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

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

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

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 97-065 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, April 23, 1997)

NRC RELEASES FINAL DECISIONS ON ALL STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ISSUES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released the entire

set of decisions on 16 direction-setting issues (DSIs) which are

part of the agency's strategic assessment and rebaselining

initiative. Decisions were made in the following areas:

ˇ Oversight of the Department of Energy (DSI 2)

ˇ NRC's Relationship with Agreement States (DSI 4)

ˇ Low-Level Waste (DSI 5)

ˇ High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel (DSI 6)

ˇ Materials/Medical Oversight (DSI 7)

ˇ Decommissioning - Non Reactor Facilities (DSI 9)

ˇ Reactor Licensing for Future Applicants (DSI 10)

ˇ Operating Reactor Program Oversight (DSI 11)

ˇ Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation (DSI 12)

ˇ The Role of Industry (DSI 13)

ˇ Public Communications Initiatives (DSI 14)

ˇ International Activities (DSI 20)

ˇ Fees (DSI 21)

ˇ Research (DSI 22)

ˇ Enhancing Regulatory Excellence (DSI 23)

ˇ Power Reactor Decommissioning (DSI 24)

Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson initiated the strategic

assessment in 1995 to provide a solid foundation for the agency's

direction and decision-making as it positions itself for current

and future challenges. The Commission arrived at these decisions

after meetings and discussions with the staff and after

considering comments received from interested individuals during

three public conferences in Washington, D.C., Colorado Springs,

Colorado, and Chicago, Illinois.

The agency will use these decisions in developing a

strategic plan that will encompass the agency's priorities,

mission and goals.

Copies of all decisions are available at NRC's Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037,

telephone (1-800-397-4209) and electronically on our internet

home page (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/strategy.html)
#
-cr-06219-WDF Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2000 P
-cr-06219-WDF Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/05/2000 P
#### §§ 206.210-206.219 [Reserved]
Exhibit 2

(Total Compensation and Expenses Requested)

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 589-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2021 Page 1 of 2
Professional Firm Category Hours Fees Expenses Total Billed

Stumphauzer Foslid Sloman Ross &

Kolaya, PLLC Attorneys 926.6 $297,364.00 $2,005.58 $299,369.58

Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick &

Raspanti, LLP Attorneys 2,954.6 $614,983.25 $48,476.31 $663,459.56

Development Specialists, Inc. Operations Consultant 2,815.1 $1,266,795.00 $2,366.51 $1,269,161.51

Lawgical Insight, LLC eDiscovery Specialist 181.3 $58,906.25 $4,330.60 $63,236.85

HD Investigative Group, LLC Investigations Firm 226.3 $50,905.00 $0.00 $50,905.00

Fox Rothschild Attorneys 90.7 $33,666.50 $312.00 $33,978.50

6,557.8 $2,322,620.00 $57,491.00 $2,380,111.00

Total Compensation and Expenses Requested

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 589-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/17/2021 Page 2 of 2
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2022 KW 0015 

VERSUS 

TONY JOSEPH TABOR MARCH 14, 2022 

In Re: Tony Joseph Tabor, applying for supervisory writs, 32°d 

Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Nos. 

447,948 & 476,610. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLE K OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT 

JMG 

GH 

WRC
#### Herman Gelber, as President of the Moving Picture Machine Operators’ Union of Greater New York, Local No. 306, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, et al., Respondents, and Martin Cohen, Appellant, v. Loew’s Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

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

Defendants.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER RYAN K. STUMPHAUZER’S 

THIRD APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF 

PROFESSIONALS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

FOR JANUARY 1, 2021 – MARCH 31, 2021

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Receiver Ryan K. Stumphauzer’s Third

Application for Allowance and Payment of Professionals’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses 

for January 1, 2021 – March 31, 2021 [ECF No. 589] (“Application”), filed on May 17, 2021. 

The Court has reviewed the Application and Defendants’ Objection to the Application [ECF No. 

601] and is otherwise fully advised. 

This is a complex receivership involving the operation of a merchant cash advance business 

with a current receivable balance of over $400 million, and a group of investors that are seeking, 

collectively, more than $300 million dollars from the company. The Receiver and his

professional team are managing numerous operational issues involving more than 1,300 merchants 

that are parties to merchant cash advance agreements with Par Funding. The Application and 

records submitted by the Receiver reflect that the Receiver and his professional team have

reasonably and diligently discharged their duties. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 604 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

The Receiver’s tasks in this case have included negotiating with Par Funding’s merchants 

in an effort to reach settlements of MCA account balances; investigating entities and assets that

the individual Defendants obtained or capitalized with proceeds from the operations of the 

Receivership Entities and moving to expand the Receivership to include certain of these entities 

and assets; assuming responsibilities over various residential and commercial properties; 

responding to issues and document requests related to pending litigation and investigations 

involving the Receivership Entities; communicating with the Defendants and responding to 

discovery requests; and drafting status reports for the Court.

In performing these tasks, among others, the Receiver and his professional team have 

provided a significant benefit to the receivership estate, investors, and creditors at rates that the 

Court finds reasonable. Indeed, at a status conference the Court held on May 20, 2021, the 

Receiver and his counsel indicated that the Receiver’s efforts have resulted in recovery of 

approximately $100 million. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Application [ECF No. 589] is GRANTED as 

follows:

Professional Fees: $2,322,620.00

Expenses: $57,491.00

TOTAL: $2,380,111.00

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 1st day of June, 2021.

 _________________________________

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 604 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.205 Country of origin criteria. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an article may be eligible for duty-free treatment under the ATPA if the article is either: ( 1 ) Wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of a beneficiary country; or
( 2 ) A new or different article of commerce which has been grown, produced, or manufactured in a beneficiary country.
( b ) *Exceptions.* No article shall be eligible for duty-free treatment under the ATPA by virtue of having merely undergone simple (as opposed to complex or meaningful) combining or packaging operations, or mere dilution with water or mere dilution with another substance that does not materially alter the characteristics of the article. The principles and examples set forth in § 10.195(a)(2) of this part shall apply equally for purposes of this paragraph.
#### § 350.4 Exclusions.

The regulation in this part does not apply to, nor will FEMA apply any criteria with respect to, any evaluation, assessment or determination regarding the NRC licensee's emergency plans or preparedness, nor shall FEMA make any similar determination with respect to the integration of offsite and NRC licensee emergency preparedness except as these assessments and determinations affect the emergency preparedness of State and local governments. The regulation in this part applies only to State and local planning and preparedness with respect to emergencies at commercial nuclear power facilities and does not apply to other facilities which may be licensed by NRC, nor to United States Government-owned, non-licensed facilities nor the jurisdictions surrounding them.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CIV-22945-SCOLA/TORRES 

DECURTIS LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC, 

Defendants. 

 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS 

Carnival Corporation, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files the following 

exhibits in support of Carnival’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Material Facts in 

Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, and Daubert Motion to Strike, Limit, or Exclude 

Certain Expert Testimony and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof. 

1. Declaration of Diana Fassbender with Exhibits 1-128 thereto; 

2. Declaration of Mary Coleman; 

3. Declaration of Erik de la Iglesia. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 285 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 1 of 3
Dated: April 25, 2022 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

By: /s/ Diana Marie Fassbender 

Diana Marie Fassbender 

Florida Bar No. 0017095 

dszego@orrick.com 

 Steven J. Routh (pro hac vice) 

 T. Vann Pearce, Jr. (pro hac vice) 

 Eileen M. Cole (pro hac vice) 

 Jay Jurata (pro hac vice) 

 Emily Luken (pro hac vice) 

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 Columbia Center, 1152 15th Street, N.W. 

 Washington, D.C. 20005-1706 

 Tel: (202) 339-8533 

 GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 

 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200 

 Miami, FL 33131 

 Phone: (305) 416-6880 

 Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 

 Jorge Espinosa 

 Fla. Bar No. 779032 

 jorge.espinosa@gray-robinson.com

 Robert R. Jimenez 

 Fla. Bar. No. 72020 

 robert.jimenez@gray-robinson.com

 

 Robert L. Uriarte (pro hac vice) 

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 1000 Marsh Road 

 Menlo Park, CA 94025 

 Tel: (650) 289-7105 

 Olivia Clements (pro hac vice) 

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 51 West 52nd Street 

 New York, NY 10019-6142 

 Tel: (212) 506-5000 

 Johannes Hsu (pro hac vice) 

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 2050 Main Street 

 Suite 1100 

 Irvine, CA 92614-8255

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 285 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 2 of 3
 Tel: (949) 567-6700 

 David R. Medina (pro hac vice) 

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 777 South Figueroa Street 

 Suite 3200 

 Los Angeles. CA 90017-5855 

 Tel: (213) 629-2020 

 Sheryl Garko (pro hac vice) 

 Laura Najemy (pro hac vice) 

 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 222 Berkeley Street 

 Suite 2000 

 Boston, MA 02116 

 (617) 880-1800 

Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Carnival Corporation

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 285 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2022 Page 3 of 3
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Classroom connections.**
 
2006:Fall
2007:Winter | Spring | Fall
2008:Winter
 
 
SuDoc Number:SI 6.16:
Item Number:0916-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000626349
 
May 14, 2018
#### William H. Snyder, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmedl with costs. All concurred.
0-cr-06219-WDF Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 P
0-cr-06219-WDF Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2000 P
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.1008 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 § 10.1004 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 UKFTA, 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 § 10.1025(a) of this subpart were met.
§ 123.18 Equipment and materials for constructing bridges or tunnels between the United States and Canada or Mexico. ( a ) *Admission of equipment and materials.* Equipment for use in construction of bridges or tunnels between the United States and Canada or Mexico shall be admitted without entry or the payment of duty. Materials for such use shall be admitted without entry or payment of duty only for installation in the bridge or tunnel proper, and not in the approaches on land at the United States end of such bridge or tunnel.
( b ) *Customs supervision.* All articles admitted under paragraph (a) of this section shall be subject to Customs supervision at the expense of the builder until installed, entered, or exported.
#### John P. Kosnick, Respondent, v. Keeshin Motor Express Co., Defendant, and Theodore Hoke, Appellant.

The plaintiff has secured a judgment in the amount of $3,134.50 for the personal injuries which he sustained in a collision between tractor-trailer units driven by the respective parties. The defendant’s motion for a dismissal of the complaint and to set aside the verdict and for a new trial have been denied. Purely questions of fact were involved. The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. The verdict was not excessive. Judgment *929and orders unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Present — Hill, P. J., Hefliernan, Poster, Russell and Deyo, JJ.
§ 113.33 Corporations as principals. ( a ) *Name of corporation on the bonds.* The name of a corporation executing a CBP bond as a principal, may be printed or placed thereon by means of a rubber stamp or otherwise, followed by the written signature of the authorized officer or attorney.
( b ) *Signature and seal of the corporation on the bond.* The bond of a corporate principal must be signed by an authorized officer or attorney of the corporation and the corporate seal must be affixed immediately adjoining the signature of the person executing the bond, as provided for in § 113.25.
( c ) *Bond executed by an officer of corporation.* When a bond is executed by an officer of a corporation, a power of attorney will not be required if the person signing the bond on behalf of the corporation is known to the Revenue Division, port director, or drawback office to be the president, vice president, treasurer, or secretary of the corporation. The officer's signature is prima facie evidence of that officer's authority to bind the corporation. When a power of attorney is required, it must conform to the requirements of subpart C, part 141, of this chapter.
( d ) *Bond executed by an attorney in fact.* When an attorney in fact executes a bond on behalf of a corporate principal and a power of attorney has not been filed with the Revenue Division (unless exempted from filing by § 141.46 of this chapter), there must be attached a power of attorney executed by an officer of the corporation whose authority to execute the power must be shown as prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) *Subsidiaries as co-principals.* The provisions of this section are applicable to each corporate subsidiary which joins its parent corporation by signing the bond as co-principal.
[T.D. 84-213, 49 FR 41171, Oct. 19, 1984, as amended at CBP Dec. 15-15, 80 FR 70164, Nov. 13, 2015]
§ 107.440 Standards governing prior SBA approval for a proposed transfer of Control. SBA approval is contingent upon full disclosure of the real parties in interest, the source of funds for the new owners' interest, and other data requested by SBA. As a condition of approving a proposed transfer of control, SBA may: ( a ) Require an increase in your Regulatory Capital;
( b ) Require the new owners or the transferee's Control Person(s) to assume, in writing, personal liability for your Leverage, effective only in the event of their direct or indirect participation in any transfer of Control not approved by SBA; or
( c ) Require compliance with any other conditions set by SBA, including compliance with the requirements for minimum capital and management-ownership diversity as in effect at such time for new license applicants.
[61 FR 3189, Jan. 31, 1996]
§ 19.450 Athletics. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person, or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
( b ) *Separate teams.* Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of these Title IX regulations, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( c ) *Equal opportunity.* ( 1 ) A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available, the designated agency official will consider, among other factors: ( i ) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
( ii ) The provision of equipment and supplies;
( iii ) Scheduling of games and practice time;
( iv ) Travel and per diem allowance;
( v ) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
( vi ) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
( vii ) Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
( viii ) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
( ix ) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
( x ) Publicity.
( 2 ) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the designated agency official may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
( d ) *Adjustment period.* A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from September 29, 2000. A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the secondary or postsecondary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from September 29, 2000.
### §1904. Certifying officers

#### (a) Appointment of certifying officers of the Capitol Police

The Chief Administrative Officer of the United States Capitol Police, or when there is not a Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief of the Capitol Police, shall appoint certifying officers to certify all vouchers for payment from funds made available to the United States Capitol Police.

#### (b) Responsibility and accountability of certifying officers

#### (1) In general

Each officer or employee of the Capitol Police who has been duly authorized in writing by the Chief Administrative Officer, or the Chief of the Capitol Police if there is not a Chief Administrative Officer, to certify vouchers pursuant to subsection (a) shall—

(A) be held responsible for the existence and correctness of the facts recited in the certificate or otherwise stated on the voucher or its supporting papers and for the legality of the proposed payment under the appropriation or fund involved;

(B) be held responsible and accountable for the correctness of the computations of certified vouchers; and

(C) be held accountable for and required to make good to the United States the amount of any illegal, improper, or incorrect payment resulting from any false, inaccurate, or misleading certificate made by such officer or employee, as well as for any payment prohibited by law or which did not represent a legal obligation under the appropriation or fund involved.

#### (2) Relief by Comptroller General

The Comptroller General may, at the Comptroller General's discretion, relieve such certifying officer or employee of liability for any payment otherwise proper if the Comptroller General finds—

(A) that the certification was based on official records and that the certifying officer or employee did not know, and by reasonable diligence and inquiry could not have ascertained, the actual facts; or

(B) that the obligation was incurred in good faith, that the payment was not contrary to any statutory provision specifically prohibiting payments of the character involved, and the United States has received value for such payment.

#### (c) Enforcement of liability

The liability of the certifying officers of the United States Capitol Police shall be enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as currently provided with respect to the enforcement of the liability of disbursing and other accountable officers, and such officers shall have the right to apply for and obtain a decision by the Comptroller General on any question of law involved in a payment on any vouchers presented to them for certification.

(Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(2) [title I, §107], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–103; Pub. L. 111–145, §2(a)(3), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 49.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 207d 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.

#### Amendments

2010—Subsecs. (a), (b)(1). Pub. L. 111–145 substituted "the Chief of the Capitol Police" for "the Capitol Police Board".