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

Office of Public Affairs

Region II

101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No.: II-96-92 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Tuesday, November 12, 1996)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

SURRY NUCLEAR PLANT RATED "SUPERIOR" IN THREE AREAS,

"GOOD" IN FOURTH AREA OF NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Surry nuclear power plant received performance ratings of

"superior" in three areas and "good" in the fourth area of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's latest systematic assessment of

licensee performance (SALP) of the facility.

The SALP report was sent November 8 to Virginia Power, which

operates the facility near Surry, Virginia. It evaluates the

plant's performance from January 22, 1995, through September 28 of

this year.

NRC and Virginia Power officials will discuss the report

during a meeting set for 1:00 p.m. Monday, November 18, at the

Surry site. The meeting will be open for public observation. NRC

officials will be available after the meeting to speak with

reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four

functional areas ˇ plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and

plant support ˇ and assign ratings of Category 1, 2 or 3 depending

on whether their performance in those areas was superior, good or

adequate. The report on Surry gives the plant a Category 1 rating

in plant operations, engineering and plant support, indicating

"superior" performance, and a Category 2 rating in maintenance,

indicating "good" performance. In the previous SALP report in

February 1995, the plant received the same ratings although the

latest report did indicate improving performance in the maintenance

area.

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator

Stewart Ebneter said "common threads that contributed to the

superior performance...were effective self-assessments and strong

management involvement." He mentioned conservative decision

making, control room professionalism, excellent communications and

prompt responses to off-normal conditions in the operations area.

Ebneter said improvements were noted in the maintenance area

and the engineering area showed strengths in design control, team

work and effective engineering outputs. He pointed out continued

superior performance in the plant support area including

radiological controls, emergency planning and physical security.
In his letter, Ebneter mentioned several challenges such as

human performance in the maintenance area and "cases of apparently

deliberate management failures to observe procedural requirements

during schedule- intensive activities."

###

EDITORS: A copy of the full SALP report is available from this

office. SALP reports are also available on the NRC's

Internet web site (http://www.nrc.gov/OPA) and by e-mail

subscription. To receive SALP reports by e-mail as they

are issued, send an e-mail to listproc@nrc.gov with the

following message: subscribe salp yourfirstname

yourlastname.
## Massachusett s Chemistr y & Technolog y Alliance , Inc .

Februar y19 , 200 4 Mass . Dept . o fEnvironmenta l Protectio n Bosto n Offic e On e Winte rStree t Boston , M A0210 8 RE : Comment s o n Propose d Amendment s t o 31 0 CM R 7.0 0 Ai rPollutio n Contro l Regulation s Th e Massachusett s Chemistr y& Technolog yAlliance , Inc . represent s manufacturers , distributors , repackager s an d user s o fchemica l product s i n th e Commonwealt h an d i s please d t o offe rcomment s o n th e propose d amendment s t o 31 0 CM R 7.0 0 o n behal fo fou rmembers : 1 . Presumptiv e approva l o fLimite d Pla n Application s (LPAs) : Whil e w e ar e generall yi n favo r o fthi s approach , requirin g revie wan d signof fb ya Professiona l Enginee radd s a cos t burde n fo rmos t companie s an d i n particula rsmalle rcompanies . W e recommen d reconsideratio n o f th e requiremen t fo ra PE . 2 . Opacit ylimit s requir e additiona l work . Alette rsubmitte d b yPolaroi d Corp . echoe s th e concern s o fsevera l othe rcompanies . 3 . Th e SSEI S reportin g dat e shoul d b e kep t flexibl e t o allo wlarge , comple xsite s tim e t o compil e th e necessar ydata . Apri l 15 t h ha s bee n suggeste d a s mor e realisti can d w e recommen d consideratio n o fthi s late rdate . Than k yo u fo rth e opportunit yt o comment . Sincerely ,

R . R . Bushnel l Vic e Presiden t MCT A 1 8 Tremon t Street , Suit e 402 , Boston , M A 0210 8 617-451-628 2 FAX : 617-227-553 2

www.masscta.or g fRECEIVE D „ 

## FE B 1 9 200 4 DEP/B0STO N 2ndfloorReceotio n
(October 8, 1943.)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Goldstein and Jean Donez, Appellants.

Ho opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
§ 122.114 Contents. ( a ) *Form duplicates original manifest.* Each transit air cargo manifest shall be a duplicate of the sheet presented as part of the cargo manifest for the aircraft on which the cargo arrived in the U.S.
( b ) *Shipments shown on manifest* — ( 1 ) *Country of exportation.* Each transit air cargo manifest sheet may list: ( i ) Only air cargo shipments from one exporting country, with the name of the country shown in the heading; or
( ii ) Air cargo shipments from several exporting countries, with the name of the exporting country shown in the “Nature of Goods” column.
( 2 ) *Shipment to same port.* Each transit air manifest sheet may list only those shipments manifested by way of the port of arrival for: ( i ) The same Customs port of destination;
( ii ) The same Customs port for later exportation; or
( iii ) Direct exportation from the port of arrival.
( c ) *Information required.* Each air cargo manifest sheet shall show: ( 1 ) The foreign port of lading;
( 2 ) The date the aircraft arrived at the port of arrival;
( 3 ) Each U.S. port where Customs services will be necessary due to transit air cargo procedures; and
( 4 ) The final port of destination in the U.S., or the foreign country of destination, for each shipment. The foreign country destination shown on the manifest must be the final destination, as shown by airline shipping documents, even though airline transport may be scheduled to end before the shipment arrives at the final destination.
( d ) *Corrections.* If corrections in the route shown on the original manifest for the cargo are required at the port of arrival to make a manifest sheet workable as a transit air cargo manifest, the director of the port of arrival may allow the corrections.
#### § 125.3 Contracts for Government cartage.

Contracts for Government cartage shall be procured by formally advertised solicitation for bids and award of contract or by negotiation in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Federal Procurement Regulations, as supplemented by the special procurement requirements of the U.S. Customs Service.
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22995-CIV-WILLIAMS

SILVA HARAPETI,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CBS TELEVISION STATIONS INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

__________________________________/

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis’s 

Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (DE 150) that the Court grant the Motion for 

Summary Judgment (“the Motion”) filed by Defendants CBS Television Stations Inc., CBS 

Broadcasting, Inc., and CBS Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”). (DE 95.) In the Report, 

Judge Louis concludes that “the evidence advanced by Plaintiff in opposition to the [M]otion falls 

short of establishing a prima facie case on any of her claims challenged on the Motion, [and thus] 

recommends that Defendants’ Motion . . . is due to be granted.” (DE 150 at 6.) Plaintiff Silva 

Harapeti (“Plaintiff”) filed objections to the Report and Defendants responded. (DE 153; DE 154.)

Upon an independent review of the Report, Plaintiff’s objections, Defendants’ response, the 

underlying record, and applicable case law, the Court agrees with Judge Louis’s conclusions.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 150) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 95) is GRANTED. 

3. This action is DISMISSED. 

4. Defendants’ Motion in Limine (DE 116), Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases (DE 132), 

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases 

(DE 146), and any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 

Case 1:20-cv-22995-KMW Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 

5. All deadlines, hearings, and/or trial settings are CANCELED. 

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

7. An order of final judgment will follow separately. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on this 20th day of September, 

2022.

 

Case 1:20-cv-22995-KMW Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2022 Page 2 of 2
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-120 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00366

- CV

Ana GUERRA and Miguel Guerra,

Appellants

v.

Copernicus GUERRA , Eric Stubbs and Monica Guerra,

Appellees

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 17589

Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellants Ana Guerra and Miguel Guerra.

SIGNED March 9, 2022.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Exhibit 32.2


CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*
 
    (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/ Carter Peters
  Carter Peters
 Chief Financial Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
 
 March 30, 2010
 
 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.8
                                FOURTH AMENDMENT

This Fourth Amendment is entered and made as of March 5, 2001 (the "Fourth
Amendment") as an amendment to the Agreement dated as of October 15, 1990, by
and between US Airways, Inc. ("US Airways") and Air Midwest, Inc. ("Contractor")
(the "Agreement").

                                   WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, US Airways and Contractor have entered into the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, in August 6, 1991, the parties further amended the Agreement in certain
respects ("First Amendment"); and

WHEREAS, in February of 1993, the parties further amended the Agreement in
certain respects ("Second Amendment"); and

WHEREAS, on October 6, 2000, the parties further amended the Agreement in
certain respects ("Third Amendment");

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants hereinafter
set forth and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is acknowledged, US Airways and Contractor hereby agree as follows:

      1.    Section 11.01 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting a
            subsection "(a)" before the word "Contractor" in the first paragraph
            of such Section.

      2.    Section 11.01 of the Agreement is hereby amended by inserting a new
            subsection "(b)" at the end of the first paragraph as follows:

            "(b)Effective March 5, 2001, US Airways hereby grants to Contractor
            for a period of one year, the right to conduct operations described
            in Section 2.01 above, as amended, and any additional operations
            undertaken by subsequent amendment hereto under the trademark "US
            Airways Express" on behalf of Midwest Express Airlines, subject to
            all of the terms and conditions of Article 11 of the Agreement." Air
            Midwest Airlines flights d/b/a US Airways Express which operate
            between Kansas City to the airports listed in Section 2.01 will be
            permitted to carry the YX code when connecting to Midwest Express
            Airlines flights from Kansas City to the airports listed below. Any
            one or more of the airports listed is subject to change at the sole
            discretion of US Airways, provided that US Airways provides 60 days
            notice to Air Midwest:

                  [***]
      3.    Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force
            and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above
written.

        AIR MIDWEST, INC.                            US AIRWAYS, INC.

        /S/ Greg Stephens                          /S/ Thomas M. Hanley
     --------------------------                 ---------------------------
     By:      Greg Stephens                     By:      Thomas M. Hanley
     Title:   President                         Title:   Vice President
                                                         Express Division
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

61 Forsyth Street, S.W.

Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-97-58 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Wednesday, July

22, 1997)

Roger Hannah, (404) 562-4417

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING ON AUGUST 7 AT SWEETWATER

ON TVA PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT TRITIUM PRODUCTION TESTS AT WATTS BAR

Meeting Will Begin at 7:00 P.M. In Quality Inn Conference Room

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public

meeting on August 7 at Sweetwater, Tennessee to provide a review

and opportunity for public comment on the proposed use of the Watts

Bar nuclear power plant for a Department of Energy feasibility test

on tritium production.

The meeting will be held from 7:00 until 9:00 p.m. in the

conference room of the Sweetwater Quality Inn, adjacent to

Interstate 75. Members of the public who are interested in

presenting comments relative to TVA's proposal should contact

Robert Martin, Project Manager, Division of Reactor Projects I/II,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mailstop O-4B21, Washington,

D.C., 20555, (301) 415-1493.

Contact should be made no later than five days prior to the

meeting, and persons planning to attend should call one or two days

prior to the meeting to be advised of any changes.

Those wishing to comment should provide a brief summary of the

information to be presented and the time requested. Time allotted

for presentations by members of the public will be determined by

the number of requests received and announced at the beginning of

the meeting. Unscheduled presentations will be considered if time

permits, and written statements will be accepted and included in

the record of the meeting.

Here is a tentative meeting agenda:

7:00 p.m. - NRC Opening Remarks

7:15 p.m. - DOE Program Description

7:45 p.m. - TVA Presentation

8:00 p.m. - NRC Review & Inspection Process
8:30 p.m. - Public Comments

9:00 p.m. - Meeting Adjourns

The Tennessee Valley Authority owns and operates Watts Bar and

is seeking to amend its operating license to permit insertion of

test assemblies into the reactor core to carry out the test

program. The Department of Energy is investigating the feasibility

of using commercial power reactors to produce radioactive tritium

for use in the nation's nuclear weapons program.

#
#### § 296.13 Subrogation.

An insurer or other third party with the rights of a subrogee, who has compensated an injured person for Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire related injuries, may file a Notice of Loss under the Act for the subrogated claim. A subrogee may file a Notice of Loss without regard to whether the Injured Person who received payment from the subrogee filed a Notice of Loss. A Subrogation Notice of Loss should be filed after the subrogee has made all payments that it believes the Injured Person is entitled to receive for Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire related injuries under the terms of the insurance policy or other agreement between the subrogee and the Injured Person, but not later than November 14, 2024. By filing a Notice of Loss for any subrogated claim, the subrogee elects the Act as its exclusive remedy against the United States or any employee, officer, or agency of the United States for all subrogated claims arising out of the Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon Fire. Subrogation claims must be made on a Notice of Loss form furnished by the Claims Office and such claims will be paid only after paying claims submitted by injured persons that are not insurance companies seeking payment as subrogees.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-60885-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt 

BRANDON THOMPSON

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FORT LAUDERDALE LAW GROUP 

SOUTH, PLLC, A Florida Limited 

Liability Company,

Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

 

ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION

THIS MATTER comes before the Court under Local Rule 16.2. The Mediation in this 

case shall be held before Marlene Quintana on November 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. via a 

videoconferencing service. 

Within three days of the mediation, the parties shall file a joint mediation report with the 

Court. The report shall indicate whether the case settled (in full or in part), whether it was 

adjourned, or whether the mediator declared an impasse. Failure to comply with this Order may 

result in sanctions, including dismissal without prejudice and without further notice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 29th day of July 2020. 

 _________________________________ 

 ROY K. ALTMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-60885-RKA Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 1
#### § 144.4 Allowance for abandoned, destroyed, or exported merchandise.

Allowance in duties shall be made for merchandise in warehouse which is abandoned or destroyed in accordance with § 158.43 of this chapter or exported in accordance with § 144.37.
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. 97-073 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, May 9, 1997)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a

meeting May 28-29 in Rockville, Maryland.

The two day meeting, which is open to the public, will begin

at 8:30 a.m. in Room 2B3 of the NRC's Two White Flint North

building at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Subcommittee on

Instrumentation and Control Systems and Computers will review the

proposed standard review plan sections, branch technical

positions, and regulatory guides associated with digital

instrumentation and control systems as well as related matters.

Some portions of the meeting may be closed to the public to

discuss organizational and personnel matters.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, are described in a Notice of Meeting published in

the May 9 edition of the Federal Register.

#
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Paul Withrow, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company and that the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


                                        /s/ J. Paul Withrow
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        J. Paul Withrow
                                        November 9, 2005


                                       39
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.600 Accessories, spare parts, or tools. ( a ) *General.* Accessories, spare parts, or tools that are delivered with a good and that form part of the good's standard accessories, spare parts, or tools will be treated as originating goods if the good is an originating good, and will be disregarded in determining whether all the non-originating materials used in the production of the good undergo an applicable change in tariff classification specified in General Note 29(n), HTSUS, provided that: ( 1 ) The accessories, spare parts, or tools are classified with, and not invoiced separately from, the good, regardless of whether they appear specified or separately identified in the invoice for the good; and ( 2 ) The quantities and value of the accessories, spare parts, or tools are customary for the good. ( a ) *Regional value content.* If the good is subject to a regional value content requirement, the value of the accessories, spare parts, or tools is taken into account as originating or non-originating materials, as the case may be, in calculating the regional value content of the good under § 10.595 of this subpart.
§ 115.10 Certificate of approval. A Certifying Authority shall issue a certificate of approval by design type for a specified number or unlimited series of containers that are approved in accordance with the procedures contained in §§ 115.29, 115.31, 115.38, and 115.41, and road vehicles that are approved in accordance with the procedures contained in §§ 115.49, 115.52, 115.63, and 115.66 of this part. ( a ) *Road vehicles.* A Certifying Authority shall issue a certificate of approval conforming to the model in Annex 4 of the 1975 TIR Convention for vehicles submitted for individual or design type approval, if satisfied that the vehicles comply with the technical conditions prescribed in Annex 2 of the TIR Convention, 1975.
( b ) *Containers* — ( 1 ) *Approval after manufacture.* A Certifying Authority shall issue a certificate of approval conforming to the model in appendix 3, Part II to Annex 7 of the TIR Convention, 1975, and appendix 3 to Annex 5 of the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972, for containers approved at a stage after manufacture, when it has been ascertained that the containers comply with the technical conditions prescribed in Annex 7 of the TIR Convention, 1975, and Annex 4 of the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972. The certificate shall be valid for the number of containers approved.
( 2 ) *Design type approved.* A Certifying Authority shall issue a single certificate of approval conforming to the model in appendix 2, Part II to Annex 7 of the TIR Convention, 1975, and appendix 2 to Annex 5 of the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972, for containers approved by design type when it has been ascertained that the container type complies with the technical conditions prescribed in Annex 7 of the 1975 TIR Convention, and Annex 4 of the Customs Convention on Containers, 1972. The certificate shall be valid for all containers manufactured in conformity with the specifications of the type approved.
( c ) *Provisions common to both approval procedures.* The certificate of approval issued pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be valid for either the specific number of containers approved, or for an unlimited series of containers of the approved type.