alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 00-136 September 11, 2000

NRC SCHEDULES MEETINGS IN GEORGIA AND CALIFORNIA ON

PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is planning public meetings in Atlanta, Georgia, on

September 20 and in Oakland, California, on September 26, to obtain public comment on issues to be

considered in revising its regulations on the packaging and transportation of radioactive material. A

similar meeting was held last month at the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.

The NRC’s current transportation regulations are based, in part, on those developed by the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a worldwide standards-setting organization. The IAEA

periodically revises its transportation standards to reflect scientific and technical advances. The NRC

periodically updates its own regulations to be compatible with those of the IAEA.

Issues to be discussed include testing requirements for package integrity, package design

requirements for aircraft transport, thresholds at which radioactive materials must be transported under

hazardous material requirements, and double-containment requirements for plutonium shipments.

The Atlanta meeting will be held at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, 3300 Lenox Road Northeast, from

6:00 until 10:00 p.m. The Oakland meeting will be held at the Oakland Federal Building, Edward R.

Roybal Auditorium and Conference Center, at 1301 Clay Street, from 6:00 until 10:00 p.m.

Background information on the issues to be discussed are located at

http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=IAEA_RFC on the web.

Comments may be electronically submitted at this web site, or submitted by mail to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications

Staff.

###
#### § 1303.80 Preservation of records.

OMB will preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this section, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or NARA's General Records Schedule 4.2. OMB will not dispose of or destroy records while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
### SUBCHAPTER III—ESTABLISHMENT OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

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

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

No. 05-027 February 10, 2005

NRC ISSUES DRAFT SAFETY EVALUATION FOR

 CLINTON EARLY SITE PERMIT APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a draft safety evaluation report (SER) for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the Clinton site, about six miles east of Clinton, Ill.

The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related issues, such as environmental

impacts, for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site. The

Clinton application was filed Sept. 25, 2003, by Exelon Generation Company, LLC. If approved, the

permit would give Exelon up to 20 years to decide whether to build one or more nuclear plants on the

site and to file an application with the NRC for approval to begin construction.

NRC staff expect to finalize the safety evaluation later this year, including an ongoing review of

Exelon’s “performance-based” methodology regarding earthquake effects. A supplement to the draft

SER, summarizing the staff’s review of seismic issues, is expected by May 31. At that time, the staff

will also finalize the schedule for issuing a final SER.

 Along with the SER, the staff must complete an Environmental Impact Statement, the

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards must issue a report on the ESP application, and the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel must conclude its hearing on the matter before the

Commission can reach a final decision on issuing the ESP. The NRC expects to finish this process by

the end of summer 2006.

The 300-page draft SER contains the agency's review of the Clinton ESP application. The NRC

staff is reviewing information on:

– site seismology, geology, meteorology and hydrology;

– risks from potential accidents resulting from operation of a nuclear plant at the site;

– the site’s ability to support adequate physical security for a nuclear plant; and

– proposed major features of the emergency plan Exelon would implement if a reactor is

eventually built at the site.

Exelon will have 14 days to review the draft SER for proprietary information. The report will

then be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. It will also be available on the NRC’s Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html . In addition, the Vespasian Warner Public

Library in Clinton has agreed to make the draft SER available for public inspection.

###
#### Henry M. Randall, Respondent, v. Charles P. Randall, Appellant.

Motion denied, on condition that within ten days appellant pay to the respondent or his attorney ten dollairs costs of the motion, perfect his appeal, place the case on the next calendar, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted, with costs. Present—Burr, Thomas, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ.
(No. 37142.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, *vs.*George Reed, Plaintiff in Error.

*Opinion filed March 22, 1963.*

Donald C. Flynn, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.

*343William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward J. Hladis and Richard T. Buck, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice Klingbiel

delivered the opinion of the court :

The defendant was tried in the criminal court of Cook County by the court without a jury and found guilty of the crime of armed robbery. A writ of error has issued to review the judgment of conviction.

The sole contention advanced here is that the evidence was insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim of the robbery, Oscar Jepsen, a truck driver, testified that he parked in an alley, where he was preparing to make a delivery. He saw an old orange colored car several hundred feet down the alley and saw a man walking toward him. This man got into the truck, stood close to Jepsen, pointed a gun at him and took the money which Jepsen had in his possession, amounting to about $500 to $700 in cash plus a check made out to “Oriental Chop Suey”. Jepsen watched the man get into the orange car and drive away. At a subsequent police lineup and again at the trial, Jepsen identified the defendant as the robber. About half an hour later the defendant was arrested while he was illegally parked in a 1954, orange colored car. When he was arrested, he had in his possession about $500 in cash, a check made out to “Oriental Chop Suey” and a black revolver. The check was never introduced in evidence at the trial and a police officer testified that it had been lost.

The above evidence was uncontradicted by any testimony submitted by the defendant. It is obvious that this evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The defendant argues that, for various reasons, this testimony is un*344worthy of belief. The trial judge heard the evidence and observed the witnesses and it was his function to determine the credibility of the witnesses. We shall not disturb his finding.

The judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### Eddie HATCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sid HARKLEROAD, Superintendent at Marion Correctional Institution; Boyd Bennett, Director of Prisons at NC Doc; Theodis Beck, Secretary of NC Doc, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6411.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Eddie Hatcher, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Hatcher appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Hatcher v. Harkleroad,*No. CA-02-25-1-1-MU (W.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2002). 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.*
### §103. United States

In this title, "United States", when used in a geographic sense, means the States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 877.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 103 | (no source). | |

The section is included to avoid the necessity for defining "United States" each time it is used in the revised title.
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GeoGlobal Resources Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allan J. Kent,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.

















/s/ Allan
J. Kent


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


Allan J.
Kent


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


August
11, 2008
CERTIFICATIONS





Exhibit
      31.1
            Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, David
Bakhshi, certify that:





1.           I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Latin American
Telecommunications Venture Company-LATVCO





2.           Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;





3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;





4.           I
am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, is made known to me by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and





c)
presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5.           I
have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and





6.           I
have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.





Dated:
April 20, 2009





By: /s/
David Bakhshi


David
Bakhshi


Chief
Executive Officer
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. 04-035 March 24, 2004

NRC REORGANIZES OFFICE TO GIVE ADDED FOCUS TO

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROGRAMS 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has established a separate Division of High-Level Waste

Repository Safety in its Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. This will enable the NRC to

enhance its focus on major high-level radioactive waste programs and issues, and conduct a

comprehensive licensing program for the proposed high-level waste disposal facility at Yucca

Mountain, Nevada. The Department of Energy is scheduled to submit an application to the NRC in

December for a license to construct and operate the repository. 

The Director of the new Division is C. William Reamer, previously Deputy Director of the

Division of Waste Management, which prior to the reorganization handled all waste management

activities for the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 

John T. Greeves, previously Director of the Division of Waste Management, now leads a new

Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, which will plan, manage and

implement programs related to the decommissioning of sites, management of low-level radioactive

waste activities, and conduct of environmental reviews. 

The changes are expected to improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency and focus

attention and resources on the major program areas of high-level waste, decommissioning,

environmental protection and low-level waste. The reorganization was effective on March 22.

###
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFERY EDEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 368 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFERY EDEN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 369 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
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-03-013 March 19, 2003

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

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

 SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT FARLEY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Southern Nuclear Operating

Company officials on Thursday, March 27, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety

performance at the Farley nuclear power plant near Dothan, Alabama. 

The meeting will be held at 5:30 p.m. at the Houston County Administration Building, 3rd

Floor, County Commissioners’ Chambers, 462 North Oats Street, in Dothan. 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 Southern Nuclear addresses plant safety performance during the

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

operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and that plant performance was at a level

requiring no additional NRC inspection beyond normal baseline activities. The letter is available from

Region II Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/far_2002q4.pdf. It says the NRC staff will

review activities at Farley in response to a 2002 NRC Bulletin on reactor pressure vessel head and

vessel head nozzle penetration programs and continue inspections of the plant’s implementation of

NRC security advisories and Orders to evaluate compliance with new requirements that may be

ordered. It also says that a security exercise, postponed due to terrorist attacks on the World Trade

Center, will be rescheduled at the next available opportunity.

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

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FAR1/far1_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FAR2/far2_chart.html

###
§ 207.100 Sanctions. ( a ) A person, other than a person exempted from this regulation by the provisions of 19 U.S.C. 1677f(f)(4), who is determined under this subpart to have committed a prohibited act, may be subject to one or more of the following sanctions: ( 1 ) A civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 for each violation, each day of a continuing violation constituting a separate violation;
( 2 ) Debarment from practice in any capacity before the Commission, which disbarment may, in appropriate circumstances, include such person's partners, associates, employers and employees, for a designated time period following publication of a determination that the protective order has been breached;
( 3 ) Denial of further access to proprietary or privileged information covered by the breached protective order or to proprietary information in future Commission proceedings;
( 4 ) An official reprimand by the Commission;
( 5 ) In the case of an attorney, accountant, or other professional, referral of the facts underlying the prohibited act to the ethics panel or other disciplinary body of the appropriate professional association or licensing authority;
( 6 ) When appropriate, referral of the facts underlying the violation to the United States Trade Representative or his or her designees, or to another government agency; and
( 7 ) Any other administrative sanctions as the Commission determines to be appropriate.
( b ) Each partner, associate, employer, and employee described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is entitled to all the administrative rights set forth in this subpart.
( c ) For the purposes of this subpart, the knowing receipt of information the receipt of which constitutes a violation of a protective order includes, but is not limited to, the reading or unauthorized dissemination of the information covered by a protective order by a person who knows or should reasonably believe that he or she is not authorized to read or disseminate such information.
### §1027. Retention of records

Every person subject to a requirement to file any report (including the documents described in subparagraphs (E) through (I) of section 1021(k) of this title) or to certify any information therefor under this subchapter or who would be subject to such a requirement but for an exemption or simplified reporting requirement under section 1024(a)(2) or (3) of this title shall maintain a copy of such report and records on the matters of which disclosure is required which will provide in sufficient detail the necessary basic information and data from which the documents thus required may be verified, explained, or clarified, and checked for accuracy and completeness, and shall include vouchers, worksheets, receipts, and applicable resolutions, and shall keep such records available for examination for a period of not less than six years after the filing date of the documents based on the information which they contain, or six years after the date on which such documents would have been filed but for an exemption or simplified reporting requirement under section 1024(a)(2) or (3) of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §107, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 850; Pub. L. 105–34, title XV, §1503(d)(5), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1062; Pub. L. 113–235, div. O, title I, §111(c), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2793.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 inserted "(including the documents described in subparagraphs (E) through (I) of section 1021(k) of this title)" after "file any report" and "a copy of such report and" after "shall maintain".

1997—Pub. L. 105–34 struck out "description or" after "requirement to file any".

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

#### Effective Date of 2014 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 113–235 applicable with respect to plan years beginning after Dec. 31, 2014, see section 111(e) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note under section 1021 of this title.
#### Philip J. Lanzatella, Appellant, v. Lewis G. Tumia et al., Copartners Doing Business as Norton Plumbing Co., Respondents.

Order reversed on the law and facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. Memorandum: In the absence of any showing of prejudice to the defendant we feel that the court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to set up a third cause of action based upon fraud. The motion made following a mistrial was returnable before the same judge who presided at that trial. Since the court was familiar with the facts and the reasons which prompted the making of the motion, we conclude that the denial was an improvident exercise of discretion. All concur, except Wheeler, J., who dissents and votes for modification and affirmance, in the following memorandum: Upon his application to amend his complaint to add a third cause of action founded upon facts within his knowledge at the time the original complaint was served, plaintiff failed to proffer any excuse why the proposed amended cause of action was not included in his earlier pleading. Nor does there appear in the record any reason for this delay. *(Quarantiello*v. *Grand Trunk Ry. Co.,*145 App. Div. 138; *Rodman Improvement Co.*v. *Krabo,*185 App. Div. 882.) Under these circumstances the *829Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. However in view of the fact that the record reveals nothing indicating a prejudice to the adverse party, the order should be modified to provide that it be without prejudice to another application by plaintiff upon proper papers to amend, if he be so advised. (Appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint.) Present — McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ. [See *post,*p. 853.]