alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# MARC LLUS s H A L E 

## c 0 A L I T I 0 NTM
July 23, 2014 /'-, =·

.<**/~** The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
DearMr. Foxx:
I respectfully submitthis letter in reaction to DOT Order 2014-6-6 thatruled on the future status ofEAS subsidies for thirteen communities and outlined the petitionprocess for acquiring a waiver. On behalfof the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), I fully recommend and support DOT granting a waiverto the communities ofBradford, PA and Franklin/Oil City, PA givingthem the opportunityto obtain a new air carrier and rebuild community enplanements while continuingto receive vital air service in the interim.
Founded in 2008, the MSC is a trade association representing over 275 member companies engaged in the production, transportation and supply chain support for this growing segment ofourregional economy. The MSC and ourmember companies are focused on the safe and state ofthe art development and transportation ofthe Marcellus natural gas and natural gas liquids. The MSC is also focused uponpublic education and engagement. Many large energy sector corporations, as well as countless Marcellus Shale industry support businesses, have established supply chain and related business activities in the Marcellus Shale footprint ofthe aforementioned airports. In addition, regional and global headquarters in the Pittsburgh region have been established as part ofthis growth. Industryprofessionals, seeking the advantages that direct air service would offer, could significantly contribute to enplanements bytraveling to/from field offices. Pittsburgh International Airport's (PIT) daily nonstop flights to other cities with a large energy sector presence like Houston and Dallas could also be utilized byMarcellus Shale firms. A multiyear study organized by PIT, the PennsylvaniaAir Service Committee and other stakeholders and conducted by an independent consulting firm to determine the feasibility ofintrastate air service, termed "PIT Connector", was recentlypublished. Duringthe survey section ofthe study, overwhelming support was received from EAS communities highlightingpreference for air service in these area's to PIT. The necessity ofair service for individuals and businesses in these communities has never been at a more critical time. The MSC believes in the viability ofair service to our industry and as such; proposals containing a more favorable destination and appropriate aircraft designed to boost enplanements will justifyissuance ofa waiverto both Bradford and Franklin.

# ;,-~7;Jf)."';(___,

(Jy.(J
David J. Spigelmyer President

24 Summit Park • 2na Fl • 152751 p 706.5160 IF 2.706.5170
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-39 July 8, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH ALLIANT UTILITIES OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE

AT DUANE ARNOLD NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Thursday, July 15, with Alliant

Utilities officials to discuss the recent Plant Performance Review of the Duane Arnold Energy

Center (DAEC). The plant is located at Palo, Iowa.

The meeting will be held at 10 a.m. in the plant’s training center, 3277 DAEC Road,

Palo. The meeting is open to public observation. NRC officials will be available after the

meeting for questions and comments from members of the public and the news media.

[The Plant Performance Review assessment of Duane Arnold was previously covered in

News Announcement RIII-99-10, issued on March 31.]

In a March 26 letter to Alliant Utilities, which operates the plant, Geoffrey Grant, Division

Director in the NRC’s Region III Office, said, “Overall, DAEC performance was acceptable.”

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region III

Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr. The review

covered the time period from September 28, 1997, through January 31.

NRC reviews the safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant

in the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant

performance and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is using to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months. A new

inspection and assessment program is being developed for use next year.

#####
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. 98-93 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, June 17, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received eight reports from its Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards following the committee’s 453rd meeting June 3-5.

The reports, in the form of letters, provide comments on:

-- The safety aspects of the Westinghouse Electric Company application for

certification of the AP600 plant design - Interim Letter 3.

-- NRC Reactor Fuels Research Program.

-- Proposed final Standard Review Plan Section 3.9.8 and Regulatory Guide

1.178 for risk-informed inservice inspection of piping.

-- Review of SECY-98-076, “Core Research Capabilities.”

-- Proposed final draft of the NRC’s Human Performance Plan.

-- NRC participation in the CABRI Reactor Fuels Research Program.

-- Safety Evaluation Report on Electric Power Research Institute Topical Report,

TR-107330, Final Report, “Generic Requirements Specification for Qualifying a

Commercially Available PLC for Safety-Related Applications in Nuclear Power Plants.”

-- Draft advance notice of proposed rulemaking ammending 10 CFR 50.72,

“Immediate Notification Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors,” and 10

CFR 50.73, “Licensee Event Report System.”

Copies of the reports are available through the NRC's Office of Public Affairs, the

NRC's Internet Homepage (http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW) and the Public Document

Room in Washington, D.C.

##
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. 96-175 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, December 4, 1996)

NRC ISSUES SECOND PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION

ON LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES LICENSE APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board has issued a second partial initial decision on

the application of Louisiana Energy Services for a license to

build and operate a uranium enrichment plant in Claiborne Parish

near Homer, La. The decision sustains three of the contentions

filed by Citizens Against Nuclear Trash seeking to block the

license.

The decision could be appealed to the Commission.

A copy of the 183-page decision is available on the NRC

Office of Public Affairs home page at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA.

Copies will also be mailed to news media on request.

###
steam

_ record - Re: Extension Request - RRI Ener gy Choctaw Station

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.
Sincerely,

-----"Holder, Howard" <HHolder @rrienergy.com> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Holder, Howard" <HHolder@rrienergy.com> Date: 06/23/2010 04:41PM cc: "Ellis, Tony" <TEllis@rrienergy.com>, "Smith , James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, "Frank, Stephen" <SFrank@rrienergy.com>, <DIANE.R.MARTINI@Sargentlundy.com> Subject: Extension Request - RRI Energy Choctaw Station From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: "Holder, Howard" <HHolder@rrienergy.com> Date: 6/28/2010 3:06 PM Sub j ect: Re: Extension Request - RRI Energy Choctaw Station Pa g e 1 of 2

3/1/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28BA59DO

...Dear Ms. Alicea,

In reference to the Steam Electric ELG Questionnaire for RRI Energy’s Choctaw County Generating Station please find the attached Request for Ex tension letter. Also, please feel fr ee to contact myse lf or Tony Ellis (662.547.7012) for follo w up or clarification.

Best Regards,

Howard Holder

General Manager

RRI Energy Choctaw Station

662.547.7017

601.562.0727 cell

[ attachment "RRI Choctaw Extension Requ est Letter.pdf" removed by Jezebele A licea/DC/USEPA/US] Pa g e 2 of 2

3/1/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28BA59DO

...
(No. 36083.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*George Dean, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed September*27, *1963.*

*404Karl Berolzheimer, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.

William; G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice House

delivered the opinion of the court:

George Dean was indicted in the criminal court of Cook County for murder. He was tried by the court, found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 60 years. A writ of error has been issued to review his conviction.

He first argues that the trial court coerced him into accepting appointment of the public defender against his wishes. When defendant appeared to be arraigned, the judge asked him if he was able to get a lawyer. The reply was negative and defendant asked that a bar association lawyer be appointed. The judge then asked defendant if someone had told him to ask for a bar association lawyer and commented on the good representation given by the public defender’s office. He concluded by stating, “I will ap*405point somebody from the bar association for you but I am sure curious as to why people like yourself would come out here and right off the reel ask for the bar association appointment.” Defendant’s brother talked to defendant and then told the judge defendant wanted the public defender. The judge then said, “I didn’t ask him these questions to sway him as far as the appointment of the public defender is concerned. I am merely curious because of the number that come up and ask for the bar association counsel. If you feel that you want somebody other than the public defender —.” Defendant interrupted and said “I will take a public defender.”

It is obvious that the judge did not coerce defendant into accepting the appointment of the public defender. Furthermore the judge who made the appointment was not the judge who tried defendant and defendant had two months between arraignment and trial to request other counsel.

The only other contention made by defendant is that he was not competently represented. A report of the proceedings at the trial has not been made a part of the record before us and this contention cannot therefore be reviewed. *People*v. *Merrieweather,*11 Ill.2d 619.

The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### §1704. National Recording Registry Collection of the Library of Congress

#### (a) In general

All copies of sound recordings on the National Recording Registry that are received by the Librarian under subsection (b) shall be maintained in the Library of Congress and be known as the "National Recording Registry Collection of the Library of Congress". The Librarian shall by regulation and in accordance with title 17 provide for reasonable access to the sound recordings and other materials in such collection for scholarly and research purposes.

#### (b) Acquisition of quality copies

#### (1) In general

The Librarian shall seek to obtain, by gift from the owner, a quality copy of the Registry version of each sound recording included in the National Recording Registry.

#### (2) Limit on number of copies

Not more than one copy of the same version or take of any sound recording may be preserved in the National Recording Registry. Nothing in the preceding sentence may be construed to prohibit the Librarian from making or distributing copies of sound recordings included in the Registry for purposes of carrying out this Act.

#### (c) Property of United States

All copies of sound recordings on the National Recording Registry that are received by the Librarian under subsection (b) shall become the property of the United States Government, subject to the provisions of title 17.

(Pub. L. 106–474, title I, §104, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2087.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), is Pub. L. 106–474, Nov. 9, 2000, 114 Stat. 2085, known as the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000, which enacted this chapter and chapter 1524 (§152401 et seq.) of Title 36, Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies, and Organizations. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1701 of this title and Tables.
#### Florence C. Schmitt v. George V. Smith et al.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23630]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster <greek-i>3640]


State of Tennessee

    Cocke and Rhea Counties and the contiguous counties of Bledsoe, 
Cumberland, Greene, Hamblin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Meigs, Roane, and 
Sevier in the State of Tennessee; and Haywood, Madison, and Swain 
Counties, North Carolina constitute a disaster area as a result of 
heavy rains associated with Hurricane Ivan on September 16-20, 2004. 
Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster 
may be filed until the close of business on December 14, 2004 and for 
economic injury until the close of business on July 15, 2005 at the 
address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small 
Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, 
Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere..................     6.375
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere...............     3.187
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere..................     5.800
  Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit           2.900
   Available Elsewhere........................................
  Others (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit          4.875
   Available Elsewhere........................................
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without           2.900
   Credit Available Elsewhere.................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 364008 
for Tennessee and 364108 for North Carolina. The number assigned to 
this disaster for economic injury damage is 9AF200 for Tennessee and 
9AF300 for North Carolina.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: October 15, 2004.
Hector V. Barreto,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04-23630 Filed 10-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-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.

#### § 10.481 Corrected declaration by importers.

A U.S. importer who makes a corrected declaration under § 10.410(b) will not be subject to civil or administrative penalties for having made an incorrect declaration, provided that the corrected declaration was voluntarily made.
#### § 114.24 Additions.

When an A.T.A. or TECRO/AIT carnet has been issued, no extra item shall be added to the list of goods enumerated on the reverse of the cover of the carnet or on any continuation sheet annexed thereto.

[T.D. 70-134, 35 FR 9261, June 13, 1970, as amended by T.D. 82-116, 47 FR 27262, June 24, 1982; T.D. 98-10, 63 FR 4168, Jan. 28, 1998]
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.905 Notice and order.

Upon receipt of a Size Standard Petition, OHA will assign the matter to a Judge in accordance with § 134.218. Unless it appears that the Size Standard Petition will be dismissed under § 134.910, the presiding Judge will issue a notice and order initiating the publication required by § 121.102(f) of this chapter; specifying a date for the Office of Size Standards to transmit to OHA a copy of the administrative record supporting the revision, modification, or establishment of the challenged size standard(s); and establishing a date for the close of record. Typically, the administrative record will be due seven calendar days after issuance of the notice and order, and the record will close 45 calendar days from the date of OHA's receipt of the Size Standard Petition.
### §31a–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 31a–2 was editorially reclassified as section 6135 of this title.
#### § 312.12 General terms and conditions for investment assistance.

RIS Program grants are subject to all requirements contained in part 302 of this chapter, except §§ 302.2, 302.3, 302.9, 302.10, and 302.17.
#### § 109.410 Loan limits—loans to Eligible Small Business Concerns.

No small business (including Affiliates) may have more than $200,000 outstanding under this program at one time. The provisions of § 120.151 do not apply to loans under this program.
Exhibit 4.39





 


Termination Agreement


 


Party A:  Beijing Ambow Chuangying
Education and Technology Co., Ltd.


 


Party B: Xuejun Xie, Jianguo Xue


 


Party A and Party B
has mutually agreed on the termination, and reached the following agreement:


 


		1.	The “Loan Agreement”, “Share Pledge Agreement” and “Call Option Agreement”
(hereinafter refer to as “Agreements”) was signed by both parties on June 29, 2017. Both parties agreed to terminate
the abovementioned Agreements from June 14, 2020, not to execute, and not to pursue all the responsibilities and consequences arising
from the Agreements.



 


		2.	This agreement takes into effect after being signed and sealed by both parties.



 


		3.	The agreement shall be made in three copies with the same legal effect, in which Party A shall
hold one copy and Party B shall hold two copies respectively.



 


Party A (Seal):


 


Representative (Signature):


 


June 14, 2020


 


 


Party B (Signature):


 


June 14, 2020
#### American Wet Wash Laundry Company, Appellant, v. Joe Dube, Respondent. American Wet Wash Laundry Company, Appellant, v. Morris Lautt, Respondent.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
No: 24-017 March 4, 2024 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC to Issue Proposed Rule on Advanced Reactor Licensing

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has directed the staff to publish a proposed rule and 

draft guidance to establish a licensing process for commercial nuclear power plants that is riskinformed, performance-based, and technology-inclusive. This is the first regulatory framework 

developed for advanced technologies and designs that includes non-light-water reactors. 

“The NRC is proposing a rule that will transform the way the agency reviews new reactor 

applications, while continuing to fulfill our mission to assure the safety of the public,” said NRC 

Chair Christopher Hanson. “This proposed rule leverages significantly more risk insights than 

our existing regulatory framework in making safety determinations. Applicants can use our 

existing regulations today, but this proposed rule will provide future nuclear developers a clear, 

additional pathway for licensing.” 

The proposed rule, to be published in the Federal Register in about six months, will 

create a new Part 53 section under the NRC’s regulations (10 Code of Federal Regulations) as an 

alternative to the existing, large light water reactor licensing approaches under Parts 50 and 52. 

The rule, in meeting the requirements of the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, 

will give plant designers and plant operators flexibility in determining how their nuclear power 

plant will meet safety criteria. The rule sets out criteria in areas including reactor siting 

requirements; analyzing potential accidents; defining safety functions; categorizing structures, 

systems, and components; addressing construction and manufacturing requirements; providing 

defense in depth; and protecting the public and plant workers during normal operations. The 

proposed rule also modifies agency regulations for operator licensing, employee fitness-for-duty, 

physical security and site access authorization. 

The staff’s effort to craft the proposed rule began in 2020. The staff conducted extensive 

public engagement with 21 rounds of public review and comment on preliminary rule language. 

The staff held 24 public meetings with stakeholders as well as 16 public meetings with NRC’s 

independent advisory group, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. The staff will seek 

feedback from the public when it issues the proposed rule and draft guidance later this year.
#### § 12.97 Importations contrary to law.

Importations of switchblade knives, except as permitted by 15 U.S.C. 1244, are importations contrary to law and are subject to forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c).

[T.D. 90-50, 55 FR 28192, July 10, 1990]
#### Davis *vs.*Dean and others.

A foreign judgment creditor, wlio has obtained no judgment in this-state, and has no attachment or other lien ui>on his debtor’s lands here,, cannot maintain a suit to subject such lands to the payment of his debt.

On demurrer to creditor’s bill.

*Mr. 31. It. Kenny,*for the demurrer.

*Mr. L. Zabrishie,*contra.

The Chancellor.

This is a creditor’s bill. It alleges that the defendant,. Dean, being indebted to the complainant, conveyed certain land in Essex county, belonging to him, to the defendant, Mrs. Garrison, with intent to defraud his creditors, and it seeks to subject this land to the payment of the complainant’s debt. The question presented under the demurrer is, whether this suit can be maintained, seeing that the complainant has-no lien upon the land. Though, before filing the bill, he had-recovered judgment upon his debt against Dean, in the Supreme Court of New York, he has obtained no judgment in this state, nor has he any attachment or other lien upon the-land. He cannot, therefore, maintain this suit. *Swayze*v. *Swayze,*1 *Stockt.*273; *Young*v. *Frier, Ib.*465 *; Green*v. Tantum, 4 *C. E. Green*105. The case of *McCartney*v. *Bostwick,*32 *N. Y.*53, cited by complainant’s counsel on the-*437hearing, is not in contrariety to these cases. He might have attached the interest of Dean in the land, and on the lien of such attachment, could have maintained his action here. *Hunt*v. *Field,*1 *Stockt.*36 ; *Williams*v. *Michenor,*3 *Stockt.*520; *Robert*v. *Hodges,*1 *C.*E. Green 99; *Curry*v. *Glass,*10 C. *E. Green*108.

The demurrer will be sustained, and the bill dismissed, with costs.