alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-20 April 5, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC FINDS PERFORMANCE ‘ACCEPTABLE’

AT KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR PLANT IN LATEST REVIEW

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has found that safety performance remains

acceptable in the NRC’s latest plant performance review at the Kewaunee Nuclear Power

Station, located at Kewaunee, Wisconsin.

The review covered the time period from February 1997 through January 31.

In a letter to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, which operates the plant, Geoffrey

Grant, Division Director in the NRC's Region III Office, said, "Overall, performance at

Kewaunee during this assessment period was acceptable."

"Performance was generally characterized by effective management involvement and

coordination, efficient maintenance work planning and completion, and teamwork between

licensee organizations to ensure routine activities are successfully accomplished," he

continued.

Grant also added, "However, some decline in operational performance from the

previous assessment period was noted. While operational events have continued to be few in

number, deficient operational practices have begun to result in events of more safety

significance at Kewaunee."

The text of the plant performance review letter is available from the NRC Region III

Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every licensed nuclear power plant in

the nation. These reviews give the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is using to monitor nuclear

power plant safety. The agency began using it for this purpose after suspending the

Systematic Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new assessment

program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were issued every 12 to 24 months.

The new reactor oversight and assessment program being developed will provide

quarterly performance reports, based on a number of performance indicators and on inspection

findings. This program will be tested at eight sites beginning in June and will be extended to all

plants next January. A full description of the new program is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.
#### George E. Van Vorst, Incorporated, Appellant, v. James S. Strong, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham., P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §4111. Annual report by Comptroller General of the United States on cybersecurity and surveillance threats to Congress

#### (a) Annual report required

Not later than 180 days after December 20, 2019, and not less frequently than once each year thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report on cybersecurity and surveillance threats to Congress.

#### (b) Statistics

Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall include statistics on cyber attacks and other incidents of espionage or surveillance targeted against Senators or the immediate families or staff of the Senators, and Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner, or the immediate families or staff of the Representatives, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner, in which the nonpublic communications and other private information of such targeted individuals were lost, stolen, or otherwise subject to unauthorized access.

#### (c) Consultation

In preparing a report to be submitted under subsection (a), the Comptroller General shall consult with the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives, and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

#### (d) Form

The report under subsection (a), including the contents of the report in subsection (b), shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex to protect sources and methods and any appropriate redactions of personally identifiable information.

(Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LVII, §5710, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2170.)

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

#### Definitions

For definition of "congressional intelligence committees" as used in this section, see section 5003 of div. E of Pub. L. 116–92, set out as a note under section 3003 of Title 50, War and National Defense.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



We, Samuel A. Kovnat, Chief Executive Officer, and David D. Cryer, Chief Financial Officer, of Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)     The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2006 (the "Report") 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





|September 6, 2006 | By: | /s/ Samuel A. Kovnat                        
|----------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                  |     |                                             
|                  |     | Samuel A. Kovnat
Its Chief Executive Officer



|September 6, 2006 | By: | /s/ David D. Cryer                        
|----------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------
|                  |     |                                           
|                  |     | David D. Cryer
Its Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

March 9, 2015

ERRATA

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2014-1110

IN RE PAPST LICENSING DIGITAL CAMERA

PATENT LITIGATION

____________________________________________________ 

PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG,

v. 

FUJIFILM CORPORATION, FUJIFILM NORTH

AMERICA CORPORATION (formerly known as

Fujifilm USA, Inc.), HEWLETT-PACKARD

COMPANY, JVC COMPANY OF AMERICA, NIKON

CORPORATION, NIKON, INC., OLYMPUS CORP.,

OLYMPUS IMAGING AMERICA INC., PANASONIC

CORPORATION (formerly known as Matsushita 

Electric Industrial Co., LTD.), PANASONIC 

CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, SAMSUNG

OPTO-ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG

TECHWIN CO., VICTOR COMPANY OF JAPAN,

LTD.,

Decided: February 2, 2015

Precedential Opinion

_____________________ 
2 PAPST LICENSING V. FUJIFILM CORPORATION

Please make the following change: 

On page nine, first paragraph, replace the sentence

Second, it is undisputed that if we reject all five of the 

challenged constructions, the summary-judgment orders 

must be vacated.2 

with the following sentence:

Second, it is appropriate, if we reject all five of the 

challenged constructions, to vacate the summaryjudgment orders and remand.2 

Footnote 2 remains unchanged.
### §2161. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 2161 was editorially reclassified as section 4902 of this title.
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60526

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EVAN DOSS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(5:97-CR-1 BrN & 5:97-CR-3 BrN)

June 29, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Evan Doss, Jr. appeals his convictions for embezzlement and money

laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(A), 1956(a)(1)(B)(I), contending

that the district court (1) erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) abused its discretion in failing to grant his

May 14, 1997 motion for continuance, and (3) excluded th e testimony of two

defense witnesses in violation of his sixth amendment right to compulsory process.1 United States v. Moeller , 987 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1993).

2 United States v. Correa-Ventura , 6 F.3d 1070 (5th Cir. 1993).

3 United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal , 458 U.S. 858 (1982).

4 United States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States v.

James , 528 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1976).

2 For the first time on appeal, Doss also contends that the district court er red in

changing venue from the Western Division of the Southern District of Mississippi

to the Jackson Division thereof.

Our review of the record, briefs, and authorities persuades that no reversible

error was committed. The district court did not err in denying Doss’s motion to

dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 Nor did it abuse its

broad discretion in denying Doss a continuance

. 2 Despite suggestions to the

contrary, the district court did not exclude the testimony of two defense witnesses

in violation of Doss’s sixth amendment right to compulsory process. 3 Finally, the

district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in transferring this case. 4

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22814]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of 
October 11, 2004:

    An open meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 at 
10 a.m., in Room 1C30, the William O. Douglas Meeting Room, and a 
closed meeting will be held on Thursday, October 14, 2004 at 10 a.m.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration 
of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the open meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
October 13, 2004 will be:

    The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to 
Regulation M (the anti-manipulation rule concerning securities 
offerings) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    For further information, please contact Denise Landers, Joan 
Collopy, Elizabeth Sandoe or Elizabeth Marino at (202) 942-0772.

    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
October 14, 2004 will be:

    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; Adjudicatory matters;
    Regulatory matters regarding financial institutions; and
    Amicus consideration.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: October 6, 2004.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-22814 Filed 10-6-04; 11:14 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
Exhibit
32.2




CFO
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350*







In
connection with the Annual Report of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10--K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Carter Peters,
Chief Financial Officer (principal financial
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:




(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 31,
2008





* 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.
§ 12.101 Seizure of prohibited switchblade knives. ( a ) *Importations contrary to law.* Inadmissible importations which are not exported in accordance with § 12.100(a) shall be seized under 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c).
( b ) *Notice of seizure.* Notice of Customs seizure shall be sent or given to the importer or consignee, which shall inform him of his right to file a petition under section 618, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1618), for remission of the forfeiture and permission to export the seized switchblade knives. (See part 171 of this chapter.)
[T.D. 71-243, 36 FR 18860, Sept. 23, 1971, as amended by T.D. 90-50, 55 FR 28192, July 10, 1990]
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER’S SEVENTH APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE 

AND PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONALS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF 

EXPENSES FOR JANUARY 1, 2022 - MARCH 31, 2022

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Receiver Ryan K. Stumphauzer’s Seventh

Application for Allowance and Payment of Professionals’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses 

for January 1, 2022 – March 31, 2022 [ECF No. 1246] (“Application”), filed on May 17, 2022. 

The Court has reviewed the Application and is otherwise fully advised.

This is a complex receivership involving the operation of a merchant cash advance business

with a receivable balance, as of the date the Receivership was established, of over $400 million, 

and a group of investors that are seeking, collectively, more than $300 million dollars from the 

company. The Receiver and his professional team are managing numerous operational issues 

involving more than 1,300 merchants that are parties to merchant cash advance agreements with 

Par Funding. The Application and records submitted by the Receiver reflect that the Receiver and 

his professional team have reasonably and diligently discharged their duties. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1250 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

The Receiver’s tasks in this case have included negotiating with Par Funding’s merchants

in an effort to reach settlements of MCA account balances; employing consultants to oversee and

manage Par Funding; pursuing various claims against non-parties that may generate additional

income to the Receivership Estate; assuming responsibilities over various residential and

commercial properties; responding to issues and document requests related to pending litigation

and investigations involving the Receivership Entities; communicating with the Defendants and

responding to discovery requests; and drafting status reports for the Court.

In performing these tasks, among others, the Receiver and his professional team have

provided a significant benefit to the Receivership Estate, investors, and creditors at rates that the

Court finds reasonable. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Application [ECF No. 1246] is GRANTED as

follows:

Professional Fees: $ 1,205,970.11

Expenses: $ 72,110.60

TOTAL: $ 1,278,080.71

DONE AND ORDERED Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 19th day of May, 2022. 

__________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1250 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 12.4 Exportation.

The exportation of merchandise, the subject of § 12.1, refused admission into the United States in accordance with regulations applicable thereto shall be under Customs supervision in accordance with the regulations set forth in §§ 18.25 and 18.26 of this chapter.

[T.D. 68-191, 33 FR 11019, Aug. 2, 1968]
#### Dock & Mill Company, Respondent, v. Staib-Abendschein Company, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Tuesday, January 13, 1998)

NRC TO END ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM WITH STATES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ended its contracts with 34 states to

perform radiation monitoring around certain nuclear facilities at the end of 1997.

Elimination of this program, however, will not impact the NRC’s ability to monitor

and regulate safety at the facilities. Licensees are required to continue their own

environmental monitoring activities to verify that radiation levels around their facilities

are negligible.

The separate monitoring program began in the 1970s as a joint effort between

NRC and the states to independently compare the results of environmental

measurements with those performed by NRC licensees. The program was also

intended to help states develop their own radiological health programs, but not to fully

fund them. Participation by states was voluntary.

In April 1995, NRC requested public comment on its plans to eliminate the

program, citing both the cost (over $1 million a year) and the excellent record of

licensees in maintaining their own environmental monitoring programs. NRC also

reviewed this issue as part of its strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative.

Based on this review, the staff has determined that information received from

the states appears to be of limited value from a safety perspective. In addition, staff

believes that states have been provided ample opportunities to develop their own

regulatory programs with financial and technical assistance provided by the NRC for

more than 20 years.

NRC requires licensees to monitor extensively the air, water, soil, and food

products (milk and food crops) around their facilities. Laboratories where licensees’

samples are analyzed must be cross-checked with other laboratories to insure precision

and accuracy of measurements. All measurements are submitted annually to NRC

and placed in local public document rooms. NRC also inspects licensees’ conformance

with the requirements on a regular basis.

Licensees may still contract with outside entities (including states) to perform
environmental monitoring if they choose. However, the NRC holds each licensee

ultimately responsible for adequate monitoring regardless of who performs it.

#
#### Howard Smith, Respondent, v. Arthur C. Stallman, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to change the place of trial from Onondaga County to Tompkins County.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCum, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                            894,298
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                   5,389,073
<ALLOWANCES>                      186,987
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                7,709,829
<PP&E>                         16,254,948
<DEPRECIATION>                  5,757,248
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 54,611,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           5,837,864
<BONDS>                        18,262,985
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           24,768
<OTHER-SE>                     30,495,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   54,611,057
<SALES>                        20,061,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               20,061,959
<CGS>                          17,487,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  17,487,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  107,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (962,470)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (962,470)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (962,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                    (962,470)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.53)
                              

</TABLE>
### §118. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 118 was editorially reclassified as section 5503 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23573]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Membership of the USCCR Performance Review Board

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of membership of the USCCR Performance Review Board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the Performance 
Review Board (PRB) of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. 
Publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
    The PRB provides fair and impartial review of the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights' Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and 
makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance 
awards to the Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for the 
FY2003 rating year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Minor, Human Resources 
Assistant, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 9th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20425, (202) 376-8364.
    Members: Gloria Gutierrez, Deputy Administrator for Management, 
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA; Jill M. Crumpacker, Director, Policy 
& Performance Management, Chief, Human Capitol Officer, Federal Labor 
Relations Authority; Joseph Mancias, Senior Management Counsel, 
Department Homeland Security.

TinaLouise Martin,
Director of Human Resources, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
[FR Doc. 04-23573 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.395 What is SBA's collateral position?

SBA will require a lien on the building which must be in no less than a second position.