alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 133.33 Documents and fee to accompany application. ( a ) *Documents.* The application for recordation shall be accompanied by the following documents: ( 1 ) An “additional certificate” of copyright registration issued by the U.S. Copyright Office. If the name of the applicant differs from the name of the copyright owner identified in the certificate, the application shall be accompanied by a certified copy of any assignment, exclusive license, or other document recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office showing that the applicant has acquired copyright ownership in the copyright.
( 2 ) Five photographic or other likenesses reproduced on paper approximately 8′′ × 101 ⁄ 2′′ in size of any copyrighted work. An application shall be excepted from this requirement if it covers a work such as a book, magazine, periodical, or similar copyrighted matter readily identifiable by title and author or if it covers a sound recording. Five likenesses of a component part of a copyrighted work, together with the name or title, if any, by which the part depicted is identifiable, may accompany an application covering an entire copyrighted work.
( b ) *Fee.* Each application shall be accompanied by a fee of $190 for each copyright to be recorded. A check or money order shall be made payable to the United States Customs Service.
[T.D. 72-266, 37 FR 20678, Oct. 3, 1973, as amended by T.D. 75-160, 40 FR 28791, July 9, 1975; T.D. 84-133, 49 FR 26571, June 28, 1984; T.D. 87-40, 52 FR 9475, Mar. 25, 1987]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-98-17 February 18, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT SHIPPING VIOLATION WITH DELAWARE FIRM

An apparent violation of Nuclear Regulatory Commission

requirements by a Delaware company will be the subject of a

meeting between agency officials and representatives of the firm

on Tuesday, February 24. The predecisional enforcement

conference is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. in the Division of

Nuclear Materials Safety Conference Room at the NRC Region 1

office in King of Prussia, Pa.

The meeting will be open to the public for observation.

During an inspection last September 15 at the Tru-Tec

Division of Koch Engineering Company, in Newark, Del., NRC

inspectors found that employees failed to examine or test all

closure devices before each shipment of packages containing

radioactive material. This inspection occurred after an empty

package from Tru-Tec that had originally contained three cesium137 sources arrived at a Federal Express facility in Wilmington,

N.C., on the morning of August 28. The sources were found and

retrieved later in the day at a Federal Express facility in

Memphis, Tenn.

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 apparent violations, their causes 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 violations will be made at

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

a later time.

#
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. 99-76 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, April 14, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

Two subcommittees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on

Reactor Safeguards will meet May 4 and 5 in Rockville, Maryland.

The subcommittee on safety research program will meet on May 4. It will review various

elements of the NRC safety research program in order to prepare a report to the Commission.

The subcommittee on planning and procedures, meeting on May 5, will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and the status of appointment of a new member.

The first meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m in room T-2B3; the second (on May 5) will begin

at 10:00 a.m in room T-2B1. Both meetings will be held in the agency’s Two White Flint North

Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike.

For those seeking information on whether the meeting has been canceled or

rescheduled, contact Dr. Medhat El-Zeftawy at (301) 415-6889 for the first meeting, and Dr.

John T. Larkins, at (301) 415-7360 for the second meeting.

Other aspects of the meetings, including opportunities for comment, will be described in

a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

###
Exhibit
32(b)





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, OF THE


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Rocky Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
E. McDonald, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




/s/ James E. McDonaldJames
      E. McDonald, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      OfficerMay
      3, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,056,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,668,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,099,000
<INVENTORY>                                 16,867,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            53,690,000
<PP&E>                                      15,093,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,320,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,457,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,285,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,085,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,457,000
<SALES>                                     32,966,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,966,000
<CGS>                                       26,798,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,798,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,749,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,596,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   574,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,022,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,022,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
Facility NEI ID Facility Name Address City County State

NEI11136

GEORGIA-PACIFIC TAYLORSVILLE OPERATIONS HWY. 28 W. TAYLORSVILLE Smith County MS

NEI11443 TEMBEC BTLSR INC. 2112 SYLVAN AVE TOLEDO Lucas County OH

NEI12297 3M COTTAGE GROVE CENTER 10746 INNOVATION RD COTTAGE GROVE Washington County MN

NEI12810 LUFKIN RESIN PLANT 1429 E LUFKIN AVE LUFKIN Angelina County TX

NEI13335 Dynea Overlays, Inc. 2301 N COLUMBIA BLVD PORTLAND Multnomah County OR

NEI2OHT$6395 SOLUTIA PORT PLASTICS 356 THREE RIVERS PKY. ADDYSTON Hamilton County OH

NEI32872 NUPLEX RESINS 4730 CRITTENDEN DR LOUISVILLE Jefferson County KY

NEI43353 SI GROUP INC /ROTT JCT FAC 1000 MAIN ST|ST RTE 5S ROTTERDAM Schenectady County NY

NEI45175 GEORGIA PACIFIC RESINS 2665 HIGHWAY 99 NORTH EUGENE Lane County OR

NEI46350 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONWAY OPERATIONS 200 Ampac Road CONWAY Northampton County NC

NEI46838 GEORGIA-PACIFIC VIENNA OPERATIONS 7TH S. ST. VIENNA Dooly County GA

NEI56034 3M Cordova 22614 Route 84 N Cordova Rock Island County IL

NEI56485 Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc. 1411 Industrial Drive FAYETTEVILLE Cumberland County NC

NEI6258 PIONEER PLASTICS CORP 1 PIONITE RD AUBURN Androscoggin CountyME

NEI7964 NEVAMAR CO LLC ONE NEVAMAR PLACE HAMPTON Hampton County SC

NEIART$10736 GEORGIA-PACIFIC RESINS, INC HWY 82 & PAPER MILL ROAD CROSSETT Ashley County AR

NEIMA01301151 INEOS MELAMINES 730B WORCESTER ST SPRINGFIELD Hampden County MA

NEINC0595 Emerald Carolina Chemical, LLC 8309 WILKINSON BV Charlotte Mecklenburg County NC

Table 1 - Facility Identification Information

1 of 1
# cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Kerry P. Faughnan Brooks Hubby LLP Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

# 2

(0) 1947A , mileltco
### §3275. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $577,667,000 for fiscal year 2015, $622,286,000 for fiscal year 2016, $635,198,000 for fiscal year 2017, $649,287,000 for fiscal year 2018, $664,552,000 for fiscal year 2019, and $678,640,000 for fiscal year 2020.

(Pub. L. 113–128, title II, §206, July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1612.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113–128, set out as a note under section 3101 of this title.
S90-182 275

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

June 18, 1990

MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor

Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary

SUBJECT: SECY-90-182 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDIN

WITH THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFE

BOAR

This is to advise you that the Commission has no objections to

the proposed MOU with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

subject to the attached modifications.

Attachment:

As stated

cc: Chairman Carr

Commissioner Roberts

Commissioner Rogers

commissioner Curtiss

commissioner Remick

OGC

GPA

NOTE: THIS SRM AND THE SUBJECT SECY PAPER WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY

AVAILABLE IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

276

MEMORANCUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

AND

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Purpose

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to provide the basis for the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) to

obtain assistance from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (other than
assistance from the HCRS) on matters pertaining to the Board's responsibilities

as well as administrative support for the Board's activities.

Authority and Background

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1989, Public Law ICO-456, added

Chapter 21 to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, at-id established the

Board to review and evaluate Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities.

Section 1441 of the Act authorizes the Board to obtain advice of the staff of

the NRC and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on matters pertaining

to the Board's responsibilities, with the consent of and under appropriate support arrangements with the NRC. In addition, the NRC will, consistent with the

NRC's mission, provide the Board with requested administrative support. These

technical and administrative support services will also be provided under the

authority of the Economy Act of 1932, as amended.

Execution

Technical and administrative support set-vices will be provided as agreed upon to

the Board to meet the requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act for

FY 1989. Each organization will designate a liaison officer who will direct and

monitor all interactions between the two organizations. The NRC liaison is

Janie-. Elaha, the Assistant for Operations, Office of the Executive Director for

Operations. The Board liaison is Kenneth M. Pusateri, General Manager.

1. All requests for NRC assistance will be directed to the NRC liaison

officer.

2. Requests for support of an on-going nature to be provided by NRC (e.g.,

contractual support.) will be covered by an appendix to this MOU which must

be approved by the Commission.

3. Request for support of an ad hoc or one-time nature will be handled as

follows:

SRM VOL 14 L 1 06/04/91
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Fishkill Savings Institute, Respondent, v. Thomas J. Cunningham, as Mayor of the City of Beacon, et al., Appellants.

*967No opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Laura M. Bray, certify that:1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Claimsnet.com inc.; 2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3) Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other consolidatedfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects theconsolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small businessissuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for Claimsnet.com inc. and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5) The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sindependent registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: March 8, 2007      /s/ Laura M. Bray    Laura M. Bray  Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61213-CIV-SMITH/VALLE

STEPHEN WATKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration, 

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND CLOSING CASE

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation to the District Judge

[DE 33] of Magistrate Judge Valle. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Valle 

recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 21] and denying Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 26]. The Report and Recommendation recommends reversing 

the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and remanding the case. Neither party has filed 

Objections. Because the Magistrate Judge correctly found that substantial evidence does not 

support the findings of the ALJ, the Court affirms and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation to the District Judge, grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and 

denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court having reviewed, de novo, the Report and Recommendation to District Judge

and the record, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

(1) The Report and Recommendation to the District Judge [DE 33] of Magistrate Judge 

Valle is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED, and incorporated by reference into this Court’s Order;

(2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 25] is DENIED;

Case 0:20-cv-61213-RS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 23] is GRANTED;

(4) The Clerk is directed to REMAND this case to the Social Security Administration;

(5) All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon in this Order are DENIED AS 

MOOT; and

(6) This case is CLOSED. 

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of December, 2022.

 

cc: All counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61213-RS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/09/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 333.51 Rating authorizations. ( a ) A rating authorization is an official action granting specific priority rating authority that: ( 1 ) Permits a person to place a priority rating on an order for an item not normally ratable under this part; or
( 2 ) Authorizes a person to modify a priority rating on a specific order or series of contracts or orders.
( b ) To request priority rating authority, see § 333.21.
#### RUMPLE, Appellant, v. DODGE, Respondent.

(197 N. W. 785.)

(File No. 5512.

Opinion filed March 18, 1924.)

Appeal and Error — Briefs—Court Rules — Judgment Affirmed Where Appeal Abandoned by Default in Piling Briefs.

Where no brief was filed by appellant within the time for filing appellant’s brief, and no other action of any kind was taken in prosecuting appeal or complying with the Supreme Court rules, the appeal will be deemed abandoned, and the judgment appealed from will be'affirmed.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kingsbury County; Hon. Alva E. Taylor, Judge.

*Alexander & Alexander,*and *Olaf Bidem,*all of Brookings, for Appellant.

*William H. Warren,*of DeSmet, and *Hall &*Purdy, of Brookings, for Respondent.

PER CURIAiM.

Notice of appeal from a judgment and order of the circuit court of Kingsbury county, dated August 27, 1923, together with a certificate of the clerk of said court, showing that the record in said cause was settled April 5, 1923, and that the copy of the notice attached was a true' copy thereof, was filed in this court September 25, 1923. On October 8, 1923, a stipulation was filed in this court, extending the time in which appellant might serve and file his brief to and including December 1, 1923.

No other papers in this case were ever filed in this court. The appellant having failed to comply with rules 5, 6, 7, and 13 *279of this court within the time therein prescribed, the appeal is deemed abandoned, and the judgment and order of the lower court are affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 197 N. W. 785. See, Headnote, Appeal and error, 3 C. J. See. 1607, 4 C. J. Sec. 2437.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-98-56 May 15, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC PROPOSES FINE FOR PA. HOSPITAL FOR NUCLEAR MEDICINE VIOLATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $2,750

fine against Altoona Hospital, in Altoona, Pa., for a violation

of agency requirements involving the medical use of NRC-licensed

radioactive materials.

NRC is taking the action based on the findings of an

inspection conducted at the facility on March 9 and 10, as well

as on information provided by hospital officials at a

predecisional enforcement conference held on April 30 at the NRC

Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa.

The NRC determined that the hospital administered iodine131 in quantities greater than 30 microcuries without first

preparing a written directive, or prescription, specifying how

the radiopharmaceutical would be used and in what amount. All

told, seven patients were administered 3 millicuries (one

millicurie is equal to 1,000 microcuries) each of iodine-131

without a written directive during 1997.

Although these failures to complete a written directive

did not, in any case, result in a medical misadministration, the

occurrences represent a “substantial failure” to implement the

facility’s required Quality Management Plan, NRC Region I

Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote to the hospital in a letter

regarding the enforcement decision.

“This failure was substantial given the number of

occurrences and the repetitive nature of them, and the fact that

the first recurrence happened in January 1997, so soon after you

informed the NRC that the problem had been corrected,” Mr. Miller

stated.

In addition, the NRC is citing the hospital, but not

issuing a fine, for another infraction. That violation involved

a failure to provide adequate security for radioactive materials.

An NRC inspector found that approximately 100 millicuries of
technetium-99m were improperly stored in the hospital’s “hot

lab,” an unrestricted area where there were insufficient controls

in place to prevent unauthorized removal of the licensed

radiopharmaceutical.

Altoona Hospital has 30 days to respond in writing to the

Notice of Violation. The response must document any actions

taken to prevent a recurrence of the violations. During this

time, the hospital may pay the fine or file an appeal.

ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ