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-96-84 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Monday, October 7, 1996)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC POSTPONES TWO MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9,

AT FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION'S CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has postponed two meetings

scheduled for Wednesday, October 9, at Florida Power Corporation's

Crystal River nuclear power plant in Crystal River due to severe

weather predicted for the west coast of Florida where the plant is

located.

The first meeting, which was scheduled for 9:00 a.m., is a

special NRC inspection exit meeting to discuss NRC inspection

findings concerning a potential tampering event at Crystal River.

The second meeting, which was scheduled for 10:00 a.m., is a

special meeting requested by the NRC to dicuss FPC's corrective

actions to address weaknesses in engineering performance at the

Crystal River plant.

The meetings will be rescheduled for a later date and the NRC

will issue a news release announcing the new date and time for each

meeting.

###
#### § 103.2 Department of Homeland Security Freedom of Information Act procedures.

Inorder to process requests for documents/information and appeals under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), CBP applies the Department of Homeland Security FOIA regulations in 6 CFR part 5, subpart A.

[CBP Dec. 15-16, 80 FR 71692, Nov. 17, 2015, as amended by CBP Dec. 20-09, 85 FR 31057, May 22, 2020]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________

No. 96-50667

______________________________

In the Matter of: BILLY R SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY, Debtors.

-------------------------------------------------- BILLY R. SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY, Appellees-Cross Appellants,
VERSUS TEXAS COMMERCE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

No. 96-50681

In the Matter of: BILLY R. SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY, Debtors.

---------------------------------------------------- BILLY R. SHURLEY; JANE BRYANT SHURLEY, Appellees,

VERSUS* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 2 TEXAS COMMERCE BANK - SAN ANGELO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas (M0-95-CV-293 & M0-96-CV-45) November 17, 1997 Before KING, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * It is ordered that the August 29, 1996 order of the district
court be VACATED, and the cause REMANDED to the district court. The district court is instructed to REMAND the causes to the Bankruptcy Court for a determination of the solvency of the bankruptcy estate in light of Shurley v. Texas Commerce Bank-- Austin, N.A. , 115 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed , No. 97-567 (U.S. Sept. 30, 1997).
#### Alfred A. Whitman, Appellant, v. Charles L. Munnich and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, *JJ.*
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-98-63 May 28, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC STAFF ISSUES REPORT ON PERFORMANCE AT CALVERT CLIFFS;

PERFORMANCE IS “SUPERIOR” IN ONE AREA, DECLINES IN TWO OTHERS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has rated

performance at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant as good in

two areas, superior in one area and adequate in the fourth area

of the latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance.

Calvert Cliffs is located in Lusby, Md., and operated by

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.

Covered by the Systematic Assessment of Licensee

Performance, or SALP, report is the period from October 20, 1996,

through April 18 of this year.

NRC staff and Baltimore Gas and Electric officials will

discuss the evaluation during a meeting scheduled for 1 p.m. on

Tuesday, June 9, at the Calvert Cliff’s Visitor’s Center at the

site. The session will be open to the public for observation.

Four functional areas of nuclear power plant performance are

rated in NRC SALP reports: plant operations, maintenance,

engineering and plant support. Ratings of Category 1

(“superior”), Category 2 (“good”) and Category 3 (“acceptable”)

are assigned. The reports are issued roughly once every 18

months.

Calvert Cliffs received a “superior” rating in operations, a

“good” rating in engineering and maintenance, and an “adequate”

rating in plant support.

In a letter to the company, NRC Region I Administrator

Hubert J. Miller said, the overall performance at the facility

was mixed. “Management attention and involvement in operations

resulted in a superior level of performance that was

characterized by a conservative operating philosophy and

effective use of risk-assessments in preparation for operational

and maintenance evolutions,” he wrote. He also noted

improvements in maintenance.
But Mr. Miller further said that the plant’s good

operational performance “was contrasted...by performance declines

in both the engineering and plant support areas. The repetitive

nature of radiological work problems was indicative of a

programmatic breakdown in the area of radiological safety.”

#
### §28a. Compilation of the Precedents of House of Representatives; date of completion; biennial update; printing and availability of copies

The Speaker is authorized and directed to complete the Compilation of the Precedents of the House of Representatives by January 1, 1977, and prepare an updated compilation of such precedents every two years thereafter. Copies of the Compilation of Precedents shall be printed in sufficient quantity to be available to every Member and the standing committees of the House of Representatives.

(Pub. L. 93–554, title I, ch. III, Dec. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1777.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 208 of House Resolution No. 988, Ninety-third Congress, Oct. 8, 1974, which was enacted into permanent law by Pub. L. 93–554.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 93–554 provided that the enactment of House Resolution No. 988, Ninety-third Congress, into permanent law is effective Jan. 2, 1975.
§ 6.83 Prepayment of fees. ( a ) When FEMA estimates or determines that allowable charges that a requester may be required to pay are likely to exceed $250.00, FEMA may require a requester to make an advance payment of the entire fee before continuing to process the request.
( b ) When a requester has previously failed to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion (i.e., within 30 days of the date of the billing), FEMA may require the requester to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest as provided in § 6.85(d), and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the agency begins to process a new request or a pending request from that requester.
( c ) When FEMA acts under § 5.44 (a) or (b), the administrative time limits prescribed in subsection (a)(6) of the FOIA (i.e., 10 working days from the receipt of initial requests and 20 working days from receipt of appeals from initial denial, plus permissible extensions of these time limits) will begin only after FEMA has received fee payments described under § 5.44 (a) or (b).
[52 FR 13679, Apr. 24, 1987]
Nos. WR-61,939-01 and WR-61,939-02 IN RE DAVID DOW AND JEFFREY R. NEWBERRY, Respondents.

__________________________________________ MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY OF RECORD

___________________________________________ TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: Now comes David Dow and Jeffrey Newberry by and through their attorneys and respectfully requests this Court to permit and substitute in their stead Stanley G. Schneider, Nicole DeBorde and Casie L. Gotro as attorneys of record for Respondents, David Dow and Jeffrey Newberry, and would show this Court as follows: I. Respondents herein feel that it is in their best interest to have Stanley G. Schneider, Nicole DeBorde and Casie L. Gotro represent them in this case. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, your movants ask that this Honorable Court to substitute in their stead Stanley G. Schneider, Nicole DeBorde and Casie L. Gotro as attorney of records for Respondents.

1 WR-61,939-02 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 1/29/2015 4:32:01 PM Accepted 1/30/2015 9:01:45 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKR e s pe c tfully Subm itte d, SC HNEIDER

& M c KINNEY, P.C
. /s/ Sta nle y G. Sc hne i de r Stanle y G. Sc hne ide r T.B .C . No. 17790500 440 Louisia

na Suite 800 Houston, Te xa s 77002 Offic e : 713-951-9994 Fa x: 713-224-6008 Em a il: sta ns3112@a ol.c o m
NIC OLE De B O RDE 712 M a in St., Ste 2400 Houston, Te xa s 77002 Offic e : 713-526-6300 Fa x: 713-228-0034 Em a il: nic ole @de borde la wfirm .c om
C A SIE L. GOTR O TB N: 24048505 440 Louisia

na , Suite 800 Houston, Te xa s 77002 Offic e : 832-368-9281 Fa x: 832-201-8273 Em a il: c a s ie .gotro@gm a il.c om

2CE RT IFICAT E O F SE RV I CE

This is to c e rtify

tha t a true and c orre c t c opy

of the atta c h e d

and fore going M otion ha s be e n m a i le d a nd/or ha nd de l ive re d to thefollowing liste d be low on this 28 t h da y of Ja nua ry , 2015.
1. Edwa

rd L. M arsha ll Assista nt Attorne y

Ge ne ra l PO B ox 12548 Austin, Te xa s 78711 2. 399th Distric t C o urt – Pre siding Judge 300 Dolorosa

St., 1 s tfloor San Antonio, Te xa s 78205 3. B e xa

r C ounty Distric t C le rk 101 W . Nue va , Suite 217 San Antonio, Te xa s 78205 4. B e xa

r C o. Distric t Attorne y 101 W . Nue va , 4 t hfloor San Antonio, Te xa s 78205 5. M ic ha e l C . Gross Attorne y at La w 106 S. Sa int M ary ’ s, Suite 260 San Antonio, Te xa s 78205
/s/ Sta nle y G. Sc hne i de r Stanle y G. Sc hne ide r

3
EXHIBIT 10.63

**AMENDMENT NO. 4TOAMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

            This Amendment No. 4 (this “Amendment’) dated as of May 5, 2009, is made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Ronald P.Soltman (the “Executive”).

            **WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Amended and Restated Employment  Agreement  dated as of September 23, 2004, as further amended  (collectively, the“EA”),  to secure the services of the Executive as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary; and

            **WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive’s base salary set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $549,040, effective as of April 1, 2009.

            **NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is amended as follows:

            1.         Defined Terms.  Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided inthe EA.

            2.**        **Amendment to Section 6(a).  Section 6(a) of the EA entitled “Base Salary” is hereby  deleted and replaced withthe following new Section 6(a):

                        “(a) *Base Salary.*  Effective April 1, 2009, the Executive’s base salary hereunder shall                        be $549,040 per year, payable semi-monthly. Commencing July 1, 2010, the Board                        shall review such base salary at least annually and make such adjustments from time                        to time as it may deem advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be reduced                        from the base salary in effect from time to time.”

            3.         Ratification.  All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are hereby  ratified by the Company and the Executive.

1

----

            **IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by  ts duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment, each as of the day and year firstset forth above.

                                                                       **Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.**

                                                                       By:/s/ Phillip W.Roe                                                                                                                           Phillip W. Roe                                                                                   Executive Vice President, Chief Financial                                                                                   Officer and Treasurer

                                                                       **Executive**:

****

**                                                                       **/s/ Ronald P. Soltman                                                                                                             Ronald P. Soltman

2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 594 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 210
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 594

  To double the existing penalties for the provision of misleading or 
             inaccurate caller identification information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 4, 2021

   Ms. Collins (for herself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Peters, Mr. 
Warnock, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. Hassan) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

                           December 17, 2021

              Reported by Ms. Cantwell, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To double the existing penalties for the provision of misleading or 
             inaccurate caller identification information.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Spoofing Penalties 
Modernization Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING PENALTIES FOR SPOOFERS.

     Section 227(e)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
227(e)(5)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)--
                    (A) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting 
                ``$20,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``$1,000,000'' and inserting 
                ``$2,000,000''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$10,000'' and 
        inserting ``$20,000''.
                                                       Calendar No. 210

117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 594

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To double the existing penalties for the provision of misleading or 
             inaccurate caller identification information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 17, 2021

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Garnette M. Letts, Respondent, v. Walter J. Letts, Appellant.

Order appealed from unanimously modified by reducing the sum of $90 in the first decretal paragraph to $50 each week; by reducing the sum of $125 in the second decretal paragraph to $100 each week; and by reducing the counsel fee in the fifth decretal paragraph from $1,250 to $850, $425 to be paid within fifteen days after service of the order to be entered herein and the balance of $425 when the case appears on the Ready Day Calendar for trial; the order should also direct the defendant to serve and file a note of issue five days after service of the order herein and that the parties proceed to trial without unnecessary delay; as so modified the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P, J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 666 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 666

 To modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small 
                                 ports.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2021

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify the criteria used by the Corps of Engineers to dredge small 
                                 ports.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS CRITERIA TO DREDGE SMALL 
              PORTS.

    (a) Minimum Tonnage Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law (including regulations), effective beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act, the tonnage requirement with respect to 
the consideration of dredging of small ports by the Corps of Engineers 
shall be a minimum of 500,000 tons, as calculated in accordance with 
subsection (b).
    (b) Calculation.--For purposes of subsection (a) and any other 
activity of the Corps of Engineers carried out on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act, tonnage shall be calculated by each relevant 
port authority and submitted to the Corps of Engineers.
                                 <all>
```
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-00-46 July 3, 2000

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

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

NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have announced the assignment of

Jonathan Bartley as the new Senior Resident Inspector at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City,

Tennessee.

Mr. Bartley joined the NRC in March 1991 as a Region II operator licensing examiner in

Atlanta, Georgia, and administered examinations at General Electric, Westinghouse, and Babcock &

Wilcox reactor plants. For the past five years, Bartley has worked as a Resident Inspector at the Farley

Nuclear Plant in Columbia, Alabama. Prior to joining the NRC, he served in the U.S. Navy aboard the

USS Albuquerque as a nuclear trained officer and as a technical instructor at Naval Submarine School.

Bartley has a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from Texas Tech University.

Bartley joins NRC Resident Inspector Dan Rich and Site Secretary Linda Chattin at the Watts

Bar plant. The NRC inspectors at Watts Bar can be reached at 423-365-5487.

#
#### In the Matter of Olga Moskowitz, Appellant. Little Bo Peep Kiddie Co., Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Martin, P. J., taking no part.
##### 



Exhibit 8

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

The following table lists the Registrants significant subsidiaries, as defined
in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X, as at December 31, 2002. The table includes
the legal name of the subsidiary, its jurisdiction of incorporation and the
name under which it does business. The table omits certain holding companies.

|                              |  |                        |  |                    
|----------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -------------------
|                              |  | JURISDICTION OF        |  | NAME UNDER WHICH IT
|COMPANY NAME                  |  | INCORPORATION          |  | IS DOING BUSINESS  
|                             
|ČESKÝ MOBIL a.s.
MOBIFON S.A. |  | Czech Republic
Romania |  | Oskar
Connex
#### Ralph Antonelli, Appellant, v. Wesley V. Labagh, Respondent.

No opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.2034 Goods re-entered after repair or alteration in Panama. ( a ) *General.* This section sets forth the rules which apply for purposes of obtaining duty-free treatment on goods returned after repair or alteration in Panama as provided for in subheadings 9802.00.40 and 9802.00.50, HTSUS. Goods returned after having been repaired or altered in Panama, regardless of whether such repair or alteration could be performed in the territory of the Party from which the good was exported for repair or alteration, are eligible for duty-free treatment, provided that the requirements of this section are met. For purposes of this section, “repair or alteration” means restoration, addition, renovation, re-dyeing, cleaning, re-sterilizing, or other treatment that does not destroy the essential characteristics of, or create a new or commercially different good from, the good exported from the United States. The term “repair or alteration” does not include an operation or process that transforms an unfinished good into a finished good.
( b ) *Goods not eligible for duty-free treatment after repair or alteration.* The duty-free treatment referred to in paragraph (a) of this section will not apply to goods which, in their condition as exported from the United States to Panama, are incomplete for their intended use and for which the processing operation performed in Panama constitutes an operation that is performed as a matter of course in the preparation or manufacture of finished goods.
( c ) *Documentation.* The provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of § 10.8, relating to the documentary requirements for goods entered under subheading 9802.00.40 or 9802.00.50, HTSUS, will apply in connection with the entry of goods which are returned from Panama after having been exported for repairs or alterations and which are claimed to be duty free.