decision.

[CBP Dec. 22-21, 87 FR 63319, Oct. 18, 2022]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 May 31, 2017

a0522

Order 

Clerk

May 31, 2017

154069(25)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 154069

COA: 331567

Wayne CC: 10-002260-FC

TRAMMANUEL DURHAM, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 22, 

2017 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
EXHIBIT 32

Securities
and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eastern American Natural Gas Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust at the dates and for
the periods presented.

The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

|                  |  |                                                                                                          |  |                                                                              
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Trustee, Trustee for Eastern American Natural Gas Trust
|                  |  | By:                                                                                                      |  | /s/ MIKE ULRICH Vice PresidentThe Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.
|Date: May 8, 2009 |  |                                                                                                          |  |                                                                              

---



QuickLinks
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-93 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, June 28, 1996)

NRC TO REQUIRE COMMISSION APPROVAL BEFORE MILLSTONE RESTART

At the direction of the Commission, the NRC staff has

reclassified Millstone Units 1, 2 and 3 at Waterford,

Connecticut, as watch list plants which will require

authorization from the Commission to restart.

The Commission took the action today as the result of the

staff's semiannual briefing Tuesday on nuclear power plants which

warrant increased NRC regulatory attention. At that briefing ˇ

as at a similar briefing in January ˇ the Millstone units were

listed as "Category 2" watch list plants: those authorized to

operate, but which have weaknesses which warrant increased NRC

attention.

As a result of the Commission's action, the Millstone units

have been moved to the watch list "Category 3." This

classification lists plants with significant weaknesses which

warrant being maintained in a shutdown condition until the

licensee can demonstrate to NRC that adequate programs have both

been established and implemented to assure substantial

improvement.

The Millstone units, operated by Northeast Utilities, are

the only plants currently in Category 3. Continuing in Category

2 are Dresden Units 2 and 3, operated by Commonwealth Edison near

Morris, Illinois, and Indian Point Unit 3, operated by the New

York Power Authority near Buchanan, New York.

#
Exhibit 32.1 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Heng Chuk, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

A signed original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 115.60 General.

This subpart provides for the approval and certification of road vehicles manufactured by design type.
#### Nathaniel LINDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joanne GOVIER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-2772.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2006.

Decided March 13, 2006.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 11, 2006.

Nathaniel Lindell, Boscobel, WI, pro se.

John J. Glinski, Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Office of the Attorney General Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, and Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judges.

Lindell appeals from a judgment dismissing his prisoner’s civil rights suit, in which he primarily claims that the prison is unlawfully restricting his practice of his religion (Wotanism). We had remanded a previous such judgment, in which the district judge had dismissed the suit prematurely, without addressing the merits of Lindell’s claims. *Lindell v. McCollum,*352 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir.2003). In summary judgment proceedings on remand, the judge determined that the claims had no merit, and again dismissed, and Lindell has again appealed.

The district judge’s painstaking analysis is sound, and we have nothing to add to it except to note that any residual doubt about the lack of merit of Lindell’s religious claims has been dispelled by our recent decision in *Borzych v. Frank,*439 F.3d 388 (7th Cir.2006).

Affirmed.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DIMITRI PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv04349-MCR-MJF

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated June 2, 2020. ECF No. 2. The parties have been furnished 

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity

to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have 

made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections 

thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should 

be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 1:20-cv-22722-RNS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv4349-MCR-MJF

2. This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for 

the Southern District of Florida.

3. The clerk of the court is directed to close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-22722-RNS Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 2
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-97-102 August 8, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC, ENGINEERING FIRM TO DISCUSS LOSS OF RADIOACTIVE SOURCE

The temporary loss of a radioactive source at a Delaware

construction site in July will be the subject of a meeting

between Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and representatives

of a Philadelphia, Pa., engineering firm on Wednesday, August 13.

NRC staff believe Ambric Engineering Inc.’s loss of the source,

which was used in a portable moisture-density gauge, was an

apparent violation of agency regulations pertaining to the

security of licensed radioactive materials in unrestricted areas.

On July 10, Ambric Engineering notified the NRC that a 6-

milicurie, cesium-137 sealed source had been lost at a

construction site at the Bally Meade Development on Route 92 in

Claymont, Del. Contained in a small stainless steel capsule and

measuring about a half-inch in length, the source had apparently

broken off from the gauge. Four days later, the source was

found, placed in a shielded container and shipped to its

manufacturer.

An NRC inspection determined that Ambric Engineering did

not control and maintain constant surveillance of the licensed

material, which could have led to radioactive exposure for

members of the public.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement

conference does not mean that the NRC has determined a violation

has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. Rather,

the purpose is to discuss the apparent violation, its cause and

safety significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity

to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its

proposed corrective action.

No decision on the apparent violation will be made at

this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at

a later time.
2

Scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. in the Division of Nuclear

Materials Safety Conference Room at the NRC Region I office in

King of Prussia, Pa., the predecisional enforcement conference

will be open to the public for observation.

#
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.879 Indirect materials.

Indirect materials are to be disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an originating good under § 10.873 of this subpart and General Note 31, HTSUS, except that the cost of such indirect materials may be included in meeting the value-content requirement specified in § 10.873(b) of this subpart.
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Gladstone CapitalCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2006 (“Form 10-K”), filed concurrently herewith by the Company,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 6, 2006
| /s/ David Gladstone                 |   |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| David Gladstone                     |   |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer and        |   |   |
| Chairman of the  Board of Directors |   |   |

 

----
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER  	


	
  


 
 
 
	

   	  	
 

 	 

   


Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, West Virginia

  ! "




#

  

Forest

Service FHTET-99-1

August 2000

X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds

Bozeman, Montana, USA

July 4-14, 1999
	
  


 
 
 
	

   	  	
 

 	 

   


USDA Forest Service

Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team

180 Canfield St.

Morgantown, West Virginia, USA 26505-3101

 !"




#

  

X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds

Bozeman, Montana, USA

July 4-14, 1999
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.588 Effect of noncompliance; failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment. ( a ) *General.* If the importer fails to comply with any requirement under this subpart, including submission of a complete certification prepared in accordance with § 10.584 of this subpart, when requested, the Center director may deny preferential tariff treatment to the imported good.
( b ) *Failure to provide documentation regarding transshipment.* Where the requirements for preferential tariff treatment set forth elsewhere in this subpart are met, the Center director nevertheless may deny preferential tariff treatment to an originating good if the good is shipped through or transshipped in a country other than a Party to the CAFTA-DR, and the importer of the good does not provide, at the request of the Center director, evidence demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Center director that the conditions set forth in § 10.604(a) of this subpart were met.
### §291. Congressional declaration of purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to provide a classification system for the equitable establishment and adjustment of rates of compensation for, and for the efficient utilization of personnel in, certain positions under the House of Representatives to which this chapter applies, through—

(1) the creation and maintenance of orderly and equitable compensation relationships for such positions—

(A) in accordance with the principle of equal pay for substantially equal work, and

(B) with due regard to (i) differences in the levels of difficulty, responsibility, and qualification requirements of the work, (ii) the kind of work performed, (iii) satisfactory performance, and (iv) length of service;

(2) the application of appropriate position standards and position descriptions for such positions; and

(3) the adoption of organization and position titles in the House which accurately reflect the respective functions, duties, and responsibilities of those organizations and positions in the House to which this chapter applies.

(Pub. L. 88–652, §2, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1079.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 88–652, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1079, known as the House Employees Position Classification Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 88–652, §17, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1084, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter and amending sections 88c and 4131 of this title] shall become effective on January 1, 1965."

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 88–652, §1, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1079, provided that: "This Act [see Tables for classification] may be cited as the 'House Employees Position Classification Act'."

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 88–652, §15, Oct. 13, 1964, 78 Stat. 1084, provided that:

"(a) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act [this chapter], the aggregate (gross) rate of compensation of any employee immediately prior to the effective date of this Act [Jan. 1, 1965] shall not be reduced by reason of the enactment of this Act.

"(b) For the purposes of applicable law relating to the payment to any individual of compensation from more than one civilian office or position, each employee of the House to whom this Act applies who, immediately prior to the effective date of this Act—

"(1) is receiving basic compensation from more than one civilian office or position and

"(2) is in compliance with such law

shall be held and considered to be in compliance with such law on and after such effective date, notwithstanding the enactment of this Act, so long as such employee continues to receive, without break in service of more than thirty days, the same or lower rate of basic compensation in a position to which this Act does not apply."
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 32.1


                   Certification of Periodic Financial Reports

I, James C. Eckert, of OMNI Energy Services Corp., certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A/3 for the period ended December 31,
         2003 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of OMNI Energy Services Corp.


Dated:  September 14, 2004


                                        /s/ James C. Eckert
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                                          James C. Eckert
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer