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 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 02-055 May 1, 2002

 NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATE FOR ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNIT 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by Entergy Nuclear Southwest to

increase the generating capacity of the Arkansas Nuclear One Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, by 7.5

percent, or 64 megawatts. 

The power uprate at the plant, near Russelleville, Arkansas, will increase the generating capacity

of Unit 2 to 922 megawatts of electricity. The licensee intends to implement the power uprate during

the current refueling and maintenance outage. The application for the power increase was submitted to

the NRC on December 19, 2000.

The NRC’s safety evaluation of the requested power uprate for the plant focused on several

areas, including nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems,

accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations and technical specification changes. The

NRC staff determined that the licensee could safely increase the power output of the reactor primarily

by using new fuel in the core and making certain plant modifications.

###
#### § 1305.5 No private right of action.

This part is intended only to provide guidance for the internal operations of OMB, and is not intended to, and does not, and may not be relied upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Wenfield Realty Corporation, Appellant, against William S. Miller et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Order modified (see companion appeal, *People ex rel. Klauber*v. *Miller, ante,*p. 996, decided herewith), as follows:

> *Land Building Total*

> 1935 $15,500 $10,500 $26,000

> 1936 14,500 10,250 24,750

> 1937 13,500 10,000 23,500

> 1938-39 13,000 9,750 22,750

> 1939-40 12,500 9,500 22,000

> 1940^11 12,500 9,250 21,750

> 1941-42 12,500 9,000 21,500

and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to r elator-app ellant.

Present — Townley, Glennon, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously modified as indicated in opinion and as so modified affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to the relator-appellant. Settle order on notice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            58,013
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      21,197
<MORTGAGE>                                         131
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 114,802
<CASH>                                          19,520
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                 918
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         143,477
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,274,132
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 97,180
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                735
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        1,005,548
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 41,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,500
<COMMON>                                         4,502
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,274,132
<PREMIUMS>                                       1,950
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,634
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                (82)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     201
<BENEFITS>                                       5,176
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      1,326
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            10,909
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,751)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (990)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

July 13, 2011

The Honorable Robert M. Summers

Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

On June 23, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision 

to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE). The SIP revision pertains to the adoption of EPA’s Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts coating and includes amendments to 

Regulation .07 and new Regulation .07-2 under COMAR 26.11.19 – Volatile Organic 

Compounds from Specific Processes. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively

and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Irene Shandruk, 

at (215) 814-2166. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. 

Sincerely,

 /s/

 Diana Esher, Director

 Air Protection Division 

cc: George S. Aburn, Director, MDE

Brian Hug, MDE
Exhibit
      32.2





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. §1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Allegro Biodiesel Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W.
      Brucer Comer III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §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.





/s/
                W. Bruce Comer IIIW.
                Bruce Comer IIIChief
                Executive OfficerMay
                11, 2007











A
      signed
      original of the written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City of New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title, etc., for the Opening and Extending of Titus Street, etc. On Petition of Max C. Burger, as Administrator, etc., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., taking no part.
**EXHIBIT13.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 20-Ffor the fiscal year ended November 25, 2006 (the “Report”) by NovamericanSteel Inc. (the “Company”), the undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

·       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

|        | /s/* Lawrence  P. Cannon* |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|        | Name:                          | Lawrence  P. Cannon, CA, MBA |
|   | Title:                         | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
### §35a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 35a was editorially reclassified as section 5303 of this title.
§ 2411.11 Modification of time limits. ( a ) In unusual circumstances, as specified in this section, the time limits prescribed with respect to initial determinations or determinations on appeal may be extended by written notice from the agency component handling the request (either initial or on appeal) to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. As appropriate, the notice shall provide the requester with an opportunity to limit the scope of the request so that it may be processed within the time limit or an opportunity to arrange with the processing agency component an alternative time frame for processing the request or a modified request. No such notice shall specify a date that would result in a total extension of more than 10 working days. To aid the requester, the FOIA Public Liaison shall assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the processing agency component, and shall notify the requester of the requester's right to seek dispute resolution services from the OGIS.
( b ) As used in this section, “unusual circumstances” means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request: ( 1 ) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the processing agency component;
( 2 ) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request; or
( 3 ) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.
( c ) Expedited processing of a request for records, or an appeal of a denial of a request for expedited processing, shall be provided when the requester demonstrates a compelling need for the information and in other cases as determined by the officer processing the request. A requester seeking expedited processing can demonstrate a compelling need by submitting a statement certified by the requester to be true and correct to the best of such person's knowledge and belief and that satisfies the statutory and regulatory definitions of compelling need. Requesters shall be notified within 10 calendar days after receipt of such a request whether expedited processing, or an appeal of a denial of a request for expedited processing, was granted. As used in this section, “compelling need” means: ( 1 ) That a failure to obtain requested records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
( 2 ) With respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.
[82 FR 2854, Jan. 10, 2017]
### SUBCHAPTER II—STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors
 Barbeques Galore Limited
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 333-46529) of Barbeques Galore Limited of our audit report dated
August 8, 1997 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Barbeques
Galore Limited and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1995 and June 30, 1996 and for
each of the two years in the period ended June 30, 1996, which report appears
in the January 31, 1998 annual report on Form 20-F of Barbeques Galore
Limited.
 
/s/ Horwath Sydney Partnership
 
April 29, 1998
Sydney, Australia
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon GUTIERREZ-ELENES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50382.

D.C. No. CR-00-02970-NAJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramon Gutierrez-Elenes, *Jr.,*appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 24r-month sentence for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, dismiss in part.

Gutierrez-Elenes first contends the district court erred by denying his request for downward departure based upon a combination of factors involving unusual family circumstances. Specifically, Gutierrez-Elenes argues it is unclear from the silent record whether the district court recognized that it had the authority to depart. The district court has no obligation to affirmatively state that it has authority to depart when it sentences within the guideline range instead of departing. *United States v. Garciar-Garcia,*927 F.2d 489, 491 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam). Failure to depart, when the record is silent on the issue of authority and the sentence imposed is within the applicable guideline range, is lawful and cannot be appealed on that basis. *Id.*

Gutierrez-Elenes next contends that under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 21 U.S.C. § 960 is unconstitutional. This argument is precluded by *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir.2002).

Alternatively, Gutierrez-Elenes argues that if section 960 is constitutional under *Apprendi,*then his conviction should still be reversed for the district court’s failure to advise him that knowledge of the type and amount of a controlled substance imported are elements of the offense. This argument is precluded by our recent deci*698sion in *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
MAR 1 1 2016 

TRA8 n. LIN EMAN 

R 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF DEBORAH 

EDWARDS, DECEASED. 

CARL DEAN EDWARDS, 

Appellant, 

No. 69836 

FILED 

VS. 

UNKNOWN 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from an order denying a motion to 

transport an inmate and denying a petition for letters of administration to 

issue. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, 

Judge. 

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant 

to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the notice of 

appeal appears to be prematurely filed under NEAP 4(a) because it 

appears that it was filed before the entry of a final written judgment, and 

is therefore of no effect. See NRAP 4(a)(1); Rust v. Clark Cty. School 

District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987). Accordingly, we conclude 

that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e R? 
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Carl Dean Edwards 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947.9 411S0 2
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITIORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
United Rentals, Inc. (Form S-3 No.'s 333-41419-99, 333-70151, 333-70255,
333-64463, 333-86197, and 333-57916), the Registration Statement of United
Rentals, Inc. (Form S-8 No. 333-70345) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Option Plan,
1998 Stock Option Plan, and 1998 Supplemental Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement of United Rentals, Inc. (Form S-8 No. 333-60458)
pertaining to the 2001 Stock Plan, the Registration Statements of United
Rentals, Inc. (Form S-8 No. 333-74091 and 333-87903) pertaining to the options
outstanding in connection with the 1997 Performance Award Plan of U.S. Rentals
assumed pursuant to the merger with U.S. Rentals and the Registration Statement
of United Rentals, Inc. (Form S-8 No. 333-39770) pertaining to the United
Rentals, Inc. 401(k) Investment Plan and United Rentals, Inc. Acquisition Plan,
of our report dated February 19, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of United Rentals, Inc. included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

MetroPark, New Jersey
March 28, 2002
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. 00-143 September 22, 2000

NRC HISTORIAN EXAMINES

HISTORY OF RADIATION PROTECTION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s historian, J. Samuel Walker, examines the

evolution during the twentieth century of radiation protection standards and efforts to ensure radiation

safety for nuclear workers and the general public in a recently published book, Permissible Dose.

The book covers the political and scientific debate on radiation risks caused by fallout from

nuclear bomb testing, exposure from medical or manufacturing procedures, effluents from nuclear

power, and radioactivity from man-made and natural sources. It shows how scientific research and

political controversy have led to revisions in the “maximum permissible dose” and why exposure

standards have been tightened since the 1930s.

The primary focus of the book is on the programs and roles of the federal agencies--the Atomic

Energy Commission, the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency--established to provide

protection for those exposed to low-level radiation from activities under their jurisdictions.

The book does not represent an official position of the NRC nor should the conclusions be

viewed as policy statements of the agency. It is the third in a series of publications on the history of

nuclear regulation sponsored by the NRC. The previous two volumes by the NRC historian are

Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation, 1946-1962 and Containing the Atom:

Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963-1971. All three books have been published by

the University of California Press.

###
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1526 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1526

                   For the relief of Charmaine Bieda.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 31, 2003

Mr. Kanjorski introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Charmaine Bieda.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF CLAIM.

     The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Charmaine Bieda of Nanticoke, 
Pennsylvania, the sum of $10,000,000. The payment required by this 
section shall be in full satisfaction of all claims that Charmaine 
Bieda may have against the United States relating to the murder of her 
daughter, Charlene Michelle Bieda Moore, by Charlene's husband Bruce 
Moore on December 19, 1984, while Charlene and Bruce were serving in 
the United States Army and after Charlene had requested that the Army 
protect her from Bruce and had informed their superiors that he was 
abusing her.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

     It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
payment required by section 1 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for any service rendered in connection with the payment. Any 
person who violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and 
shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
### §6304. Using grant agreements

An executive agency shall use a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—

(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and

(2) substantial involvement is not expected between the executive agency and the State, local government, or other recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in the agreement.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1004.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6304 | 41:504. | Feb. 3, 1978, Pub. L. 95–224, §5, 92 Stat. 4. |

The words "type of" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "money, property, services" are omitted as being included in "a thing of value". The words "in order" are omitted as surplus. The words "law of the United States" are substituted for "Federal statute" for consistency.