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-03-018 March 28, 2003

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH DOMINION ENERGY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT SURRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Dominion Energy officials on

Thursday, April 3, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Surry

nuclear power plant near Surry, Virginia.

The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. in the General District Court Room, Surry County

Government Center, 45 School Street in Surry. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC

officials will be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer any questions.

A letter from the NRC to Dominion Energy addresses plant safety performance during the

previous year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter states that, overall, Surry

operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety. The letter, which is available from

Region II Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/sur_2002q4.pdf , says the Surry plant was the

subject of a supplemental inspection in 2002 related to damaged bearings in an emergency diesel

generator. The NRC staff determined that the Surry plant staff’s cause determination and corrective

actions for the issue were acceptable. In addition, some unresolved items from an NRC fire protection

inspection in February 2003 are under staff review and may warrant a supplemental inspection. NRC

inspections planned at Surry beyond the routine, or baseline, level include special inspection activities

associated with planned reactor vessel head replacements, reviews of the plant’s implementation of

security measures required by the NRC, operator licensing examinations, and routine inspections of

Surry’s independent spent fuel storage installation.

 Current performance indicators for the two units at the Surry plant are available at 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUR1/sur1_chart.html and 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SUR2/sur2_chart.html

###
§ 206.33 Who may file a petition. ( a ) *In general.* A petition under this subpart may be filed by an entity, including a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers, that is representative of a domestic industry producing an article that is like or directly competitive with an article that is allegedly, as a result of the reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under a free trade agreement listed in paragraph (b) of this section, being imported into the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions that imports of the article constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to such domestic industry. Unless the implementation statute provides otherwise, a petition may be filed only during the transition period of the particular free trade agreement.
( b ) *List of free trade agreements.* The free trade agreements referred to in paragraph (a) of this section include the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, the United States-Jordan Free Trade Area Agreement, the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, and the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, to the extent that such agreements have entered into force.
( c ) *Critical circumstances.* An entity of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section that represents a domestic industry may allege that critical circumstances exist and petition for provisional relief with respect to imports if such product is from Australia, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, or Singapore.
( d ) *Perishable agricultural product.* An entity of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section that represents a domestic industry producing a perishable agricultural product may petition for provisional relief with respect to imports of such product from Australia, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, or Singapore, but only if such product has been subject to monitoring by the Commission for not less than 90 days as of the date the allegation of injury is included in the petition.
( e ) *Korean motor vehicle article.* An entity of the type described in paragraph (a) of this section that is filing a petition with respect to a product from Korea shall state whether it represents a domestic industry producing an article that is like or directly competitive with a Korean motor vehicle article.
[77 FR 3926, Jan. 26, 2012, as amended at 88 FR 14890, Mar. 10, 2023]
• 

PROSPECTIVE JURORS 

You will be asked to provide the information presented in the following outline 

during the selection process. Please review these questions carefully. 

1. State your name and age. 

2. In which area of Miami-Dade County do you reside? (You do not have to state 

your exact address - just the general neighorhood, such as "kendall".) 

3. How long have you been in this community? If less than five years, where did you 

live before? 

4. What is your present occupation and how long have you worked at it? 

[Ifretired, how long have you been retired, and what was your last major occupation]? 

5. What is your marital status (married, single, divorced)? 

6. If you are married, is your spouse presently employed? If so, what is your 

spouse's occupation? lfretired, what was his or her last major occupation? 

7. If you are not married, but have a "significant other," what is his or her 

occupation? 

8. Do you have any children? If so, how old are they? If they are over the age of 18, 

are they employed or in school? If they are employed, what do they do? 

9. Do you have any hobbies or activities that you generally enjoy in your spare time? 

If so, what are they? 

10. Have you ever served in the military? If so, when, in what branch, and have you 

served in the military police? 

11. Have you ever been involved in a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff, defendant or witness? 

If yes, what kind of case was it? 

12. Have any of your immediate family members been involved in a civil litigation? If 

yes, what kind of case was it? 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 1 of 2
13. Have you, a member of your immediate family, or a close friend ever been 

involved in the criminal justice system as a defendant? (Juror may answer at side 

bar, outside the presence of other jurors) 

14. Have you, a member of your immediate family or a close friend ever been arrested 

or accused of a crime? (Juror may answer at side bar; outside of the presence of 

other jurors). 

15. Do you have any physical, emotional or language problems that would make it 

difficult or impossible for you to participate as a juror? 

16. Would any of your religious or moral beliefs preclude you from sitting in judgment 

of another person or deliberating with others? 

17. Have you previously served on a jury? If yes, was it criminal or civil? Were you 

able to reach a verdict? Did you serve as the foreperson? [Do not tell us the 

verdict] Have you ever served on a grand jury? 

18. Can you think of any reason why you could not sit on the jury and render a fair 

verdict based on the evidence and the Court's instructions of the law? 

*********************************************************************** 

2 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1363 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1363

  To prohibit institutions of higher education from unfairly imposing 
                     sanctions on student athletes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 19, 2003

     Mr. George Miller of California (for himself and Mr. Andrews) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit institutions of higher education from unfairly imposing 
                     sanctions on student athletes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Student Athlete Fairness Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES.

    Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h) Prohibition on Unfair Imposition of Sanctions on Student 
Athletes.--No institution of higher education that participates in any 
program under this title, and that has an intercollegiate athletic 
program, shall--
            ``(1) impose a penalty or other sanction on a student 
        athlete (including by canceling or forfeiting games) for a 
        violation of an intercollegiate athletics association's rules 
        or codes of conduct that was not committed by that student;
            ``(2) submit to the imposition by an intercollegiate 
        athletics association of any sanction on a student athlete 
        (including by canceling or forfeiting games) for a violation of 
        an intercollegiate athletics association's rules or codes of 
        conduct that was not committed by that student; or
            ``(3) be a member of an intercollegiate athletics 
        association whose rules or codes of conduct authorize the 
        imposition of a sanction on a student athlete (including by 
        canceling or forfeiting games) for a violation of an 
        intercollegiate athletics association's rules or codes of 
        conduct that was not committed by that student.''.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-73 August 6, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

WITH U.S. ARMY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet August 8

with representatives of the U.S. Army for a predecisional

enforcement conference on apparent radiation safety program

violations at several military installations in the United

States.

The conference will start at 10 a.m. in the Third Floor

Conference Room of the NRC Region III Office, 801 Warrenville

Road, Lisle, Illinois. It is open to public observation. NRC

officials will be available at its conclusion to answer questions

from the press and other interested observers.

The discussion will focus on the Army's apparent failure to

adequately manage its radiation safety programs at various

military installations. The Army is licensed by the NRC to use

radioactive material -- tritium, americium-241, and nickel-63 --

in such applications as self-luminous fire control devices

(weapons sights), chemical agent detectors, and in chemical agent

monitors.

NRC inspections identified apparent violations at several

Army installations for, among other things, failing to: conduct

requisite annual inspections, notify the NRC of radiological

incidents, perform required tests, adequately secure material in

storage, and provide appropriate training. As a result of NRC's

inspection findings, a Confirmatory Order was issued on March 26.

The Order detailed several commitments by the Army to correct

program deficiencies. Many of the apparent violations were

repetitive from NRC inspections conducted in 1992, 1993, and

1995.

The decision to hold an enforcement conference does not mean

the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that

enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety

significance; to provide the licensee an opportunity to point out

any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report;

and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective

actions.
No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated

enforcement action, such as a fine, will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials

at a later date.

####
#### Raymond C. Merchant, Respondent, v. Patrick Lane, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment and order of the Rensselaer County Court in an automobile negligence action, in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Foster, Russell and Deyo, JJ., concur.
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-03-040 June 19, 2003

CONTACT: Diane Screnci 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan 610/337-5331

NRC TO DISCUSS HADDAM NECK, YANKEE ROWE DECOMMISSIONING WORK

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of the Haddam Neck

and Yankee Rowe nuclear power plants on Monday, June 23, to discuss the status of

decommissioning activities at those facilities.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC

Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. The public is invited to observe the meeting and will

have an opportunity to communicate with the NRC before the session is adjourned.

Among the decommissioning topics to be discussed are management changes, plant status

and security enhancements related to both plants. Items specific to Yankee Rowe that will be

addressed include preparations for demolition of the containment building and the facility’s

license termination plan. Items specific to Haddam Neck that will be addressed include

preparations to transfer spent fuel to dry storage, reactor vessel removal and implementation of

that site’s license termination plan as it relates to the final status survey.

Haddam Neck, located in Haddam, Conn., and operated by the Connecticut Yankee

Atomic Power Company, permanently ceased operations in December 1996. Yankee Rowe,

located in Rowe, Mass., and operated by the Yankee Atomic Power Company, was permanently

shut down in October 1991. The two companies are jointly working on the decommissioning of

the two plants.

###
§ 207.104 Response to charging letter. ( a ) *Time for filing.* A charged party shall have twenty (20) days from the date of service of the charging letter within which to file a written response to the allegations made in the charging letter unless otherwise ordered by the administrative law judge.
( b ) *Form and content.* Each response shall be under oath and signed by the charged party or its duly authorized officer, attorney, or agent, with the name, address, and telephone number of the same. Each charged party shall respond to each allegation in the charging letter, and may set forth a concise statement of the facts constituting each ground of defense. There shall be a specific admission or denial of each fact alleged in the charging letter, or if the charged party is without knowledge of any such fact, a statement to that effect.
( c ) *Request for confidentiality.* The response shall contain a statement as to whether the charged party seeks an order to maintain the confidentiality of all or part of the proceedings to the extent practicable, pursuant to § 207.105 of this subpart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,522,944
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (15,979)
<INVENTORY>                                    634,938
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,112,311
<PP&E>                                         531,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (389,190)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,688,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,718,288
<BONDS>                                        2,707,941
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9,221,420
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,958,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,688,674
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               96,385
<CGS>                                          52,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,629,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (18,246)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             24,105
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,757,139)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,757,139)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,757,139)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.19)
        

</TABLE>
FILED: July 27, 2016

**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 7279** 

SHAIDON BLAKE ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

MICHAEL ROSS, Lt. ,
Defendant

– Appellee,

and

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF MARYLAND; M.R.D.C.C.; GARY MAYNARD, Sec.; MICHAEL STOUFFER, Comm.; JAMES MADIGAN,

Defendants

.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

. (S. Ct. No. 15

- 339)

Decided on Remand: July 27, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge , TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published order

. Chief Judge Gregory directed entry of the order with the concurrence of Judge Traxler and Judge Agee

.2 ORDER

GREGORY , Chief Judge:
Having considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v.

Blake , 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) , we hereby remand this case to the
district court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court noted
that the parties “lodged” new materials, review of which is
generally not within our province. See United States v.

Manbeck , 744 F.2d 360, 392 (4th Cir. 1 984) (“It is axiomatic
that it is the role of the factfinder, not the appellate court,
to resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh the evidence, and judge
the credibility of witnesses.”) . Accordingly, on remand, the
parties may augment the record so that it contains any pertinent

evidence relat ing to whether or not the inmate remedies are

“available. ” See Blake , 136 S. Ct. at 1859. It will then be

before the district c ourt to address this question in the first

instance

.

REMANDED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Donald F.
Detampel, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer and Nicholas J. Cuccaro, the Chief
Financial Officer of Raindance Communications, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify that, to the best of our knowledge:

1.The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the
period covered by the Annual Report and results of operations of the Company
for the periods covered by the Annual Report.

Dated: March 12, 2004

|                                      |  |                        
|------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Donald F. Detampel, Jr.           |  | /s/ Nicholas J. Cuccaro
|                                      |  |                        
|Donald F. Detampel, Jr.               |  | Nicholas J. Cuccaro    
|Chief Executive Officer and President |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Raindance Communications, Inc. (the Company) and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or
its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which
it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### § 201.12 Requests.

Any party to a nonadjudicative investigation may request the Commission to take particular action with respect to that investigation. Such requests shall be made by letter addressed to the Secretary, shall be placed by him in the record, and shall be served on all other parties. Such request shall be filed electronically and two (2) true paper copies shall be submitted on the same business day. The Commission shall take such action or make such response as it deems appropriate.

[76 FR 61941, Oct. 6, 2011]
### §§801, 802. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §184(a)(1), Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1357

Section 801, Pub. L. 93–203, §2, as added Pub. L. 95–524, §2, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1912, set out Congressional statement of purpose in enacting this chapter.

A prior section 801, Pub. L. 93–203, §2, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 839, provided for a Congressional statement of purpose for this chapter, prior to the general revision of Pub. L. 93–203 by Pub. L. 95–524.

Section 802, Pub. L. 93–203, §3, as added Pub. L. 95–524, §2, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1912, provided definitions for this chapter.

A prior section 802, Pub. L. 93–203, §4, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 839; Pub. L. 95–44, §2(a), June 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 220; Pub. L. 95–93, title III, §302, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 650, authorized appropriations for this chapter, prior to the general revision of Pub. L. 93–203 by Pub. L. 95–524.

A prior section 3 of Pub. L. 93–203, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 839, provided for transitional provisions and was set out as a note under section 801 of this title, prior to the general revision of Pub. L. 93–203 by Pub. L. 95–524.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in former section 981 of this title prior to the general revision of Pub. L. 93–203 by Pub. L. 95–524.

A prior section 803, Pub. L. 95–93, title III, §305, Aug. 5, 1977, 91 Stat. 651, providing for increased participation of veterans in public service employment programs and job training opportunities, was omitted because it was limited to fiscal years 1977 and 1978.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 97–300, title I, §184(a), Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1357, which provided for the repeal of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, this chapter, effective Oct. 13, 1982, was itself repealed by Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), (c)(2)(B), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059, as amended, eff. July 1, 2000.