alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-99-41 April 14, 1999

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC ISSUES PERFORMANCE REVIEW FOR THREE MILE ISLAND 1 PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, in its latest review of performance at the

Three Mile Island 1 nuclear power plant, has found that safety performance at the facility

remains acceptable. The plant is located in Middletown, Pa., and operated by GPU Nuclear

Corp.

In a letter to the company outlining the results of the review, Wayne L. Schmidt, acting

chief of the NRC Region I Division of Reactor Projects branch responsible for inspecting Three

Mile Island 1, wrote that the plant was operated safely throughout the evaluation period of April

1998 through Jan. 15, 1999. “Conduct of operations was viewed as a strength,” he said.

“Control room operators responded well to several minor plant equipment problems and plant

management provided good oversight of control room activities.” Also, the program used to

identify and fix problems functioned well and contributed to plant safety.

Overall, the plant’s equipment was found to be in very good condition as a result of

maintenance and testing activities. Engineering personnel provided good support to routine

plant operations and responded well to several emergent equipment problems. Performance in

the area of plant support continued to be consistently effective.

The NRC staff will conduct normal inspections during the next evaluation period, with

supplemental inspections planned in the area of engineering safety evaluation development and

on the control and prioritization of engineering work, which GPU Nuclear addressed as a result

of past problems.

The text of the plant performance review (PPR) letter is available from the NRC Region I

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.

PPRs are being used by the NRC as an interim measure to monitor nuclear power plant

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

Assessment of Licensee 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.

#
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 1 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 2 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 3 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 4 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 5 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 6 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 7 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 8 of 9
Case 0:20-cv-61744-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/26/2020 Page 9 of 9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19
- 0428 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellant , v. TYLER EDWARD GIFFIN,

Defendant and Appellee .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including April 9 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and
serve Appellee’s response brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 5 2021

03/05/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0428
ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                       RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.


                  In compliance with the  requirements  of the Indiana  Business
Corporation  Law, as amended  (the  "IBCL"),  Shoe  Carnival,  Inc.,  an Indiana
corporation  (the  "Corporation"),  desiring to amend its  Restated  Articles of
Incorporation, hereby certifies as follows:

                                    Article I
                            Amendment to the Restated
                            Articles of Incorporation

                  Section 1. The name of the  Corporation  is, and following the
amendment effected hereby will continue to be, Shoe Carnival, Inc.

                  Section 2. Article IV,  Section 1 of the Restated  Articles of
Incorporation  of the  Corporation is hereby  amended so that, as amended,  such
Article IV, Section 1 shall read in its entirety as follows:

                  "Section 1. Capital  Stock.  The total number of shares of all
         classes of capital stock which the Corporation  shall have authority to
         issue is 55,000,000  shares,  consisting of 50,000,000 shares of Common
         Stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock"),  and 5,000,000 shares
         of Preferred Stock, par value $.01 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

                  Section 3. The effective date of the amendment hereby effected
shall be the date of filing of these  Articles of  Amendment  with the office of
the Secretary of State of the State of Indiana.

                                   Article II
                           Manner of Adoption and Vote

                  Section  1.  The  amendment  was  approved  by  the  Board  of
Directors of the Corporation on April 7, 1998, by resolution  duly adopted.  The
Common Stock of the  Corporation is the only class of capital stock  outstanding
and entitled to vote on the amendment.  At the annual meeting of shareholders of
the Corporation  held on June 11, 1998,  there were 13,120,344  shares of Common
Stock outstanding and entitled to vote and 11,127,493 shares were represented at
the meeting.  Accordingly,  a quorum was present.  Of the shares of Common Stock
represented  at the  meeting,  11,073,170  shares were voted for the  amendment,
which vote was sufficient for approval of the amendment.

                  Section  2.  The  manner  of the  adoption  of  the  foregoing
amendment  constitutes full legal compliance with the provisions of the IBCL and
the Corporation's Restated Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.

<PAGE>

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Corporation has caused these Articles
of  Amendment  to be signed on its  behalf by the  undersigned  duly  authorized
officer on June 11, 1998.

                                      SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.


                                      By   /s/ Mark L. Lemond
                                           Mark L. Lemond
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer




                                       2
<PAGE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.23 Allowance for moisture in raw sugar.

Inasmuch as the absorption of sea water or moisture reduces the polariscopic test of sugar, there shall be no allowance on account of increased weight of raw sugar importations due to unusual absorption of sea water or other moisture while on the voyage of importation. Any portion of the cargo claimed by the importer to have absorbed sea water or moisture on the voyage of importation shall be weighed, sampled, and tested separately. No such claim shall be considered if made after the sugar claimed to have been damaged has been weighed.
#### § 132.25 Undeliverable shipment.

If within a reasonable time, but not to exceed 30 days, the addressee fails to indicate to the port director an intention to receive delivery of the packages or a portion thereof in accordance with the notice on Customs Form 3509 which was sent to him by the port director, the importation shall be treated in the same manner as other undeliverable mail.
#### Henry Gats, an Infant, by Isaac Gats, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. Fannie Gats et al., Defendants. Selma Ruck, Appearing Specially, Appellant.

Appellant was a party aggrieved, within the purview of section 557 of the Civil Practice Act, and was entitled to appeal from the order. *(Hobart*v. *Hobart,*86 N. Y. 636; *Posen*v. *Cowdin,*267 App. Div. 158; 6 Carmody on New York Pleading and Practice, § 63.) The writ of replevin must be vacated as there is no authority for its issuance in a purely equitable action to compel the performance of a trust. (Cf. *Sager*v. *Blain,*44 N. Y. 445, 450; Civ. Prac. Act, § 1094.) The order was also erroneous in that it directed the sheriff to take into his possession articles not specified in the replevin requisition *(Bullis*V. *Montgomery,*50 N. Y. 352, 356; cf. *Lehman*v. *Mayer,*8 App. Div. 311) from a safe-deposit box maintained by a defendant together with one not a party to the action. *(Matter of Ehrich*v. *Root,*134 App. Div. 432; *Sanford*v. *Richardson,*176 App. Div. 199.) *Carples*v. *Cumberland Coal & Iron Co.*(240 N. Y. 187) is not to the contrary. That case did not concern the question of the right to seize property under a writ of replevin; *772and the safe-deposit box there involved was leased solely to defendant. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-62

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416

(Thursday, August 28, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $330,000 IN FINES

AGAINST OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a total

of $330,000 in civil penalties against Duke Power Company for

three violations of NRC requirements at the Oconee nuclear power

plant near Seneca, South Carolina.

The first violation involves the failure of the plant staff

to have high pressure injection pumps available to operate on

Oconee Unit 3 as required by the plant’s Technical

Specifications. In early May, two of the three Unit 3 high

pressure injection pumps experienced low water flow. During a

plant shutdown, one of the pumps experienced substantial damage.

It was later determined that the HPI system would not have been

able to perform its intended safety function. An NRC inspection

determined that the low water flow was due in part to level

instrumentation problems which resulted in the draining of a

storage tank which supplies water to the pumps. In addition, the

inspection found that the plant’s operators should have

recognized the problem earlier, and that the company failed to

adequately assess company and industry experience and correct the

design problem with the HPI system. A civil penalty of $220,000

is being proposed for this violation based on (1) the high risk

significance of HPI system inoperability; (2) the fact that Duke

Power Company had a similar event in the past and had

opportunities to identify and correct the problem; and (3) the

significant length of time the violation may have existed.

The other two violations relate to a crack and leak detected

in late April in a weld on a pipe nozzle which is part of the

Unit 2 high pressure injection system. According to the Notice

of Violation sent to the company, Duke Power Company failed to

promptly identify and correct the crack resulting in an

unisolable reactor coolant leak that was clearly preventable, and

Duke failed to take corrective action for temperature differences

which could lead to cracking in the pipes. A civil penalty of
$110,000 is being proposed for these two violations resulting in

a total of $330,000 in proposed civil penalties.

The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of

Violation to either pay the fines or protest their imposition.

#
#### COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CENCO REFINING COMPANY, et al., Defendants—Appellants.

No. 01-56882.

D.C. No. CV-00-05665-AHM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002.*

Decided May 15, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Cenco's motion to submit on the briefs is granted.

MEMORANDUM**

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief only to limited review. *Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc.,*198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely reviewable.” *Id.*A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is re*509viewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only- if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. *Id.*

We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion here. We therefore affirm the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. *Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International,*686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

The motions to take judicial notice and motion to strike portions of the opening brief are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### §72a–1d. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–94, title I, §111(e)(1), Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 663

Section, Pub. L. 95–26, title I, §106(a)–(e), May 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 83, 84, authorized Senators to employ individuals to assist with committee memberships of Senators and set forth compensation limitations and procedures applicable for employment of such individuals. See section 4332 of this title and section 111(a), (b) of Pub. L. 95–94, set out as a note under section 4575 of this title for related provisions.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 111(f) of Pub. L. 95–94, set out as an Effective Date note under section 4332 of this title.

#### Effective Date and Savings Provisions

Pub. L. 95–26, title I, §106(g), May 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 84, provided that this section is effective Mar. 1, 1977, and set forth savings provisions relating to designations and availability of amounts for employees covered by section 72a–1d of this title, and was repealed by section 111(e)(1) of Pub. L. 95–94, title I, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 663.
### §686. Reports by Comptroller General

#### (a) Failure to transmit special message

If the Comptroller General finds that the President, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the head of any department or agency of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States—

(1) is to establish a reserve or proposes to defer budget authority with respect to which the President is required to transmit a special message under section 683 or 684 of this title; or

(2) has ordered, permitted, or approved the establishment of such a reserve or a deferral of budget authority;

and that the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral, the Comptroller General shall make a report on such reserve or deferral and any available information concerning it to both Houses of Congress. The provisions of sections 682 to 688 of this title shall apply with respect to such reserve or deferral in the same manner and with the same effect as if such report of the Comptroller General were a special message transmitted by the President under section 683 or 684 of this title, and, for purposes of sections 682 to 688 of this title, such report shall be considered a special message transmitted under section 683 or 684 of this title.

#### (b) Incorrect classification of special message

If the President has transmitted a special message to both Houses of Congress in accordance with section 683 or 684 of this title, and the Comptroller General believes that the President so transmitted the special message in accordance with one of those sections when the special message should have been transmitted in accordance with the other of those sections, the Comptroller General shall make a report to both Houses of the Congress setting forth his reasons.

(Pub. L. 93–344, title X, §1015, July 12, 1974, 88 Stat. 336.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1405 of Title 31 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 31, Money and Finance, by Pub. L. 97–258, §1, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.

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

#### Reaffirmation

Pub. L. 100–119, title II, §206(c), Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 786, provided that: "Sections 1015 and 1016 of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 [2 U.S.C. 686, 687] are reaffirmed."
### SUBCHAPTER IV—OIL AND GAS
Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1572-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2023 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 151
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 151.69 Transfer or exportation of part of sampling unit. ( a ) *Transfer of right to withdraw.* When an original sampling unit has been weighed, sampled, and tested in accordance with this subpart and a part of such unit is covered by a transfer of the right to withdraw made pursuant to section 557, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1557), the percentages clean yield of the part covered by the transfer and of the part not so covered shall be computed on the basis of the original Customs weights and test and the invoice data related to the respective parts.
( b ) *Exportation.* When part of such an original sampling unit is exported from continuous Customs custody without having been manipulated as provided for in section 562, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1562), the percentage clean yield of the part not exported shall be determined, at the discretion of the Center director, either on the basis of a new determination by reweighing, resampling, and retesting, or by a computation as described in paragraph (a) of this section, for either the exported or the remaining part.
#### TATE ACCESS FLOORS, INC. and TATE ACCESS FLOORS LEASING, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERFACE ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-1288.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 24, 2002.

Before LOURIE, LINN, and DYK, Circuit Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Interface Architectural Resources, Inc. submits a motion, which we treat as a petition for a writ of mandamus, to direct the United States District Court for the District of Maryland to stay the damages trial in this case pending disposition of this appeal. Tate Access Floors, Inc. and Tate Access Floors Leasing, Inc. oppose and move to stay the appeal proceedings pending disposition of the accounting phase. Interface replies and opposes Tate’s motion to stay the appeal. Tate replies.

Interface appealed the district court’s determination, on summary judgment, that it infringes Tate’s patent and that Tate’s patent is not invalid. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) (a party may appeal a judgment in a patent infringement action that is “final except for an accounting”). Trial concerning damages is scheduled to begin on June 3, 2002. Interface asked the district court to stay the damages trial pending disposition of this appeal. The district court denied that request on March 6, 2002.

Interface moves for a stay of the damages trial. Because that motion is not related to the judgment that Interface has appealed, but instead relates to proceedings outside of this appeal, we treat the motion as a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Both parties refer us to our decision in *In re Calmar,*854 F.2d 461 (Fed.Cir.1988). In *Calmar,*this court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus that involved, inter alia, whether a district court could or should stay a damages trial during the pendency of an appeal of a judgment of infringement that was final except for an accounting. We stated:

> Hence it is clear that the purpose of the legislation, [28 U.S.C.] § 1292(c)(2), allowing interlocutory appeals in patent cases, was to *permit*a stay of a damages trial. Thus there is no conflict between § 1292(c)(2) and [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 62(a)’s grant of the discretion to stay or proceed with the damages trial during appeal. Indeed, in recognition of the district court’s discretion, this court has repeatedly denied, in unpublished opinions, motions to stay damages trials during appeals in patent cases. [Emphasis in original.]

*Calmar,*854 F.2d at 464. Here, we do not find an abuse of discretion by the district court in the circumstances of this case. Similarly, Tate has not shown why the appeal should be stayed, over Interface’s objection, which would render almost *885meaningless Interface’s right to appeal a case that is final except for an accounting.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Interface’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.

(2) Tate’s motion to stay the appeal is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 787 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 787

   To amend the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act to extend the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the 
 local coordinating entity for the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area 
                            under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 17 (legislative day, March 16), 2021

  Mr. Cassidy (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act to extend the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the 
 local coordinating entity for the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area 
                            under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE 
              AREA.

    Section 221 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act (54 
U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 109-338; 120 Stat. 1795) is amended by 
striking ``15 years'' and inserting ``30 years''.
                                 <all>
```