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.

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

No. I-05-033 June 9, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC, PA. COMPANY TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATION INVOLVING GAUGE

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of a Pottstown, Pa.-

based company on Thursday, June 16, to discuss an apparent violation of agency regulations involving

maintaining proper control of a nuclear gauge.

 The meeting, known as a predecisional enforcement conference, is scheduled to begin at 1

p.m. at the NRC Region I Office, 475 Allendale Road in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the

public for observation and NRC staff will be available to answer questions before the session is

adjourned.

 The apparent violation stems from an event on April 5 in which a nuclear gauge owned by

David Blackmore & Associates was damaged at a temporary work site on Egypt Road in Upper

Providence (Montgomery County), Pa. The Pottstown company is an engineering consulting firm that

provides geotechnical and environmental services at construction sites. At approximately 11 a.m. that

day, the gauge was crushed by a bulldozer after being left unattended by its user. The gauge contains

americium-241 and cesium-137 and is used for such purposes as measuring soil density.

 Actions by company personnel in response to the incident were prompt and in accordance

with emergency procedures. The area around the damaged gauge was quickly roped off and other

workers at the site and the company’s Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) were notified. The RSO, in turn,

informed the NRC. The radioactive sources inside the gauge were determined to be intact and

radiation surveys of the area by the RSO and an NRC inspector who responded to the site did not

reveal any contamination.

 The apparent violation identified by the NRC as a result of a follow-up inspection involves

the company’s failure to effectively control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed nuclear

material – in this case, the gauge – in an unrestricted area, as required by agency regulations.

 The purpose of the June 16th meeting is to obtain information to enable the NRC to determine

what, if any, enforcement action is warranted. Examples of that information would be a common

understanding of the facts, root causes of the event and corrective actions undertaken by the company.

 
-2-

No decision will be made by the NRC staff at the session. Rather, NRC management will

render a decision sometime in the near future.

 ###
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1537

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify that restrictions on 

baiting of migratory game birds do not prohibit the taking of a migratory 

game bird on or over manipulated re-growth of a harvested rice crop. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2003

Mr. JOHN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

A BILL

To amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to clarify that 

restrictions on baiting of migratory game birds do not 

prohibit the taking of a migratory game bird on or 

over manipulated re-growth of a harvested rice crop.

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

3 SECTION 1. TAKING OF A MIGRATORY GAME BIRD ON OR 

4 OVER MANIPULATED RE-GROWTH OF A RICE 

5 CROP. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3(b) of the Migratory 

7 Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704(b)) is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(A)’’; 
2

•HR 1537 IH 

1 (2) by striking ‘‘(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘(B)’’; 

2 (3) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(b)’’; and 

3 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) does not prohibit—

5 ‘‘(A) taking of a migratory game bird on or 

6 over manipulated re-growth of a harvested rice crop; 

7 or 

8 ‘‘(B) causing, inducing, or allowing a person to 

9 take or attempt to take a migratory game bird on 

10 or over manipulated re-growth of a harvested rice 

11 crop.’’. 

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 6(c) of the 

13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 707(c)) is amended 

14 by striking ‘‘section 3(b)(2)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 

15 3(b)(1)(B)’’.

Æ
NRC NEWS

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-054 October 27, 2004

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

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC STAFF SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 4 

TO DISCUSS LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS FOR BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting on Thursday,

November 4, in Southport, N.C., to discuss how the agency will review the application from Progress

Energy to renew the operating licenses for both units of the Brunswick nuclear plant, just north of

Southport. Members of the public are invited to ask questions and comment on license renewal issues

the NRC should consider in its review of the application. 

The meeting will be held in the Hampton Inn, 5181 Southport Supply Road, beginning at 7:00

p.m. The NRC staff will provide information on how the license renewal process works and how the

public can participate in this process. The NRC received the license renewal application from Progress

Energy on October 20. 

If approved by the NRC, the Brunswick licenses would be renewed for an additional 20 years. 

The current operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 expire on Sept. 8, 2016, and Dec. 27, 2014,

respectively.

The Brunswick license renewal application can be found on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/brunswick.html.

###
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. 05-092 June 15, 2005

NRC ISSUES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY REPORTS

FOR PROPOSED ENRICHMENT PLANT IN NEW MEXICO

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published its final Environmental Impact Statement

and Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant to be built in

Lea County, N.M. The reports conclude that environmental impacts would be small to moderate and

can be mitigated, and that the application meets the agency’s health and safety requirements.

Louisiana Energy Services (LES) submitted its license application for the facility, to be called

the National Enrichment Facility, on Dec. 12, 2003. The facility would enrich uranium for use in fuel

for commercial nuclear power reactors by increasing the proportion of the U-235 isotope to as high as 

5 percent by weight.

The environmental and safety reports are the major NRC staff reviews in the licensing process.

Several contentions are still before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the NRC’s independent

adjudicatory body, and the Commission expects to complete the licensing review process in mid-2006.

The NRC conducted two public meetings in Lea County to discuss the environmental study: on

March 4, 2004, to discuss the scope of the review, and Oct. 14, 2004, to discuss the draft report’s

findings.

The Environmental Impact Statement concludes that impacts from construction, operation and

decommissioning of the plant would be small to moderate and can be mitigated. It further concludes

there are no impacts that would preclude licensing the proposed project. The report analyzed costs and

benefits of the action and alternative approaches (including the impacts of not building the facility).

Also discussed are LES’ alternatives for waste management and the proposed facility’s likely impacts

on land use, historical and cultural resources, air quality, geology, water resources, environmental

justice, the local economy, transportation, and public health and safety.

The Safety Evaluation Report discusses the results of the NRC’s safety review in the following

areas: radiation protection, nuclear criticality safety, chemical process safety, fire safety, emergency

management, environmental protection, decommissioning, management measures, materials control

and accountability and physical protection.
-2-

The NRC is planning to conduct a public meeting in Lea County this summer to provide an

overview of the staff’s safety review and to address any public comments or questions relating to the

Safety Evaluation Report. Details of the meeting will be announced separately.

The Environmental Impact Statement and the Safety Evaluation Report are available

electronically on the NRC’s Web site through this page:

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/lesfacility.html .

###
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00392

- CV
Ryan Sanders and all Occupants v. Stephen W. Dean
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2019CCV

- 60944

- 5

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant s, Ryan Sanders and all Occupants , although the y are exempt from payment due to their inability to pay costs. We further order this decision certified below for observ ance. November 26, 2019
#### In the Matter of Joseph Scarola, Appellant, against John Foster, as Warden of Auburn Prison, et al., Respondents.

Motion for reargument denied. Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 1035.]
### §284. Lands containing coal or other minerals in addition to potassium deposits; issuance of prospecting permits and leases; covenants in potassium leases

Prospecting permits or leases may be issued under the provisions of this subchapter for deposits of potassium in public lands, also containing deposits of coal or other minerals, on condition that such other deposits be reserved to the United States for disposal under appropriate laws: Provided, That if the interests of the Government and of the lessee will be subserved thereby, potassium leases may include covenants providing for the development by the lessee of chlorides, sulphates, carbonates, borates, silicates, or nitrates of sodium, magnesium, aluminum, or calcium, associated with the potassium deposits leased, on terms and conditions not inconsistent with the sodium provisions of subchapter VII of this chapter: Provided further, That where valuable deposits of mineral now subject to disposition under the general mining laws are found in fissure veins on any of the lands subject to permit or lease under this subchapter, the valuable minerals so found shall continue subject to disposition under the said general mining laws notwithstanding the presence of potash therein.

(Feb. 7, 1927, ch. 66, §4, 44 Stat. 1058.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The sodium provisions of subchapter VII of this chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "the sodium provisions of the Act of February 25, 1920 (Forty-first Statutes at Large, page 437)", which means sections 23 to 25 of act Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 447, which are classified to subchapter VII (§261 et seq.) of this chapter.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of act Feb. 25, 1920, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 437, known as the Mineral Leasing Act, which comprises this chapter.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—CLERK
SERVED: JANUARY16, 2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0485 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0486 
' 2 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES 

FAA DOCKET No. CPll SWOOOO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2011-0680 and -0779 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

A portion of the transcript in these proceedings, dated October 2, 2012, currently is tmder 

seal. The undersigned proposes to unseal pages 13-33. It is tentatively decided that the public 

interest in freely disseminated information is stronger than any considerations favoring 

continuation of the testimony's current status. Moreover, it does not independently appear that 

any ofthis testimony warrants sealing. 

The parties are directed to show cause by January 30, 2013 (receipt date) why the 

transcript pages referenced should not be unsealed and made publicly available. A final ruling 

will issue after that date. 

Attachment - Service List 

f) n n11f\ _() .-. 

Richard 

0(-A .. ~L~~ 

C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
( 

--------------.......... 

3 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

ONE COPY 

Todd C. Emerson, Respondent's Representative 

Director - Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAJ(: 435-634-3505 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

TEL: 415-421-0250 

FAJ(: 415-421-2560 

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-2161 

FAJ(: 425-227-1007 

FDMS Nos. F AA-2011-0485 

& FAA-2011-0486, 0779, 

0680 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 . 

.......... ______________ _ 
4 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 · 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAJ(: 202-366-7536
§ 185.105 Review by the reviewing official. If, based on the report of the investigating official under § 185.104(b), the reviewing official determines that there is adequate evidence to believe that a person is liable under § 185.103, the reviewing official shall transmit to the Attorney General a written notice of the reviewing official's intention to have a complaint issued under § 185.107. Such notice shall include: ( a ) A statement of the reviewing official's reasons for issuing a complaint;
( b ) A statement specifying the evidence that supports the allegations of liability;
( c ) A description of the claims or statements upon which the allegations of liability are based;
( d ) An estimate of the amount of money, or the value of property, services, or other benefits, requested or demanded in violation of § 185.103;
( e ) A statement of any exculpatory or mitigating circumstances that may relate to the claims or statements known by the reviewing official or the investigating official; and
( f ) A statement that there is a reasonable prospect of collecting an appropriate amount of penalties and assessments.
### §792. Account

(a) Establishment of Separate Account.—There is established in the Treasury as a separate account for the Government Accountability Office the "Center for Audit Excellence Account", which shall consist of the fees deposited by the Comptroller General under section 791(c) and such other amounts as may be appropriated under law.

(b) Use of Account.—Amounts in the Center for Audit Excellence Account shall be available to the Comptroller General, in amounts specified in appropriations Acts and without fiscal year limitation, to carry out this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1401(a)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2540.)
### §1421. Prevention of interference with other uses of the high seas

Each license and permit issued under this subchapter shall include such restrictions as may be necessary and appropriate to ensure that exploration or commercial recovery activities conducted by the licensee or permittee do not unreasonably interfere with the interests of other states in their exercise of the freedoms of the high seas, as recognized under general principles of international law.

(Pub. L. 96–283, title I, §111, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 571.)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, James R. Lattanzi, Chief Financial Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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 this report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date:  July ___, 2003                        /s/ James R. Lattanzi
                                             --------------------------
                                             James R. Lattanzi
                                             Chief Financial Officer
§ 1315.13 Commodity Credit Corporation payments. As provided in § 1315.1(d), the provisions of this part apply to payments relating to the procurement of property and services made by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) pursuant to Section 4(h) of the Act of June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714b(h)) (“CCC Charter Act”) and payments to which producers on a farm are entitled under the terms of an agreement entered into pursuant to the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 *et seq.*) (“1949 Act”.) Such payments shall be subject to the following provisions: ( a ) *Payment standards.* Payments to producers on a farm under agreements entered into under the 1949 Act and payments to vendors providing property and services under the CCC Charter Act, shall be made as close as possible to the required payment date or loan closing date.
( b ) *Interest penalties.* An interest penalty shall be paid to vendors or producers if the payment has not been made by the required payment or loan closing date. The interest penalty shall be paid: ( 1 ) On the amount of payment or loan due;
( 2 ) For the period beginning on the first day beginning after the required payment or loan closing date and, except as determined appropriate by the CCC consistent with applicable law, ending on the date the amount is paid or loaned; and
( 3 ) Out of funds available under Section 8 of the CCC Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714f).
( c ) *Contract Disputes Act of 1978.* Insofar as covered CCC payments are concerned, provisions relating to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*) in § 1315.10(a)(5)(i) and § 1315.6(a) do not apply.
( d ) *Extended periods for payment.* Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, the CCC may allow claims for such periods of time as are consistent with authorities applicable to its operations.
§ 1206.5 Change in meeting plans after notice. ( a ) After notice of a meeting has been published, the Board may change the time or place of the meeting only if it announces the change publicly at the earliest practicable time.
( b ) After notice of a meeting has been published, the Board may not change either the subject matter of the meeting or the decision that the meeting will be open to the public or closed unless both of the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) By majority, recorded vote, the Board members determine that Board business requires the change and that no earlier announcement of the change was possible; and
( 2 ) Notice of the change, and of the individual Board members' vote, is published in the Federal Register at the earliest practicable time.
**EXHIBIT 11.1**

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHAREEARNINGS

 

             The following schedules reflect theinformation used in calculating the number of shares in the computation of netloss per common share for each of the periods set forth in the Statements ofOperations.
** **BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARECOMPUTATIONTHREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000

 
Weighted Average Shares  Outstanding:         TOTAL # DAYS      SHARES OUTSTANDING      7,016,029x6 =42,096,174   7,018,059x4 =28,072,236   7,020,039x17 =119,340,663   7,020,342x5 =35,101,710   7,021,002x20 =140,420,040   7,034,921x40 =281,396,840            92 =646,427,663               646,427,663/ 92=7,026,388        
 
      Loss Per Share:           Net Loss plus dividend accrual plus accretion of offering costs $(1,952,478)=$(0.28)    Weighted Avg. Shares 7,026,388         
 

BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONTHREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001

 
Weighted Average Shares  Outstanding:         TOTAL # DAYS      SHARES OUTSTANDING      9,079,313x2 =18,158,626   9,267,993x45 =417,059,685   9,278,711x44 =408,263,284            91 =843,481,595                        843,481,595/ 91=9,269,029        
 
      Loss Per Share:           Net Loss plus dividend accrual plus accretion of offering costs $(1,942,908) =$(0.21)    Weighted Avg. Shares 9,269,029         
 

 

BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONSIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
Weighted Average Shares  Outstanding:         TOTAL # DAYS      SHARES OUTSTANDING      6,572,135x3 =19,716,405    6,574,135x7 =46,018,945    6,576,135x15 =98,642,025    6,578,135x14 =92,093,890    6,591,135x1 =6,591,135    6,596,135x6 =39,576,810    6,624,189x8 =52,993,512    6,629,189x1 =6,629,189    6,691,762x6 =40,150,572    6,706,762x1 =6,706,762    6,723,424x3 =20,170,272    6,734,224x14 =94,279,136    6,734,917x4 =26,939,668    6,772,512x6 =40,635,072    7,016,029x7 =49,112,203    7,018,059x4 =28,072,236    7,020,039x17 =119,340,663    7,020,342x5 =35,101,710    7,021,002x20 =140,420,040    7,034,921x40 =281,396,840             182 =1,244,587,085               1,244,587,085/ 182 =6,838,391        
 
      Loss Per Share:           Net Loss plus dividend accrual plus accretion of offering costs $(3,729,777) =$(0.55)    Weighted Avg. Shares 6,838,391         
 

 

BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATIONSIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001

 
Weighted Average Shares  Outstanding:         TOTAL # DAYS      SHARES OUTSTANDING      9,067,700x5  =45,338,500   9,077,338x2  =18,154,676   9,078,463x10  =90,784,630   9,078,888x22  =199,735,536   9,079,313x53  =481,203,589   9,267,993x45  =417,059,685   9,278,711x44  =408,263,284            181 =1,660,539,900                        1,660,539,900/ 181= 9,174,254        
 
      Loss Per Share:           Net Loss plus dividend accrual plus accretion of offering costs $(4,215,413) =$(0.46)    Weighted Avg. Shares 9,174,254