alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### City of Paducah v. National Cast Iron Pipe Co.

Sept. 25, 1945.

Adrian H. Terrell for appellant.

McMurry & Shoupe for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

Beversing.

*458The opinion on the first appeal is styled National Cast Iron Pipe Company v. City of Paducah, and is reported in 299 Ky. 434, 185 S. W. 2d 692. We there held the City of Paducah to be liable to the contractor for that part of setwer construction assessments which amounts to spoliation. On return of the case, the Chancellor entered judgment for the full amount of the assessment against the property. It is contended by appellant on this appeal that the City is liable for only so much of the assessment as exceeds the value of the property upon which the assessment was levied. Appellee contends that the City is liable for the whole of the assessment, upon the theory that it was void in its entirety when shown to exceed the value of the property.

In City of Louisville v. Benedict et al., 147 Ky. 391, 144 S. W. 43, 44, quoting from City of Louisville v. Bitzer, 115 Ky. 359, 73 S. W. 1115, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 2263, 61 L. R. A. 434, the Court said: “ ‘But no department of the Government can take the property of the citizen for public purposes without just compensation, and when the entire property is taken to pay for a public improvement there is no room for a presumption as to the benefits received, but a case of spoliation is shown. ’ ’ ’

There can be no doubt that when the assessment is so large as to take the entire property to pay for it, spoliation occurs. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that all of the property benefited should bear as much of the assessment as the value of the property will permit. The improvement under consideration was made in accordance with the provisions of Section 3105, Carroll’s Kentucky Statutes, previous to its amendment by the General Assembly in 1930. Previous to this amendment, the section was silent in respect to the point at which spoliation was considered to commence. The. section, as amended, and now compiled in KRS 94.190, provides :

“ * ** **Any assessment for any sewer improvement as provided in this section # * * which exceeds one-half of the value of the lot or parcel of real estate upon which the assessment is made shall be void as to such excess, but the improvement shall be taken' into consideration in fixing the value of the real estate, * *

Thus, the Legislature now has fixed the point at which spoliation commences, and has established the pub-*459lie policy which we feel constrained to follow, even though the assessment was made previous to the Legislature’s declaration on the subject. The Chancellor found the property under consideration to be of the value of $850. The judgment against the City should be credited with one-half of this amount.

If, as contended, the opinion on the first appeal seems to be inconsistent with this decision, the former opinion is not binding, because this question was not presented for consideration.

The judgment is reversed, with directions that it be set aside, and another be entered in conformity with this opinion.
#### § 112.25 Bonded carriers.

A carrier or freight forwarder who has filed a bond on Customs Form 301 containing the bond conditions set forth in § 113.63 of this chapter may transport merchandise within a port for which the bond provides coverage.

[T.D. 94-81, 59 FR 51495, Oct. 12, 1994]
#### § 111.80 [Reserved]
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.-98-72 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Thursday, May 14, 1998)

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ON PROPOSED SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY IN UTAH

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting June 2 in

Salt Lake City on an application from Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C., (PFS) for a license to

construct and operate a spent nuclear fuel storage installation at the Skull Valley Indian

Reservation in Tooele County, Utah. Members of the public are invited to attend and

comment on what the NRC should include in its environmental review of the proposed

facility.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. in the ballroom of the Little America Inn, 500

South Main Street, Salt Lake City.

Information gathering will help determine the scope of an environmental impact

statement (EIS) that the NRC plans to prepare. This scoping process will be used to

identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth, as well as to identify and

eliminate from detailed study issues that are peripheral or insignificant.

The meeting will include briefings by PFS on the proposed facility and by the

NRC on the environmental review process.

Persons may register to present oral comments by writing to Dr. Edward Y.

Shum, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, or by signing up at the meeting. The time

allowed for individual oral comments may be limited, depending on the number of

persons who register to speak.

Interested persons may also submit written comments, by June 19, to Dr. Shum

at the above address.

After the meeting the NRC will prepare a draft EIS for public comment and,

following consideration of comments received on the draft, a final EIS that will guide

the NRC in reaching a decision on the application.

In connection with its application, PFS submitted an environmental report on the

proposed facility. That report is available for review at the NRC’s Public Document
Room at 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at the agency’s Local Public

Document Room at the University of Utah, Marriott Library, Documents Division, 295 S.

1500 East, Salt Lake City.

###
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Allen PINEIRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-8057.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2002.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Edward Allen Pineiro, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Edward Allen Pineiro seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his “Motion to include New ruling addressing breach of plea agreement by non-fulfillment of promise.” Our review of this case reveals that this claim previously was raised by Pineiro and rejected by this court in review of Pineiro’s appeal of the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001), in *United States v. Pineiro,*No. 01-6981 (4th Cir. Dec. 18, 2001) (unpublished). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the 12 months ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Charles N. Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

            (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                        of the Exchange Act; 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/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                      Charles N. Martin, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 23, 2008
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Backpack the Craters of the Moon Wilderness

Craters Of The Moon National Monument & Preserve
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-29 March 13, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD A CONFERENCE WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER ON AN APPARENT

VIOLATION OF REQUIREMENTS AT PRAIRIE ISLAND PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Tuesday, March 18,

with representatives of Northern States Power for a predecisional enforcement

conference on an apparent violation of NRC requirements at the Prairie Island

Nuclear Station at Red Wing, Minnesota.

The meeting will be at 2:00 p.m. in the Third Floor Conference Room of

the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois. The meeting

is open to public observation.

Scheduled for discussion is an incident which occurred February 3 inside

the containment building while Prairie Island Unit 2 was shut down for a

refueling outage. A reactor coolant pump rotor weighing approximately 21 tons

was lifted over the reactor and lowered to the refueling floor in preparation

for maintenance. At the time of the lift, the containment personnel and

maintenance hatches were open, the reactor's vessel head was removed, and the

core contained irradiated fuel.

Plant procedures require that all containment openings be closed if

loads greater than 2100 pounds are lifted within 15 horizontal feet of an open

reactor with activated fuel. However, at the time in question, plant staff

failed to refer to the plant's procedure on heavy loads prior to the lift and

consequently violated these procedural requirements.

Before returning the rotor to its original location, the plant staff

developed a specific procedure for the lift. The utility also has since

implemented other corrective measures, including appropriate training in the

handling of heavy loads inside the containment building.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean the NRC has

determined that 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 an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable

the company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decisions on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement

action, such as a fine, will be made at this conference. Those decisions will

be made by senior NRC officials at a later date.

####
No: II-23-11 April 27, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant Performance

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold an open house May 3 to discuss the 2022 

safety performance of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. The two-unit Brunswick plant is located 

in Southport, North Carolina, and operated by Duke Energy. 

The event will run from 5-6 p.m. Eastern time at the Brunswick Energy & Education Center, 

8520 River Road SE in Southport. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including the 

resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will be available to answer questions at the meeting.

NRC resident inspectors and other specialist inspectors from the NRC Region II office in 

Atlanta perform inspections at the Brunswick plant. They concluded that Brunswick operated safely 

in 2022, and all inspection findings and performance indicators were green or of very low safety 

significance. As a result, the plant remains under the NRC’s normal level of oversight, which entails 

thousands of hours of inspection each year. 

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight. 

The annual assessment letter for the Brunswick plant, including upcoming inspection plans, 

is available on the NRC website. Current performance information for both units is available on the 

NRC website and updated quarterly.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, Louis LeCalsey, III, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 ofTufco Technologies, 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 financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 14, 2006   /s/ Louis LeCalsey, III Louis LeCalsey, III  President and Chief Executive Officer  
20
### SUBCHAPTER II—CHAPLAIN
#### § 401.6 Violations.

Any person who wilfully violates any provisions of this order or wilfully conceals a material fact or furnishes false information in the course of operation under this order is guilty of a crime and upon conviction may be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. In addition, administrative action may be taken against any such person, denying him the privileges generally accorded under this order.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region II

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-97-02 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Friday, January 3,

1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC STAFF ISSUES ORDER TO FORMER NORTH ANNA CONTRACT EMPLOYEE

PROHIBITING INVOLVEMENT IN NRC-LICENSED ACTIVITIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued an Order to

a former contract employee at Virginia Power Company's North Anna

nuclear power plant which prohibits involvement in NRC-licensed

activities for a one-year period and requires notification to the

NRC of the person's first involvement in NRC-licensed activities

for an additional year after the prohibition expires.

NRC officials sent notification to Cecil Ray Owen on January

2, informing him of the action. The action was taken because Owen

failed to state his complete employment history, as required, on a

1995 application for employment with Westinghouse Electric

Corporation at North Anna in order to conceal that he had tested

positive for use of controlled substances while working for a

previous employer.

NRC officials said his actions demonstrated untrustworthiness

to conduct activities an an NRC-license facility.

#
Case 1:20-cv-23208-DPG   Document 94   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2021   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-23208-DPG   Document 94   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2021   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-23208-DPG   Document 94   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2021   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cv-23208-DPG   Document 94   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2021   Page 4 of 4
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61805-61809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23572]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Establishment of a New Standard Form

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Federal 
Voting Assistance Program.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense, Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, Federal Voting Assistance Program is 
establishing a new form, Standard Form 186A, Federal Write-In Absentee 
Ballot (Electronic). This form is an alternative to the current 
Standard Form 186, Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot.
    Since this form is only electronic, users can get it from the 
following Federal Voting Assistance Program Web site: http://www.fvap.gov.

DATES: Effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Glynda Hughes, Department of 
Defense (703) 604-4578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a list of differences 
between the hard copy SF 186 and the electronic SF 186A.
    Paragraphs 2b. and 2c. of the Instructions are not on the hard copy 
SF 186. These paragraphs are added to provide the citizen instructions 
on how to package the ballot since no envelopes are provided with the 
electronic version.
    Paragraph 3. of the electronic version does not include the 
instruction, ``Remove tape from the Security Envelope and seal.''
    Paragraph 4. of the electronic version contains additional 
instructions for the citizens to prepare the voter supplied envelopes 
for mailing.

    Dated: October 18, 2004.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 61806]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21OC04.000


[[Page 61807]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21OC04.001


[[Page 61808]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21OC04.002


[[Page 61809]]


[FR Doc. 04-23572 Filed 10-18-04; 12:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-78

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah

Friday, November 14, 1997

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

WITH TVA ON NOVEMBER 19 TO DISCUSS SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR ISSUE

Meeting In Atlanta Is Open To Public For observation

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a

predecisional enforcement conference with the Tennessee Valley

Authority at 10:30 a.m. (est) in Atlanta on November 19 to discuss

NRC concerns related to an event at the Sequoyah nuclear power plant

near Chattanooga.

NRC officials said that on July 24, the plant staff apparently

failed to align a backup battery to an emergency battery supply and

failed to notice the problem for over 30 hours while both units were

operating at 100 percent power. According to plant technical

specifications, operators must restore such a condition to normal

within six hours or shut down the reactors until the condition is

corrected.

The NRC staff is concerned that, although three other emergency

battery power sources remained available, operating the units with

one emergency battery power system unknowingly out of service could

complicate the plant’s ability during certain postulated accident

conditions to supply adequate emergency electrical power to some

vital equipment, and that the plant staff failed to identify and

correct the adverse condition within the specified time.

The meeting will be held in the NRC’s regional office, located

on the 24th floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth

Street, S. W. The meeting is open to observation by the public and

the media, and NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to

answer questions from interested observers.

NRC officials said the decision to hold a predecisional

enforcement conference does not mean that a determination has been

made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. The purpose of the conference is to discuss apparent

violations, their causes and safety significance; to provide the

licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been

made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the company to

outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a civil penalty, will be made at this
conference. Those decisions will be made later by senior NRC

officials.

#

EDITORS: Call 1-800-952-9674 for recorded information on all upcoming

NRC predecisional enforcement conferences.