alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §541a. Claims located prior to May 25, 1955; extralateral rights; amended notice of mining location

Any mining claim located in a manner prescribed by the mining laws of the United States upon lands of the character described in section 541 of this title, prior to May 25, 1955, if based upon a discovery of valuable source material contained in lignite shall be effective to the same extent as if such lands at the time of location, and at all times thereafter, had not been classified as or known to be valuable for coal subject to disposition under the mineral leasing laws, subject, however, to the provisions of section 541 of this title: Provided, That no extralateral rights shall attach to any mining location validated under this section: And provided further, That the locator or locators of such a mining claim shall, not later than one hundred and eighty days from and after August 11, 1955, post on the claim and file for record in the office where the notice or certificate of location is of record, an amended notice of the mining location stating that such amended notice is filed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and for the purpose of obtaining the benefits thereof; and that a copy of said amended notice is, within the said one-hundred-and-eighty-day period, filed in the land office of the Bureau of Land Management for the State in which the mining location is situated, and the mining locator thereafter complies with the requirements of this chapter.

(Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 795, §2, 69 Stat. 679.)

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

#### Extension of Time for Annual Assessment Work

Act June 29, 1956, ch. 478, 70 Stat. 438, as amended by Pub. L. 85–68, June 29, 1957, 71 Stat. 226, provided for extension of time for period commencing July 1, 1955, to 12 o'clock noon July 1, 1958, during which labor must be performed, or improvements made pursuant to section 28 of this title, or any unpatented mining claim validated under this section and for extension of time for period commencing July 1, 1956, to 12 o'clock noon July 1, 1958, during which labor must be performed, or improvements made pursuant to section 28 of this title, on any other unpatented mining claim subject to this chapter.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-01-013 March 28, 2001

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $5,500 FINE

FOR GULF COAST INTERNATIONAL INSPECTION, INC.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a fine of $5,500 against Gulf Coast

International Inspection, Inc. for violations of NRC safety regulations governing the conduct of

radiography work in off-shore waters. Gulf Coast, based in Houma, La., performs radiography and

other types of non-destructive testing for off-shore pipe laying and other operations.

One type of radiographic operation involves taking X-ray-like pictures of the welds in pipe

being laid to carry oil and gas from off shore production operations. NRC inspectors found that

company radiographers failed to post warning signs prior to conducting radiographic operations, failed

to use a required personal safety device called an alarming ratemeter, failed to maintain constant

surveillance of a radiographic exposure device, and failed to perform required exposure evaluations to

assess radiation doses to themselves and the public.

Gulf Coast officers met with the NRC in Arlington, Texas, on February 9 to discuss

circumstances surrounding the violations. Following that meeting, the NRC determined that the failure

to post warning signs was a deliberate violation and judged it to be a level III violation on the NRC’s

four-level scale. Level I is the most serious violation. Level III violations carry a $5,500 fine, unless

there are mitigating circumstances. Of the remaining violations, one was a level III for which the fine

was mitigated and the other three were level IV, which have no fine. No injuries to workers or the

public resulted from the violations.

Since the inspection, Gulf Coast has taken steps to correct the causes of the violations,

including remedial training for the radiographers involved. However, NRC Regional Administrator

Ellis W. Merschoff said in a letter to Gulf Coast president Andre Olivier, that the fine is imposed “To

emphasize the importance of strict compliance with radiation safety requirements associated with

radiography operations . . .” The company has 30 days to pay the fine or protest it. If the protest is

denied, the company may request a hearing by the NRC.

Copies of the Notice of Violation sent to Gulf Coast International Inspection, Inc. can be found

on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OE/rpr/ea00294.htm.

###
Exhibit No. 32.1


Truewest Corporation


File No.  33-56574


Form 10-Q


Quarter ended March 31, 2010





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Truewest Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn A. Little, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: April 23, 2010
By:
/s/ Glenn A. LittleGlenn A. LittleChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Truewest Corporation and will be retained by Truewest Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 179.302 Definitions.

*Administrative offset,* as defined in 31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(1), means withholding money payable by the United States Government to, or held by the Government for, a person to satisfy a debt the person owes the Government.

*Person,* includes a natural person or persons, profit or non-profit corporation, partnership, association, trust, estate, consortium, or other entity which is capable of owing a debt to the United States Government except that agencies of the United States, or of any State or local government, shall be excluded.
|   | (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Stefan Parker                                                                  |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Stefan      Parker                                                                 |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer/Executive Vice President, Finance |   |
|   | Principal      Financial Officer                                                   |   |
|   | Principal      Accounting Officer                                                  |   |
|   | August      12, 2010                                                               |   |

----
§ 24.21 Administrative overhead charges. ( a ) *Reimbursable and overtime services.* An additional charge for administrative overhead costs shall be collected from parties-in-interest who are required to reimburse Customs for compensation and/or expenses of Customs officers performing reimbursable and overtime services for the benefit of such parties under §§ 24.17 and 24.16, respectively, of this part. The cost of the charge for administrative overhead shall be 15 percent of the compensation and/or expenses of the Customs officers performing the service.
( b ) *Other services.* An additional charge for administrative overhead costs shall be collected from parties-in-interest who are required to reimburse Customs for compensation and/or expenses of Customs officers performing various services for the benefit of such parties. The cost of the charge for administrative overhead shall be 15 percent of the compensation and/or expenses of the Customs officers performing the service. The fees, whether billed or not, include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Navigation fees for vessel services in § 4.98;
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) Fee to establish container stations in § 19.40;
( 4 ) Fee for furnishing the names and addresses of importers of merchandise appearing to infringe a registered patent in § 24.12(a)(3);
( 5 ) Charge for storing merchandise in a Government-owned or rented building in § 24.12(c);
( 6 ) Charge for the sale of in-bond and in-transit seals in § 24.13(f);
( 7 ) Charge for the sale of Customs forms in § 24.14(b);
( 8 ) Charge for preclearing aircraft in a foreign country in § 24.18;
( 9 ) Fee for issuing a customhouse broker's license in § 111.12(a);
( 10 ) Fee for designating a carrier or freight forwarder as a carrier of Customs bonded merchandise in § 112.12(a);
( 11 ) Fee for issuing a Customs bonded cartman's license in § 112.22(a)(2);
( 12 ) Fee for recording of trademarks in § 133.3;
( 13 ) Fee for renewing, or recording a change in name of owner, or of ownership of, a trademark in §§ 133.5(d), 133.6(b), 133.7(a)(3);
( 14 ) Fee for recording of trade name in § 133.13(b);
( 15 ) Fee for recording a copyright in § 133.33(b); and
( 16 ) Fee for renewing, or recording a change in name of owner, or of ownership of, a copyright in §§ 133.35(b)(2), 133.36(b), 133.37(a)(3);
( c ) *No administrative overhead charge.* No additional charge for administrative overhead costs discussed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be collected if ( 1 ) imposition of such charge is precluded by law;
( 2 ) there is a formal accounting system for determining administrative overhead for a service, in which case that system shall be used for determining the cost of the charge for administrative overhead; or
( 3 ) the charge for administrative overhead for a service is specifically provided for elsewhere in this chapter.
[T.D. 84-231, 49 FR 46122, Nov. 23, 1984, as amended by T.D. 95-99, 60 FR 62733, Dec. 7, 1995; T.D. 99-64, 64 FR 43266, Aug. 10, 1999]
§ 2430.4 Allowable fees and expenses. ( a ) ( 1 ) ( i ) No award for the fee of an attorney or agent under this part may exceed $125.00 per hour, or for adversary adjudications commenced prior to March 29, 1996, $75.00 per hour, indexed to reflect cost of living increases as follows:
( ii ) The cost of living index to be used is the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, All Items (CPI-U). If legal services are provided during more than one year, each year shall be calculated separately. If an annual average CPI-U for a particular year is not yet available, the prior year's annual average CPI-U shall be used.
( 2 ) No award to compensate an expert witness may exceed the highest rate that the Authority pays expert witnesses. However, an award may also include the reasonable expenses of the attorney, agent, or witness as a separate item, if the attorney, agent, or witness ordinarily charges clients separately for such expenses.
( b ) In determining the reasonableness of the fee sought for an attorney, agent or expert witness, the following matters may be considered: ( 1 ) If the attorney, agent or witness is in practice, his or her customary fee for similar services, or, if an employee of the applicant, the fully allocated cost of the services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which the attorney, agent or witness ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in the representation of the applicant;
( 4 ) The time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty or complexity of the issues in the proceeding; and
( 5 ) Such other factors as may bear on the value of the services provided.
( c ) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project or similar matters prepared on behalf of an applicant may be awarded, to the extent that the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services, and the study or other matter was necessary for preparation of the applicant's case.
[46 FR 48623, Oct. 2, 1981, as amended at 64 FR 30861, June 9, 1999; 65 FR 10374, Feb. 28, 2000]
### §646. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated, from any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 85–701, §6, Aug. 21, 1958, 72 Stat. 701.)
§ 2424.31 Hearings and other appropriate action. When necessary to resolve disputed issues of material fact in a negotiability or bargaining obligation dispute, or when it would otherwise aid in decision making, the Authority, or its designated representative, may, in its discretion: ( a ) Direct the parties to provide specific documentary evidence;
( b ) Direct the parties to provide answers to specific factual questions;
( c ) Refer the matter to a hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7117(b)(3) or (c)(5); or
( d ) Take any other appropriate action.
[63 FR 66413, Dec. 2, 1998, as amended at 88 FR 62459, Sept. 12, 2023; 88 FR 69873, Oct. 10, 2023]
t NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

Web Site: hltzp:/wwv.nrc.Fov/OPA

No. I-05-021 April 17, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opal nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC MONITORING EVENT AT MILLSTONE 3

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring activities at Millstone Unit 3 nuclear power

plant in Waterford, Conn., following the declaration of an "Alert" at the plant at 8:42 a..m. today

(4/17/05). The plant is operated by Dominion Nuclear.

Just before 8:30 this morning, the plant automatically shut down and a steam generator safety

relief valve lifted and failed to close, causing the company to declare an "Alert." The safety relief valves

are located on each steam line and are used to control pressure on the lines. The main steam lines carry

steam from the steam generators to the turbine to produce electricity. The main steam line safety valves

are designed to release steam to the environment. The plant is stable. Radiological monitoring by the

company to this point indicates there have been no detectable releases of radioactivity from the plant.

An "Alert" is the second lowest emergency action level in the NRC required emergency

response plan for nuclear power plants.

In response to the "Alert," the NRC has staffed its incident response center in the Region I office

in King of Prussia, Pa., and is following developments from its operations center in Rockville, Md.. The

NRC Resident Inspectors responded rapidly to the plant, where they are monitoring Dominion's

response to this event.

Wayne Lanning, who is coordinating the NRC's response from the Region I Incident Response

Center is King of Prussia, PA., said, "The NRC is following this event closely. There has been no

impact on public health and safety."

Neither Millstone Unit 1 or Unit 2 were affected by this event. Unit 2 is in a refueling outage

and Unit I is permanently shut down.

The States of Connecticut and New York have been notified.
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 JOHNENE POLLO, 

8 Worker-Appellant,

9 v. No. 30,309

10 CTS and TRAVELERS,

11 Employer/Insurer-Appellees.

12 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DIVISION

13 Gregory D. Griego, Workers’ Compensation Judge

14 David S. Proffit

15 Albuquerque, NM

16 for Appellant

17 Allen, Shepherd, Lewis, Syra & Chapman, P.A.

18 Kimberly A. Syra

19 Albuquerque, NM

20 for Appellee

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION

22 SUTIN, Judge.
2

1 Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed

2 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed

3 and the time for doing so has expired.

4 REVERSED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 ______________________________ 

10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

11 _______________________________

12 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
* District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 94-10236.

2225 NEW YORK AVENUE LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership by its General Partner GCJM,

Inc., a Texas Corp., Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Henry CISNEROS, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Nov. 18, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal turns on the construction of 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(c)(2)(C), which states:

Adjustments in the maximum rents under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall n ot result in

material differences between the rents charged for assisted units and unassisted units of similar

quality, type, and age in the same market area, as determined by the Secretary.

* * * * * *

The Secretary may not reduce the contract rents in effect on or after April 15, 1987,

for newl y constructed, substantially rehabilitated, or moderately rehabilitated projects assisted

under this sect io n (including projects assisted under this section as in effect prior to

No vember 30, 1983), unless the project has been refinanced in a manner that reduces the

periodic payments of the owner.

Appellee 2225 New York Avenue, Ltd., owns and operates an apartment complex that was renovated

for low-income housing pursuant to the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program, a rent subsidy

program promulgated by HUD. 42 U.S.C. § 1437f. Some years after HUD approved the contractual

arrangements by which appellee contracted to participate in this program, and notwithstanding the

above-quoted language, HUD attempted retroactively to "correct" the init ial rents provided for in the

transaction. There's no contention that the project has been refinanced. The effect of this

"correction" would be to lower the rents appellee was permitted to charge its low-income tenants,

and thus to disadvantage appellee economically. The limited partnership filed suit for declaratory andinjunctive relief to halt the threat ened rent ro llback and prevailed before the district court. 842

F.Supp. 924.

On appeal, both parties assert arguments essentially identical to those weighed in two other

recent cases before courts of appeals. Both of those courts of appeals construed the above-quoted

statutory language to forbid the position that HUD has taken. Terrace Housing Associates Ltd. v.

Cisneros, 32 F.3d 461 (10th Cir.1994); F oxglenn Investors Limited Partnership v. Cisneros, 35 F.3d

947 (1994). We agree with the analysis and conclusions of our sister circuits and adopt them as our

own. Further writing by this court would be pointless. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial

court is AFFIRMED.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 4821] 

The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Overseas Security Advisory Council. This advisory council will continue to interact on overseas security matters of mutual interest between the U.S. Government and the American private sector. The Council's initiatives and security publications provide a unique contribution to protecting American private sector interests abroad. The Under Secretary for Management has determined that the Council is necessary and in the public interest. 

                    The Council consists of representatives from four (4) U.S. Government agencies and thirty (30) American private sector companies and organizations. The Council will follow the procedures prescribed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463). Meetings will be open to the public unless a determination is made in accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (4), that a meeting or a portion of the meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be provided in the                     **Federal Register**                     at least 15 days prior to the meeting.                 

For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214. 

Dated: October 7, 2004. 

Joe D. Morton, 

Director of the Diplomatic, Security Service, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 04-24328 Filed 10-29-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-43-P
§ 1315.7 Discounts. Agencies shall follow these procedures in taking discounts and determining the payment due dates when discounts are taken: ( a ) *Economically justified discounts.* If an agency is offered a discount by a vendor, whether stipulated in the contract or offered on an invoice, an agency may take the discount if economically justified (see discount formula in Treasury Financial Manual (TFM) 6-8040.40)[3] but only after acceptance has occurred. Agencies are encouraged to include discount terms in a contract to give agencies adequate time to take the discount if it is determined to be economically justified.
( b ) *Discounts taken after the discount date.* If an agency takes the discount after the deadline, the agency shall pay an interest penalty on any amount remaining unpaid as prescribed in § 1315.10(a)(6).
( c ) *Payment date.* When a discount is taken, payment will be made as close as possible to, but no later than, the discount date.
( d ) *Start date.* The period for taking the discount is calculated from the date placed on the proper invoice by the vendor. If there is no invoice date on the invoice by the vendor, the discount period will begin on the date a proper invoice is actually received and date stamped or otherwise annotated by the designated agency office.
Footnotes -
1315.7
[3] The Treasury Financial Manual is available by calling the Prompt Payment Hotline at 800-266-9667 or the Prompt Payment web site at *http://www.fms.treas.gov/prompt/index.html .*
#### Jamaica-Kew Properties, Inc., Respondent, v. 478 Third Avenue Corporation, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present ■—• Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.