alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS -- REGION I

 475 Allendale Road

 King of Prussia, PA 19406

No. I-03-021 March 27, 2003

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil A. Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

NRC TO DISCUSS ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

OF R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Rochester Gas and

Electric (RG&E) Corp. on Wednesday, April 2, to discuss the results of the agency’s annual

assessment of safety performance at the R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant. The facility is located in

Ontario, N.Y., and operated by RG&E.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m.

at the Ontario Golf Club, 2101 Country Club Lane in Ontario. Before the session is adjourned, NRC

staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of the Ginna

plant, as well as the role of the NRC in ensuring safe plant operation.

 The performance period to be discussed is January 1 to December 31, 2002. In addition,

NRC staff will provide an overview of how the agency’s Reactor Oversight Process works.

 A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

facility during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/ginn_2002q4.pdf

 "Overall, Ginna was operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety, and fully

met all cornerstone objectives," the letter states. The NRC did identify one inspection finding of low

to moderate safety significance ("white") during the assessment period. It pertained to the failure of

the off-site emergency siren feedback system. An NRC supplemental inspection, scheduled for April,

will review whether that issue has been successfully addressed. The agency also plans to conduct an

inspection of the upcoming reactor vessel head replacement at Ginna.

 The letter also notes: "As you are aware, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the

NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities and improve

guard force readiness. We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of these

requirements and have monitored your actions in response to changing threat conditions. For calendar

year 2003, we plan to continue these inspections, conduct portions of the security baseline inspection
program, as well as perform additional inspections to evaluate your compliance with new requirements

that may be ordered. "

 Current performance information for Ginna is available on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/GINN/ginn_chart.html

 #
First Department,

June, 1914.

#### Auditorium Company, Appellant, *v.*Sam S. Shubert Booking Agency, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Hew York county clerk’s office on the 39th day of October, 1913, setting aside a verdict and ordering a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and to the weight of the evidence.

Per Curiam:

We think there was a question of fact for the jury as to whether this contract was made in Hew York, which would give the court jurisdiction; and that question having been submitted to the jury, and the jury having decided it in favor of the plaintiff, the verdict .was sustained by the evidence. The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed with costs, and the verdict reinstated. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Scott and Dowling, JJ., dissented. Order reversed, with costs, and verdict reinstated. Order to be settled on notice.
#### Hornblower & Weeks, Respondent, v. Eleanor B. Sherwood, Appellant; The Sheriff of the City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

■ — Judgment affirmed, with costs and disbursements to the respondent the People of the State of New York. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Botein, JJ.; Dore and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and deny the People’s motion, and direct delivery of the property to the appellant, upon the ground that section 44 of the Civil Practice Act is applicable.
### §1144. Funding

#### (a) Authorizations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subchapter $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.

#### (b) Derivation

Funds to carry out the activities under this subchapter shall be derived from amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the preceding subsection that are enacted after January 5, 2021.

(Pub. L. 116–289, §5, Jan. 5, 2021, 134 Stat. 4888.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Young Fishermen's Development Act, and not as part of titles I and II of Pub. L. 89–454 which comprise this chapter.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA dynamic analysis of rotary combustion engine sealsReal time work cell pressures are incorporated into a dynamic analysis of the gas sealing grid in Rotary Combustion Engines. The analysis which utilizes only first principal concepts accounts for apex seal separation from the crochoidal bore, apex seal shifting between the sides of its restraining channel, and apex seal rotation within the restraining channel. The results predict that apex seals do separate from the trochoidal bore and shift between the sides of their channels. The results also show that these two motions are regularly initiated by a seal rotation. The predicted motion of the apex seals compares favorably with experimental results. Frictional losses associated with the sealing grid are also calculated and compare well with measurements obtained in a similar engine. A comparison of frictional losses when using steel and carbon apex seals has also been made as well as friction losses for single and dual side sealing.Document ID19840006451Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsKnoll, J.*(Michigan Technological Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Vilmann, C. R.*(Michigan Technological Univ. Cleveland, OH, United States)*Schock, H. J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center)*Stumpf, R. P.*(NASA Lewis Research Center)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1984Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberE-1902NAS 1.15:83536NASA-TM-83536Meeting InformationMeeting: Ann. Congr. and ExpositionLocation: Detroit, MICountry: United StatesStart Date: February 27, 1984End Date: March 2, 1984Sponsors:SAEAccession Number84N14519Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-40-62Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840006451.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §1227. Center for cataloging

The Secretary shall establish a center for cataloging current and projected scientific research in all fields of mining and mineral resources. Each Federal agency doing mining and mineral resources research shall cooperate by providing the cataloging center with information on work underway or scheduled by it. The cataloging center shall classify and maintain for public use a catalog of mining and mineral resources research and investigation projects in progress or scheduled by all Federal agencies and by such non-Federal agencies of government, colleges, universities, private institutions, firms, and individuals as may make such information available.

(Pub. L. 98–409, §7, Aug. 29, 1984, 98 Stat. 1540.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute Act of 1984, and not as part of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 which comprises this chapter.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1227, Pub. L. 95–87, title III, §307, Aug. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 455, contained provisions similar to this section covering fiscal years 1978 through 1984.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,206
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 25,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,893
<BONDS>                                        22,035
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       58,133
<OTHER-SE>                                     (68,032)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (25,206)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,847
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  346,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               512,903
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (850,945)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (853,179)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (59,989)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (793,190)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)





</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Conceptus, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)            the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 (the “ Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date: August 07, 2009

 
| /s/ Mark M. Sieczkarek  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Mark M. Sieczkarek      |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY WARREN STROBLE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0786 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-008428-001 DT

The Honorable Rosa Mroz, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Gerald R. Grant

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy Warren Stroble, Tucson

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop, Judge Maria Elena Cruz, and 

Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 4-4-2019
STATE v. STROBLE

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Timothy Warren Stroble seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s 

first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying 

the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 

538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of 

discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse 

of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


         AMENDMENT No. 5, dated December 2, 2002, to the Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement dated as of May 1, 1997 as heretofore amended (the
"Agreement") by and between CONCORD CAMERA CORP., a New Jersey corporation (the
"Company") and IRA B. LAMPERT (the "Executive").

         FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         1. The Base Salary provided for in Section 4 of the Agreement is
reduced, effective as of July 1, 2001, to $800,000 per year.

         2. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall continue in full force
and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 5
as of the date first above written.

                                              CONCORD CAMERA CORP.


                                              By: /s/ Brian F. King
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Brian F. King
                                                 Senior Executive Vice President
                                                 and Chief Operating Officer

                                              /s/ Ira B. Lampert
                                              -----------------------------
                                              IRA B. LAMPERT




                                       1
#### Doris Jonassen, Appellant, v. John Wanamaker New York Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
J

- A13008

- 18

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE
FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., HOME EQUITY
ASSET TRUST 2006

- 1, HOME EQUITY

PASS

- THROUGH CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2006

- 1

v.

JILL MCAFEE A/K/A JILL MCAFEE

AND JOHN MCAFEE

Appellants :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1102 WDA 2017

Appeal from the Order Entered June 26, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at

No(s): G.D. No. 16

- 006717

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

CONCURRING STATEMENT BY OLSON, J.: FILED: August 2, 2018

I agree with the learned Majority that summary judgment in favor of

National Bank Association (“U.S. Bank”) is not proper in this quiet title action

.

U.S. Bank asserts in its brief that “[t]hrough an inadvertent error or mutual

mistake of the parties, not discovered until recently, record owner John

McAfee did not sign the Mortgage.” (Emphasis added.) Appellee’s Brief at 2.

In reviewing the record before us, I would conclude that there is no ge nuine

issue of material fact regarding whether there was a m utual mistake that

would support reformation of the mortgage

. I also note that there is noJ

- A13008

- 18

- 2

-

evidence of record that would support a finding that a unilateral mistake or

“inadvertent error” occurred.

Unilateral mistakes may serve as the basis for reform ation. Regions

Mortgage, Inc. v. Muthler , 889 A.2d 39, 41 (Pa. 2005), citing Dudash v.

Dudash , 460 A.2d 323 (Pa. Super. 1983). As noted by our Supreme Court,

a party seeking reformation on the basis of a unilateral mistake may be granted relief if the party against whom reformation is sought has such knowledge of the mistake as to justify an
inference of fraud or bad faith.

Regions Mortgage , 889 A.2d at 41 (internal citation omitted). Thus, in

order for reformation to be available due to a unilateral mistake, U.S. Bank

must show that Appellants had “such knowledge of the mistake as to justify

an inference of fraud or bad faith.” Id. Such evidence is not currently in the

record.

As the Regions Mortgage Court held,

the equitable remedy of reformation is unavailable unless bad faith, accident, or mutual mistake can be shown , and in the case of unilateral mistake, the party against whom reformation is sought must be shown to have knowledge of the mistake sufficient to justify an inference of fraud or bad faith.

Id. at 42. In my view, the record before us fails to support a finding of either

mutual mistake or inadvertent mistake. Thus, I concur with my learnedJ

- A13008

- 18

- 3

-

colleagues that summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank is not appropriate in

this case. 1

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 In reviewing the facts and law presented in this case, I would conclude that summary judgment in favor of the Appellants is warranted. However, the Appellants did not file a cross motion for summary judgment. Thus, we are precluded at this stage from en tering summary judgment in favor of the Appellants.
#### § 1636.111 Notice.

The agency shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the agency, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the agency finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by section 504 and this part.
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2003-16502; Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-86]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Waverly, IA.

# EFFECTIVE DATES:

0901 UTC, April 15, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2525.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 2, 2003 (68 FR 67360) and subsequently published a correction to the direct final rule in the                     **Federal Register**                     on December 10, 2003 (68 FR 68973). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on April 15, 2004. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                 

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 21, 2004.

Paul J. Sheridan, 

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.

[FR Doc. 04-2440 Filed 2-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[Cite as State v. Shaw, 2015-Ohio-4743.]

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2015-05-087 

 : D E C I S I O N 

 - vs - 11/16/2015 

 : 

CHRISTOPHER SHAW, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2012-05-0798 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee 

Scott N. Blauvelt, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant 

 Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of 

the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the 

Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. 

{¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, Christopher Shaw, has filed a brief with this 

court pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) 

indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any 
Butler CA2015-05-087 

 - 2 - 

errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of 

error may be predicated; (2) lists four potential errors "that might arguably support the 

appeal," Anders, at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record 

independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and 

without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw 

as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that 

a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. 

{¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having 

been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to 

appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant 

requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal is dismissed for the reason that 

it is wholly frivolous. 

M. POWELL, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.