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

No. II-02-027 April 30, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING AT NORTH ANNA

TO DISCUSS INSPECTION OF PLANT’S LICENSE RENEWAL PROGRAM

Officials of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with Dominion Energy

management at 9:00 a.m. Friday, May 3 at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station Information Center,

1022 Haley Drive, Mineral, Virginia, to present the results of the NRC’s second inspection of the

North Anna license renewal program.

The NRC conducted a similar meeting at the company’s corporate offices near Richmond on

February 8 to discuss results of the agency’s initial inspection of the program at both the North Anna

plant and the Surry plant in southeastern Virginia. Dominion Energy filed a joint application to renew

the operating licenses of the two units at North Anna and the two units at Surry last May.

NRC officials said a report on the second inspection will be issued approximately 45 days after

the meeting and will be available to the public.

The meeting is between the NRC and Dominion but is open to observation by interested

members of the public. NRC officials will be available prior to its conclusion to answer any questions

observers may have.

###
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1


<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                        1522030
<SECURITIES>                                  192500
<RECEIVABLES>                                 11931872
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (811706)
<INVENTORY>                                   19489419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              33498304
<PP&E>                                        3240673
<DEPRECIATION>                                (2248449)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                55945914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         19343151
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      100616
<OTHER-SE>                                    36448351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  55945914
<SALES>                                       12929873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              14407014
<CGS>                                         11944851
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3335379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            315536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1323045)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (423000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (900045)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (900045)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.09)




</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS FERNANDO ERAZO-GUZMAN, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70094 

Agency No. A205-317-136 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Luis Fernando Erazo-Guzman, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70094 

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in 

part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Erazo-Guzman does not challenge the dispositive 

grounds relied on by the agency in denying his claims for asylum and withholding 

of removal. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived). To the 

extent that Erazo-Guzman proposes a new particular social group in his opening 

brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to 

the agency). Thus, Erazo-Guzman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 

fail. 

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Erazo-Guzman’s contentions as to the 

merits of his CAT claim, the IJ’s evaluation of the evidence, and the IJ’s denial of 

a continuance. See id. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the 

mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Exhibit
32.2




Ener1,
Inc.


1540
Broadway, Suite 25C


New York,
New York 10036




May 11,
2009





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549





Re:
Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350





Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ener1, Inc.,
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, I, Gerard A. Herlihy, Chief Financial Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:








1)
            such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended March
      31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and





2)
            the
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ener1,
      Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Ener1, Inc.





/s/
      Gerard A. HerlihyGerard
      A. Herlihy
                    Chief
      Financial Officer
                    (Duly
      Authorized Principal Financial and Principal
                    Accounting
      Officer and Duly Authorized
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.





This
certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Ener1, Inc.’s
quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
filing.
# · G Guardian Group, Inc.

May 24,2016 U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Request ForAmendment ofFAAExemptionNo. 12896 Dear Sir orMadam, 2350W. 205th Street Torrance, CA 90501-1460 Telephone (310) 320-0320 Facsimile (310) 320 0120 nlail@guardiangroup.com www.guardiang1 oup.com

Guardian Group, Inc. ("GGI") received FAA Exemption No.12896 (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2551) on September 17, 2015 authorizing GGI under section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 to operate the DJI Phantom 3 Professional for surveying hard-to-reach areas ofbuildings, rooftop inspections, and building exterior envelope inspections. In this presentpetition for an amendment to ExemptionNo. 12896, GGI seeks to operate the DJI Inspire 1 for the same purposes. DJI Inspire 1 is listed among the Unmanned Aerial Systems ("UAS") previously approved by the Secretary of Transportation under Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act in the Approved UAS Make/Model under Section 333 document, prepared bythe FAA and dated March 04, 2016. GGI's existing operation and safety procedures as outline in our original UAS Flight Operations Manual will also be applied for the DJI Inspire 1. GGI will follow the recommended Maintenance and Operations procedures set forth by the manufacturer. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Hank Bauer at (310) 320-0320 or via email at hank.bauer@guardiangroup.com, should you have any question or concern. Sincerely,

a OFFICES NATIONWIDE a
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93023, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 159.44 Special duties on merchandise imported under agreements in restraint of trade.

Whenever it appears that imported articles may be subject to the special duties provided for in section 802, Act of September 8, 1916 (15 U.S.C. 73), the Center director shall report the matter to the Commissioner of Customs and await instructions with respect to the imposition of such duties.
### §6629. Purchase, lease, exchange, maintenance, and operation of vehicles out of account for Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of Senate within Senate contingent fund; authorization of appropriations

For each fiscal year (commencing with the fiscal year ending September 30, 1985) there is authorized to be appropriated to the account, within the contingent fund of the Senate, for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, such funds (which shall be in addition to funds authorized to be so appropriated for other purposes) as may be necessary for the purchase, lease, exchange, maintenance, and operation of vehicles as follows: one for the Vice President, one for the President pro tempore of the Senate, one for the Majority Leader of the Senate, one for the Minority Leader of the Senate, one for the Majority Whip of the Senate, one for the Minority Whip of the Senate, one for the attending physician, one as authorized by Senate Resolution 90 of the 100th Congress 1 such number as is needed for carrying mails, and for official use of the offices of the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, the Secretary for the Majority, and the Secretary for the Minority, and such additional number as is otherwise specifically authorized by law.

(Pub. L. 99–88, title I, §192, Aug. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 349; Pub. L. 100–202, §101(i) [title I, §3(a)], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–290, 1329–294.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Senate Resolution 90 of the 100th Congress, referred to in text, which was agreed to Jan. 28, 1987, provided in part for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate to provide, by lease or purchase, and maintain an automobile for the former President pro tempore of the Senate.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 68–5 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1985.

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–202 substituted "one for the attending physician, one as authorized by Senate Resolution 90 of the 100th Congress" for "and" and inserted ", and such additional number as is otherwise specifically authorized by law".

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

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(i) [title I, §3(b)], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–290, 1329–294, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall be effective in the case of fiscal years ending after September 30, 1986."

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
§ 191.61 Verification of drawback claims. ( a ) *Authority* — ( 1 ) *Drawback office.* All claims shall be subject to verification by the port director where the claim is filed.
( 2 ) *Two or more locations.* The port director selecting the claim for verification may forward copies of the claim and, as applicable, letters of notification and acknowledgement for the general manufacturing drawback ruling or application and letter of approval for a specific manufacturing drawback ruling, and request for verification, to other drawback offices when deemed necessary.
( b ) *Method.* The verifying office shall verify compliance with the law and this part, the accuracy of the related general manufacturing drawback ruling or specific manufacturing drawback ruling (as applicable), and the selected drawback claims. Verification may include an examination of all records relating to the transaction(s).
( c ) *Liquidation.* When a claim has been selected for verification, liquidation will be postponed only on the drawback entries for those claims selected for verification. Postponement will continue in effect until the verification has been completed and the appropriate port director issues a report. In the event that a substantial error is revealed during the verification, Customs may postpone liquidation of all related product line claims, or, in Customs discretion, all claims for that claimant.
( d ) *Errors in specific or general manufacturing drawback rulings* — ( 1 ) *Specific manufacturing drawback ruling; action by port director.* If verification of a drawback claim filed under a specific manufacturing drawback ruling (see § 191.8 of this part) reveals errors of deficiencies in the drawback ruling or application therefor, the port director shall promptly inform CBP Headquarters (Attention: Entry Process and Duty Refunds Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade).
( 2 ) *General manufacturing drawback ruling.* If verification of a drawback claim filed under a general manufacturing drawback ruling (see § 191.7 of this part) reveals errors or deficiencies in a general manufacturing drawback ruling, the letter of notification of intent to operate under the general manufacturing drawback ruling, or the acknowledgment of the letter of notification of intent, the port director shall promptly inform CBP Headquarters (Attention: Entry Process and Duty Refunds Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of International Trade).
( 3 ) *Action by CBP Headquarters.* CBP Headquarters shall review the stated errors or deficiencies and take appropriate action (see 19 U.S.C. 1625; 19 CFR part 177).
[T.D. 98-16, 63 FR 11006, Mar. 5, 1998; 63 FR 15288, Mar. 31, 1998]
### SUBCHAPTER III—LINE ITEM VETO
### §72d–1. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 72d–1 was editorially reclassified as section 4337 of this title.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies.  Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.                           ( print page 5547)                         The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors.  Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.  Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 1, 2004.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta**                     (Sue Costello, Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:                

*1.  Hibernia Corporation*, New Orleans, Louisiana; to acquire Coastal Bancorp, Inc., Houston, Texas, and thereby indirectly acquire Coastal Banc SSB, Houston, Texas, and thereby engage in operating a savings and loan, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 30, 2004.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 04-2391 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated April 9, 2004, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 26, 2004, (69 FR 22566), Penick, Corporation, 158 Mount Olivet Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07114, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances: Drug
ScheduleCocaine (9041)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
II
 The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances and non-controlled substance flavor extracts. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: September 28, 2004. William J. Walker, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 04-23060 Filed 10-13-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-42 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson July 25, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH ENTERGY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

AT WATERFORD 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional

enforcement conference Tuesday, July 29, with officials of Entergy Operations, Inc.,

the operator of Waterford 3 nuclear power plant near Taft, La., to discuss two

apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The conference will begin at 1 p.m. at NRC Region IV offices in Arlington,

Texas. The meeting will be open to public observation; NRC officials will be

available afterward for questions.

The two apparent violations were identified during an inspection conducted

June 2-6. The first apparent violation was the failure to provide a method of closing

containment isolation valves in the containment spray system and the containment

fan cooling system from the control room under certain accident conditions. NRC

regulations state that where piping systems penetrate the plant containment

structure, a remotely operated valve must be provided to isolate the piping in the

event of an accident.

The second apparent violation, which is related to the first, was the failure of

Waterford 3 engineers to perform a safety evaluation to justify having no remote

means to shut containment isolation valves in the above systems under all plant

conditions.
The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean

that NRC has made a final determination that violations did occur or that

enforcement action, such as a monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose of the

meeting is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety significance,

and to provide Entergy officials with an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in the NRC inspection report and present corrective actions that

have been taken.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement

action will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC

officials at a later time.

###
§ 172.13 Limitations on consideration of petitions. ( a ) *Cases referred for institution of legal proceedings.* No action will be taken on any petition if the civil liability has been referred to the Department of Justice for institution of legal proceedings. The petition will be forwarded to the Department of Justice.
( b ) *Delinquent sureties.* No action will be taken on any petition from a principal or surety if received after the issuance to surety of a notice to show cause pursuant to the provisions of § 113.38(c)(3) of this chapter.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-112 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1