alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-04 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Thursday, January 21, 1999)

NRC STAFF SETS ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH DUKE ENERGY

TO DISCUSS OCONEE HIGH PRESSURE INJECTION CONCERNS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional

enforcement conference in Atlanta on Tuesday, January 26, to discuss with Duke Energy

Corporation officials apparent violations of NRC requirements related to high pressure

injection systems at the Oconee nuclear power plant, located near Seneca, South Carolina.

The meeting will be held from 10:30 to 12:30 p.m. at the NRC’s Region II office,

located in the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street on the 24th floor. It is open to

observation by interested members of the public and news media representatives. NRC

officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions from interested observers.

NRC officials said the agency will discuss with company representatives two

apparent violations involving procedures for manually connecting alternate emergency

power to high pressure injection pumps should the regular emergency power supply be

lost. The high pressure injection pumps are designed to provide additional water to the

reactor in the event of a small leak where pressure in the reactor coolant system remains

high. In late 1998, NRC inspectors identified that changes in the plant’s emergency

procedures had been completed without adequate safety evaluations, and had led to an

inadequate procedure for connecting that alternate source of emergency power to the

pumps.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that

a determination has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action

will be taken. The purpose is to discuss the apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out errors that may have

been made in NRC inspection reports; and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed

corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action,

such as a civil penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by

NRC officials at a later time.

#
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
registrant's condensed consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year
ended June 27, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                             544
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                       246
<INVENTORY>                                     55,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               163,425
<PP&E>                                         201,887
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,002
<BONDS>                                        176,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,792
<OTHER-SE>                                     (11,714)  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,290
<SALES>                                        364,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               364,395
<CGS>                                          300,556
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  300,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,228
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,743
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (25,909)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,424)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Tess R. Frankenstyne, Appellant, v. Samuel S. Frankenstyne, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.
Order entered April 3, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00613-CV

ENVISION REALTY GROUP, LLC AND JACKSON POTTER, AND THEIR 

ATTORNEY DAVID J. POTTER, Appellants

V.

CHUAN C. CHEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-16534-G

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion for leave to file substituted original 

brief to correct erroneous index of authorities. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief 

received April 1, 2019 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
### §5105. Transfer of appropriations by House Leadership Offices

#### (a) In general

Each office described under the heading "HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES" in the Act making appropriations for the legislative branch for a fiscal year may transfer any amounts appropriated for the office under such heading among the various categories of allowances and expenses for the office under such heading.

#### (b) Official expenses

Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any amounts appropriated for official expenses.

#### (c) Applicability

This section shall apply with respect to fiscal year 1999 and each succeeding fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 106–31, title III, §3009, May 21, 1999, 113 Stat. 93.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 74a–11 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
### §192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

(R.S. §102; June 22, 1938, ch. 594, 52 Stat. 942.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §102 derived from act Jan. 24, 1857, ch. 19, §1, 11 Stat. 155.

#### Amendments

1938—Act June 22, 1938, reenacted section without change.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,667
<SECURITIES>                                    17,503
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (201)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,232
<PP&E>                                           4,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,818)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,644
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,916
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,590
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,520)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,520)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.24)
        

</TABLE>
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0699

 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM198AD

AOF100-176 --- 5/15/12

AOF100-178 --- 9/10/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 146

To eliminate a limitation with respect to the collection of tolls for use 

of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, New York. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. NADLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To eliminate a limitation with respect to the collection of 

tolls for use of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, New York.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds that—

5 (1) the neighborhoods of Soho, Tribeca, Green6 wich Village, Chinatown, the Lower East Side, and 

7 Lower Manhattan in New York County and Bay 

8 Ridge, Sunset Park, Boerum Hill, Red Hook, Car9 roll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and 

10 downtown Brooklyn in Kings County, New York, 
2

•HR 146 IH 

1 have suffered adversely from the significant increase 

2 in oversize truck and other commercial vehicular 

3 traffic; 

4 (2) trucks and commercial vehicles—

5 (A) in order to avoid tolls at other New 

6 York and New Jersey crossings, use the 

7 Verrazano Narrows Bridge route to enter New 

8 York City; and 

9 (B) in order to avoid tolls to enter New 

10 York City and avoid the high cost of the one 

11 way toll on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, use 

12 Canal Street and the Holland Tunnel when 

13 heading eastbound out of New York City; 

14 (3) the increase in truck traffic has resulted in 

15 extremely dangerous conditions for pedestrians in 

16 the communities referred to in paragraph (1), in17 cluding a high number of fatalities; 

18 (4) the resultant increase in oversized commer19 cial vehicles’ diesel particulate matter frequently ex20 ceed Federal clean air standards, diminishing the air 

21 quality for residents in such communities; 

22 (5) since the use of intelligent transportation 

23 systems such as EZ-Pass at the Verrazano Narrows 

24 Bridge and all facilities owned by the Triborough 

25 Bridge and Tunnel Authority and the Metropolitan 
3

•HR 146 IH 

1 Transit Authority has been a great success in reduc2 ing congestion, pollution, and waiting time at toll fa3 cilities, it would not adversely impact air pollution 

4 by reinstituting the collection of tolls in both direc5 tions on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge; and 

6 (6) the Metropolitan Transit Authority bridges 

7 and tunnels suffer a loss in revenue of $10,000,000 

8 annually and over $100,000,000 over the last 10 

9 years since the toll has been one way on the 

10 Verrazano Narrows Bridge. 

11 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF LIMITATION. 

12 Section 325 of the Department of Transportation and 

13 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (109 Stat. 

14 456) is repealed. 

15 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

16 It is the sense of Congress that the Triborough 

17 Bridge and Tunnel Authority and the Metropolitan Tran18 sit Authority should implement hi-speed EZ-Pass in the 

19 collection of tolls on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to en20 sure air quality standards are met and to reduce conges21 tion at the Bridge.

Æ
Attachment 18 Aquatic Screening Studies

Sanitized
**Exhibit99.1**

**Certification Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** **

** **

                In connection with the Quarterly Report of EnchiraBiotechnology Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingJune 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Paul G. Brown III, President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:   August 14, 2002 |   | /s/ Paul G.  Brown III                 |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                          |   | Paul G. Brown  III                     |
|                          |   | President and Chief  Financial Officer |
|                          |   | Enchira Biotechnology Corporation      |

** **
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 12, 2016

Order 

January 12, 2016

150994(75)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

LORINDA IRENE SWAIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 150994

COA: 314564

Calhoun CC: 2001-004547-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of out-ofstate attorneys Chad J. Ray, Paul D. Margolis, and Sara Tonnies Horton to appear and 

practice under MCR 8.126(A) on behalf of amicus curiae former Michigan prosecutors 

John Smietanka, Thomas Cranmer, and James Samuels is GRANTED.
June 30, 2011

Mr. Chuck King

Director of Maintenance Surdex Geospatial Systems Integration, LLC 203 Airport Drive, Hangar 6 Westminster, MD 21157

Dear Mr. King:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 125.226(b)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regula tions (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your May 10, 2011, exemption request for Surdex Geospatial Systems Integration, LLC (Surdex), into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0534), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us the following:

 The reasons granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any more information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without telling you further. If you have any questions or need more time, you may call (202) 267-3327

Sincerely,

/s/ James M. Crotty for Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6085

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

IVAN CHARLES TAPPIN, a/k/a Lester, a/k/a Wayne

L. Smith, a/k/a Lester Smith,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-95-249, CA-98-320-1)

Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Charles Tappin, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ivan Charles Tappin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tappin, Nos. CR-95-249; CA-98-

320-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23

                    INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Delta Mills, Inc.

Under date of July 25, 2003, we reported on the  consolidated  balance sheets of
Delta  Mills,  Inc.  as of June 28,  2003 and June  29,  2002,  and the  related
consolidated statements of operations,  shareholder's equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year  period ended June 28, 2003, as contained in
the 2003 annual report on Form 10-K. These consolidated financial statements and
our report thereon are included in the annual report on Form 10-K. In connection
with our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related  consolidated  financial  statement schedule for each of the
years in the three-year  period ended June 28, 2003 as listed in Item 15a (2) of
Form 10-K.  This  financial  statement  schedule  is the  responsibility  of the
Company's  management.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on the
financial statement schedule based on our audits.

In our opinion,  such financial statement schedule,  when considered in relation
to the  basic  consolidated  financial  statements  taken as a  whole,  presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

As discussed in Note A to the  consolidated  financial  statements,  on June 30,
2002, the Company adopted Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No. 145,
"Rescission of FASB  Statements  Nos. 4 and 64,  Amendment of FASB Statement No.
13, and Technical Corrections."



                                    /s/ KPMG  LLP
                                    KPMG LLP




Greenville, South Carolina
July 25, 2003
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-047 April 14, 2003

NRC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON ADDITIONAL

GUIDANCE FOR EARLY SITE PERMIT APPLICATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has developed additional guidance, covering quality

assurance and accident analysis, for its draft review standard for early site permit (ESP)

applications for new nuclear power plants. The additions are now available for interim use and

public comment.

The ESP process is intended to permit resolution of site-related issues regarding possible

future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at a site selected by an applicant. The

review standard will be used by NRC staff in its review of an ESP application. It also informs

potential applicants and other stakeholders of the information the staff needs to perform its

review. The NRC plans to issue the final version of the review standard by the end of this year.

The draft review standard is available for public inspection and duplication through the

NRC’s Public Document Room located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland, and from ADAMS, the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . Help in using ADAMS is available from the Public

Document Room staff by calling 1-800-397-4209.

Anyone may submit comments on the draft review standard. However, to be certain of

consideration, comments must be received by June 13. Comments received after that date will be

considered if it is practical to do so. Written comments on the review standard should be sent to:

Director, New Reactor Licensing Project Office, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mailstop

O-4D9A, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. Comments may 
be hand-delivered to the NRC at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments may be submitted electronically by the Internet

to the NRC at esprs@nrc.gov . 

For further information, contact: Michael L. Scott, Project Manager, at (301) 415-1421 or

by e-mail at mls3@nrc.gov .

###