alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George de Perpigna, Respondent, *v.*George Iliopoulos, Appelant, et al., Defendants.

First Department,

December 18, 1951.

*Charles Rosenthal*of counsel *(Jacob Lichtenstein*with him on the brief; *Charles Rosenthal,*attorney), for appellant.

*Max Schiff*for respondent.

Cohn, J.

Appellant and other defendants named herein are citizens and residents of Greece. They are prevented from entering the United States because of certain law violations. *248Appellant must rely upon the issuance of a commission to take depositions of himself and the other defendants to properly defend this action. Jurisdiction over appellant was obtained by attachment of a deposit of $25,537.26 in a New York bank. These funds are being held subject to the outcome of the suit.

After a commission issued by the court, upon appellant’s application, to take the depositions of the appellant and the other named defendants in Athens, Greece, had been executed and depositions taken thereunder were returned to the court, plaintiff was granted leave to serve an amended complaint.

In his original pleading plaintiff alleged (1) that his compensation for conducting an export business for defendants was to be based on 5% of purchases, and (2) that the services rendered covered a period of fourteen months — March 1, 1946, to June 11, 1947. In an amended complaint and the bill of particulars thereof plaintiff claimed (1) compensation of 5%> based upon the amount of “ business done ” on the purchases, and (2) that the period during which the alleged services were rendered covers four years, to wit, from November 1, 1945, to October 1, 1949.

Denial of the defendant’s subsequent motion for the issuance of an additional commission necessitated by the amended pleading and for other incidental relief was erroneous. There could be no doubt that if appellant and the other defendants were present at the trial and were called as witnesses they would be permitted to give testimony in relation to the new or different issues raised by plaintiff’s amendment of his complaint. To preclude appellant from offering such evidence would be a clear violation of his fundamental rights.

Here the testimony sought under the new commission is material, necessary and vital to appellant to properly support his defense to the new cause of action. In such circumstances, the issuance of a new commission should have been ordered. *(Dambmann*v. *Metropolitan St. Ry. Co.,*110 App. Div. 165.)

Appellant is not obliged to accept any concessions from plaintiff, but can and does insist upon his right to develop his own proof in respect of the amendments to plaintiff’s original complaint, which are substantial.

The order should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and appellant’s motion granted.

Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant and the motion granted. Settle order on notice.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No-00-086 May 25, 2000

SENIOR MANAGERS BRIEF COMMISSION

ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERFORMANCE

Senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission briefed the Commission today on the

results of their May 10-11 meeting to review the safety performance of nuclear power plants.

The Commission concurred in the following recommendations made by NRC senior managers:

Three plants will be the subject of agency focus. They are:

ˇ D.C. Cook Units 1 and 2, operated by American Electric Power Company, near Benton

Harbor, Michigan. The licensee has made significant progress and has resolved the

majority of the technical issues related to a prolonged shutdown. It has also made

improvements to its corrective action program and the design control process.

However, because all corrective actions necessary for restart and safe plant operation

have not been demonstrated, D.C. Cook continues to warrant oversight as an agency

focus plant.

ˇ Indian Point 2, operated by the Consolidated Edison Co., near Buchanan, New York.

NRC senior managers discussed plant performance associated with two recent events,

an August 1999 reactor trip with electrical system complications and a steam generator

tube failure in February that led to the declaration of an Alert. These events revealed

several interrelated problems: (1) communication and coordination weaknesses; (2)

engineering support shortcomings; (3) configuration management/control problems; (4)

equipment reliability problems and large corrective action backlogs; and (5) operator

knowledge, station training, and procedural weaknesses. Senior managers noted that the

current Chief Nuclear Officer has set high standards and improvements are underway,

but determined that Indian Point 2 warrants oversight as an agency focus plant.

Three plants discussed at last year’s senior management meeting will receive routine oversight.

They are:

Millstone Units 2 and 3, operated by Northeast Utilities of Waterford, Connecticut, and

Clinton, operated by AmerGen Energy Company, near Clinton, Illinois. Millstone Unit 3 and Clinton
were identified as requiring regional focus last year -- calling for special attention from the appropriate

Regional Administrator. Millstone 2 was identified at last year’s senior management meeting as

requiring agency focus -- calling for the attention of the Executive Director for Operations and/or the

Commission.

All the other nuclear power plants will have routine oversight.

No nuclear fuel facilities warranted discussion at the public meeting.

Texts of letters to utilities with plants warranting agency focus will be available at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/assessment.htm on the NRC Internet home page.

##
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. 03-065 May 22, 2003

NRC LICENSING BOARD ISSUES DECISION ON SEISMIC ISSUES AFFECTING 

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE APPLICATION

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an independent judicial arm of the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, has issued a decision finding that the spent nuclear fuel storage facility

proposed for Skull Valley, Utah, by the Private Fuel Storage (PFS) consortium meets the

Commission’s safety standards that protect against potential earthquake risks. In making that

finding, the Licensing Board rejected the State of Utah’s assertions that the facility’s design was

inadequate to withstand the seismic forces it is likely to encounter.

The proposed above-ground facility is intended to house temporarily the waste fuel from

U.S. nuclear power plants that is eventually destined for a permanent storage facility. The PFS

facility would be located on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, about

50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The State of Utah is the proposal’s principal opponent.

A formal hearing was held in mid-2002 in which the Licensing Board received evidence

on a number of issues challenging the PFS proposal. Among these was the State of Utah’s

contention that the design specifications of the storage facility would not provide adequate safety

assurance in the event of a major earthquake. 

The Board’s decision today on seismic issues, although favorable to PFS, does not pave

the way for the issuance of a facility license, because in a March 10 decision the Board found that

the probability of an accidental crash stemming from nearby military aircraft operations was too

high. The applicant, PFS, has appealed that ruling to the Commission. PFS is also preparing to

argue at a future Board hearing that even if a military aircraft were to crash into the facility it

would have no adverse radiological consequences. Pending the outcome of those attempts to

obtain full license approval, PFS is also seeking approval to proceed with a much smaller site

that it says would reduce accident probabilities to a permissible level (see May 13 press release

regarding May 29 Board sessions on these matters).
Other issues from earlier hearings also remain to be resolved before the PFS proposal can

be licensed. These involve the applicant’s financial qualifications and the environmental aspects

of the proposed rail line down Skull Valley that would service the facility.

The Licensing Board’s 372-page decision on seismic issues will be available from the

NRC’s web site at http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/adjudicatory/pfs-seismic.pdf . An

abridged version, containing just the decision’s introductory summary, Table of Contents, and

conclusions, will also be available, at http://www.nrc.gov/what-wedo/regulatory/adjudicatory/pfs-seismic-summary.pdf .

###
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

187 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of United Rentals, Inc. and United Rentals (North America),
Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael J. Kneeland, Chief Executive Officer of the Companies, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MICHAEL J. KNEELAND Michael J. Kneeland Chief Executive Officer


February 28, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(November 5, 1943.)

#### Ernest Larson, Respondent, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.; Cohn, J., dissents and votes to affirm.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-03-0180 -  Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J to the Licensing Support Network

Accession Number: ML033010131

Date Released: Wednesday, November 5, 2003

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML033010146 - SECY-03-0180 - Proposed Rule to Amend 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J, In Regard to The Licensing Support System (8 page(s), 10/28/2003)
    - ML033010170 - SECY-03-0180-Attachment 1-Draft Federal Register Notice 10 CFR Part 2 Licensing Proceeding for the Receipt of HLW at a Geologic Repository: LSN, Submissions to the Electronic Network (43 page(s), 10/28/2003)
    - ML033010422 - SECY-03-0180-Attachment 2- Guidance for Submission of Electronic Docket Materials under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart J (32 page(s), 9/9/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

SANTOS LUIS RODRIGUEZ, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 105 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 6th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 8.1
 LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES
 1.
    
    Lorenzo Jewelry Limited, a Hong Kong corporation2.
    
    ENZO International Holdings Ltd., a BVI corporation3.
    
    ENZO Jewelry Inc., a BVI corporation4.
    
    Lorenzo Crystal Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation5.
    
    Lorenzo (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a PRC corporation6.
    
    Wonderful (Shenzhen) Ltd., a PRC corporation7.
    
    Shanghai Enzo Diamond Co., Ltd., a PRC corporation
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I

475 Allendale Road

King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-01-015 March 9, 2001

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC RESCHEDULES MEETING WITH WASHINGTON, D.C. HOSPITAL

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have rescheduled a meeting with representatives of

George Washington University Hospital, in Washington, D.C., for March 12. The meeting was

postponed Monday due to inclement weather.

The meeting will be held at the Region I office, 475 Allendale Road, in King of Prussia, Pa. It

begins at 1:00 p.m. and is open to the public for observation.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss an apparent violation of agency requirements

involving the hospital’s radiation oncology program.

###
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02595-REB-BNB

WILDEARTH GUARDIANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the 

United States Department of the Interior,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

This matter arises on Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Stay of Proceedings [Doc. #

6, filed 12/10/2010] (the “Motion to Stay”). The parties seek to stay all proceedings “pending

final action by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on a Notice of TagAlong Actions filed on December 7, 2010.” Motion to Stay [Doc. # 6] at p. 1. In support of the

Motion to Stay, the defendant states:

This action is one of many, nearly identical actions filed by

Plaintiff WildEarth Guardians alleging that the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service failed to respond toseveral petitions to list

hundreds of species pursuant to the mandatory timelines set forth

in the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. While the

underlying facts and circumstances of the instant case are specific

to the gila monster ( Heloderma suspectum), the Complaint raises

issues that are nearly identical to those raised in the cases

consolidated before the MDL.

Memorandum In Support [Doc. # 6-1] at pp. 1-2.
2

I find that granting the stay is likely to conserve judicial resources and the resources of

the parties and will not result in any prejudice to any party.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion to Stay [Doc. # 6] is GRANTED, and all proceedings are stayed

pending further order of the court;

(2) The scheduling conference set for January 13, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., is VACATED;

and

(3) The parties shall file a status report within 10 days of any order on the Notice of

Tag-Along Actions reporting the ruling and addressing what pretrial proceedings, if any, should

be scheduled in this court. 

Dated December 13, 2010.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge
§ 1201.129 Contents of complaint. ( a ) If the Special Counsel determines that the Board should take action to require an agency to correct a prohibited personnel practice (or a pattern of prohibited personnel practices) under 5 U.S.C. 1214(b)(4), he or she must file a written complaint in accordance with § 1201.128 of this part, stating with particularity any alleged violations of law or regulation, along with the supporting facts.
( b ) If the Special Counsel files a corrective action with the Board on behalf of an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment who has sought corrective action from the Board directly under 5 U.S.C. 1214(a)(3), the Special Counsel must provide evidence that the employee, former employee, or applicant has consented to the Special Counsel's seeking corrective action. 5 U.S.C. 1214(a)(4).
( c ) The judge to whom the complaint is assigned may order the Special Counsel and the respondent agency to file briefs, memoranda, or both in any corrective action complaint the Special Counsel brings before the Board.
§ 1655.10 Loan request process. ( a ) Any participant may apply for a loan by submitting a completed TSP loan request in the form and manner prescribed by the TSP record keeper.
( b ) If a participant has a uniformed services account and a civilian account, a separate loan request must be made for each account.
[87 FR 31693, May 24, 2022]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7959

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DARRELL S. MERRICKS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00419-LMB-1)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell S. Merricks, Appellant Pro Se. Edmund P. Power, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darrell S. Merricks appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion to recall the mandate. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Merricks, No. 1:06-cr-00419-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2009). We 

deny Merricks’ motion for transcript at government expense. 

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. 

AFFIRMED
#### § 1632.1 Purpose and scope.

This part is issued by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (Board) under section 552b of title 5 of the United States Code, the Government in the Sunshine Act, to carry out the policy of the Act that the public is entitled to the fullest practicable information regarding the decision making processes of the Board while at the same time preserving the rights of individuals and the ability of the Board to carry out its responsibilities. These regulations fulfill the requirement of subsection (g) of the Act that each agency subject to the provisions of the Act shall promulgate regulations to implement the open meeting requirements of subsections (b) through (f) of the Act.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# DATE AND TIME:

Thursday, October 28, 2004, 10 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

# STATUS:

This meeting will be open to the public.

# THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE AGENDA:

Report of the Audit Division on the Conservative Leadership Political Action Committee.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

Robert Biersack, Acting Press Officer, telephone (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04-24064 Filed 10-22-04; 2:52 pm]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
**Exhibit 31.1**
  **Certification of the Principal Executive Officer**
 **Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as** **amended**
 
 I, Shaun A. Burke, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Guaranty Federal Bancshares, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report ;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) [Reserved - not effective]
 
 c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 Date:  March 30, 2005   /s/ Shaun A. Burke
 Shaun A. Burke
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)