alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-34 June 13, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING NEAR CATAWBA PLANT

ON CHANGES IN REACTOR OVERSIGHT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting for Wednesday, June 21

to discuss the new reactor oversight process which began at Duke Energy’s Catawba nuclear power

plant, near York, South Carolina, in April.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. EDT in the Rock Hill, South Carolina, City Hall and members

of the public will have the opportunity to ask questions during the meeting.

The new oversight process uses more objective, timely, and safety-significant criteria in

assessing performance, while seeking to more effectively and efficiently regulate the industry. Under

the new process, inspections by NRC resident inspectors and regional office-based personnel are

supplemented by statistical measures of plant activities called performance indicators. These

performance indicators measure important safety aspects of plant operations, including the viability of

redundant safety systems, emergency planning, radiation protection, and security measures.

Inspection findings and performance indicators for each nuclear power plant are posted on the

NRC's web site every three months. The safety significance of each inspection finding or performance

indicator is characterized by a color -- green, white, yellow, or red.

The NRC response to the inspection findings and performance indicators will be based on the

assessment. A green finding receives normal NRC oversight, while white, yellow, or red assessments

receive increasing NRC involvement. Multiple red findings could result in a plant shutdown.

A plain language summary of the reactor oversight process is available from the NRC Office of

Public Affairs or on the web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

###
#### § 103.1 Public reading room.

CBP maintains a virtual public reading room at *http://foiarr.cbp.gov/* where the material required to be made available under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and this part may be inspected and copied.

[CBP Dec. 15-16, 80 FR 71692, Nov. 17, 2015]
473 P.2d 911

#### Robert J. BOYD, Petitioner, v. Charles D. CLEVELAND, Respondent.

No. 9100.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Aug. 4, 1970.

Ordered that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 468, 81 N.M. 732, 472 P.2d 995, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: : NO. 479 : AMENDMENT OF RULE 103 : JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF : JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION : DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AND NOW** , this 3 rd day of February, 2017, the proposal having been submitted without publication pursuant to Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(a)(3): It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that Rule 103 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration is amended in the attached form. This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective immediately

. Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
Exhibit
      32





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE


PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Peter
      J. Bergmann, the Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer of YP Corp.,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form
      10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of YP Corp.





Date:
                November 30, 2005
            
            */s/
                Peter J. Bergmann*Peter
                J. BergmannChief
                Executive Officer





I,
      W.
      Chris Broquist, the Chief Financial Officer of YP Corp., certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of YP Corp. on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal
      year ended September 30, 2000 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
      contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents in all material
      respects the financial condition and results of operations of YP
      Corp.





Date:
                November 30, 2005
            
            */s/
                W. Chris Broquist*W.
                Chris BroquistChief
                Financial Officer
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No:II-98-31 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, April 17, 1998)

NRC STAFF WITHDRAWS VIOLATION AND PROPOSED $80,000 FINE AGAINST

TVA FOR ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION AT SEQUOYAH AND WATTS BAR

Action Follows Favorable TVA Ruling By U.S. Court of Appeals

The NRC staff has withdrawn a violation and an $80,000 civil penalty, proposed against

TVA on February 20, 1996 for alleged discrimination against a former TVA nuclear

inspector who was not subsequently hired for positions at the Sequoyah and Watts Bar

nuclear power plants. NRC took the action following a decision in TVA’s favor by the U.S.

Court of Appeals.

The NRC staff issued the violation and proposed the fine after being notified that the Office

of the U.S. Secretary of Labor had concluded that the former employee was discriminated

against when he was not hired because of a history of expressing nuclear safety concerns

to both TVA and the NRC.

TVA appealed, and the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision on

January 12 of this year which reversed the Secretary of Labor’s finding of discrimination

and vacated the orders of the Secretary. A final mandate in the cases was issued on

March 10 of this year.

The NRC staff, according to agency policy, had held imposition of the proposed civil

penalty in abeyance pending the outcome of TVA’s appeal.

#
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-90 October 7, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES TWO $55,000 FINES FOR SIMILAR VIOLATIONS

AT BRAIDWOOD AND BYRON NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed two

$55,000 fines against Commonwealth Edison Co. for similar

violations of NRC requirements at its Braidwood and Byron Nuclear

Power Stations.

The plants, which have two reactors each, are located at

Braidwood, Illinois, and near Byron, Illinois.

The utility was cited for failing to vent possible gas

accumulations from certain pumps and piping at the two plants.

The issue was found by a Commonwealth Edison engineer at the

Braidwood plant in February of last year. He discovered that

pumps and piping were not being vented every 31 days, as

required, in the centrifugal charging system, which is part of

the emergency core cooling system at the plant.

The same situation was found at the Bryon Station, which is

similar in design to the Braidwood plant.

The two plants were not complying with the venting

requirement because the pumps did not have vents on them and

because the system design minimized the possibility that gases

would accumulate in the pump and associated piping.

However, neither plant sought to change the venting

requirement contained in the plant's NRC license and continued to

operate in violation of the license requirement.

The continuing violation of the NRC requirement was

identified in NRC inspections in May and June of this year at the

two plants.

NRC inspectors at Byron also identified a vent in a second

portion of the emergency core cooling system which was not

checked periodically as required.
The potential safety consequences of these violations were

low. The venting is performed to make sure no gases accumulate

that could affect the functioning of the systems. The system

design, however, minimizes the possibility that this would occur.

The piping was also tested after the issue was identified by the

NRC at the two sites, and the tests confirmed that no gases had

accumulated at the high points.

"While the potential safety consequences of these violations

are low, the regulatory significance is high," said A. Bill

Beach, NRC Regional Administrator, in notifying the utility of

the fines.

"NRC involvement was necessary in order to ensure strict

compliance with the [license] requirements and the necessary

[license] changes were made," he added.

The NRC staff has subsequently granted license amendments

for Braidwood Unit 2 and Byron Unit 2. Braidwood Unit 1 and

Byron Unit 1 were granted temporary relief from their license

requirements to vent the valves and piping, pending review of

license amendment requests.

Commonwealth Edison has until November 3 to pay the fines or

to protest them. If the fines are protested and subsequently

imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a hearing.

#####
§ 4.433 Authority of the administrative law judge. ( a ) The administrative law judge has general authority to conduct the hearing in an orderly and judicial manner, including authority to: ( 1 ) Administer oaths;
( 2 ) Call and question witnesses;
( 3 ) Subpoena witnesses as specified in paragraph (b) of this section;
( 4 ) Issue findings and decisions as specified in paragraph (c) of this section; and
( 5 ) Take any other actions that the Board may prescribe in referring the case for hearing.
( b ) The administrative law judge has authority to subpoena witnesses and to take and cause depositions to be taken for the purpose of taking testimony but not for discovery. This authority must be exercised in accordance with the Act of January 31, 1903 (32 Stat. 790; 43 U.S.C. 102 through 106).
( c ) The administrative law judge has authority to issue any of the following, as specified by the Board under § 4.415(c)(2): ( 1 ) Proposed findings of fact on the issues presented at the hearing;
( 2 ) A recommended decision that includes findings of fact and conclusions of law; or
( 3 ) A decision that will be final for the Department unless a notice of appeal is filed in accordance with § 4.411 within 30 days of receipt of the decision.
( d ) The issuance of subpoenas, the attendance of witnesses, and the taking of depositions are governed by §§ 4.423 and 4.26.
[75 FR 64668, Oct. 20, 2010]
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BLACKLIDGE EMULSIONS , INC., Appellant

v.

ASPHALT PRODUCTS UNL IMITED, INC., Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1349, 2019

- 1350

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2017

- 01241, IPR2017

- 01242.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OHN F RANCIS T RIGGS

, Patterson Intellectual PropertyLaw, PC, Nashville, TN, argued for appellant. Also represented by M ARK A NDREW K ILGORE

, R YAN D. L EVY

, S ETH R.
O GDEN

, W ILLIAM E. S EKYI

.

M ICHAEL K. L EACHMAN , Jones Walker L LP, Baton Rouge , LA, argued for appellee. Also represented by

R OBERT W ADDELL

, Lafayette , LA.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, M OORE

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

December 26, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
#### § 122.36 Responsibility of aircraft commander.

If an aircraft lands in the U.S. and Customs officers have not arrived, the aircraft commander shall hold the aircraft, and any merchandise or baggage on the aircraft for inspection. Passengers and crewmembers shall be kept in a separate place until Customs officers authorize their departure.
#### § 112.14 Discontinuance of carrier bonds.

Carrier bonds may be discontinued at any time by the Commissioner of Customs or by the director of the port where the bond is filed. Authorized carriers desiring to terminate such bonds shall make application therefor to such port director.
#### Goins v. Catron.

April 27, 1945

Victor A. Jordan and J. D. Tuggle for appellant.

J. F. Catron, Sr., and Zeb A. Stewart for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice Tilford

Affirming.

Appellee sued appellant setting forth his paper title to and consequent ownership of a tract of land containing 8 acres. He further alleged that appellant was asserting ownership of the land and thus casting a cloud upon his title; that appellant had cut and removed timber from the land and planted and removed crops, to appellee’s damage in the sum of $250, and had threatened to and would continue to trespass unless enjoined from so doing.

The prayer of the petition was that the appellee’s title he quieted; that he he adjudged the owner of the land; that appellant he enjoined from com*584mitting further trespasses thereon; and that appellee recover the damages alleged. The amount of the damages was later, by amended petition, increased to $1000. Appellant by answer, denied appellee’s ownership of the land without denying the execution or delivery of the conveyances in appellee’s alleged chain of title, and by counterclaim asserted title in-himself by adverse possion. A reply traversing the allegations of the counterclaim completed the issues.

Appellee testified to his ownership of the land in controversy, and filed in evidence a certified copy of the deed conveying it to him. He, however, failed to prove that he had taken actual possession or to trace his title back to the Commonwealth or to a common source. Appellant neither testified nor offered any evidence;, and the Chancellor on final submission adjudged appellee to be the owner; that his title be quieted; that he recover $300 in. damages; and that appellant be enjoined from further trespassing.

It is conceded by .appellant that appellee’s failure to prove possession, as required by KRS 411.120 as a condition precedent to the maintenance of an action to quiet title, was waived by appellant’s filing of a counterclaim asking that he be adjudged the owner and that his title be quieted. Moreover, KRS 381.230 authorizes the maintenance, by an owner not in possession, of an action to enjoin trespassing. But it is insisted by appellant that his filing of a counterclaim, asking that he be adjudged the owner and that his title be quieted, did not waive appellee’s failure to prove a title deducible from the Commonwealth or a common source, and that such failure entitled appellant to a judgment dismissing the petition. In this he is mistaken, as it has several times been held by this Court that where both parties seek an adjudication of title, it is the duty of the Court to decide the controversy by determining merely which has the superior title. Justice v. Staton, 291 Ky. 179, 163, S. W. 2d 471; Crawley v. Mackey et al., 283 Ky. 717, 143 S. W. 2d 171.

As before stated, appellee alleged and. proved a title vested in him by an apparently valid deed, whereas appellant made no attempt to prove title in himself by adverse possession or otherwise. It follows that the judgment appealed from was correct and should be affirmed. It is so ordered.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-20 May 8, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF SCHEDULES ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE IN

PUERTO RICO MAY 18 TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS WITH

CAGUAS COMPANY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement

conference with Turabo Corporation of Caguas, Puerto Rico, at 2:00 p.m. May 18 at the Hampton Inn,

6530 Isla Verde Avenue in Carolina to discuss regulatory concerns related to the loss of control of a

device containing radioactive material at a temporary job site outside Ciales on March 2.

The device, a gauge containing radioactive material which is used to measure soil moisture and

density, was left near the job site by a technician and was in the possession of members of the public

for about 13 hours. The event was initially identified by the staff of the Puerto Rico Radiological

Health Division, and the NRC staff conducted a follow-up inspection of the company’s Caguas facility

and the site near Ciales.

NRC officials say two apparent violations associated with the event have been identified and

are being considered for enforcement action. The first involved the failure by the company to secure,

limit access to, or maintain constant surveillance of the licensed radioactive material at the job site to

prevent unauthorized removal. The second involves the failure to limit the dose in an unrestricted area

to less than two millirem per hour. The NRC staff estimates that the maximum amount any individual

member of the public could have received would be about 20 millirem, although the actual exposures

are probably much lower. The NRC limit for exposure to members of the public is 100 millirem.

The decision to hold a predecisonal 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 is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, to provide the licensee with an

opportunity to point out errors that may have been made in NRC inspection reports 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 the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

#
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61684-61685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23503]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

National Communications System


National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Communications System (NCS)

[[Page 61685]]


ACTION: Supplemental notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: As previously noticed, (see notice of meeting published 
October 19, 2004), the President's National Security Telecommunications 
Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via conference call on Thursday, 
October 21, 2004, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. The conference call will be 
open to the public.
    Due to an administrative oversight, publication of the original 
notice for the aforementioned meeting, which was expected to occur on 
October 6, 2004, was unexpectedly delayed. Accordingly, to afford 
interested members of the public an opportunity to arrange access to 
the conference bridge, this Supplemental Notice extends the 
registration period for the call. Interested members of the public who 
wish to monitor the teleconference should contact Ms. Daniela 
Christopherson at (703) 607-6217, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8ebc0dac1dbdcc7cce8c6cbdb86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7b49f859e84839893b7999484d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>, not 
later than 1 p.m. on October 21, 2004, to obtain the access information 
and the meeting materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Call Ms. Kiesha Gebreyes, Chief, 
Industry operations Branch at (703) 607-6134, or write the Manager, 
National Communications System, P.O. Box 4502, Arlington, Virginia 
22204-4502.

Sheron Bellizan,
Chief of Staff, National Communications System.
[FR Doc. 04-23503 Filed 10-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Felix Adamkiewicz, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Peck, P. J., and Shientag, J., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the information on the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

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 annual report of
Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2012, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guy Bernstein, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                                                           or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  May 14, 2013 | /s/ Guy Bernstein      
|------------------- | -----------------------
|                    | Guy Bernstein          
|                    | Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jack Ring, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, the information dismissed and the fine remitted on the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan

and Shientag, JJ. -