alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted , Appeal Reinstated, Appe al Dismissed, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 1 , 202 3
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 2

- 0 0 078

- C V

MINAZ HASSANALI AND WESTMONT HOSP ITALITY GROUP , Appellant s V.
MAHENDRA KAPADIA AND WESTCHASE INTER ESTS, LLC , Appell ee s

O n Appeal from the 334 th District Court Har ris Cou n ty, Texas Tria l C our t Ca u se No. 2021

- 51498

M EMO RANDUM O PINIO N
This is an appeal from a n order denying a m otion to co mpel arbitration signed Ja nuar y 13 , 202 2

. On May 18 , 202 3 , appella nt s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1 (a)

. The motion is g ra nted.
We reinstate the appeal and dismiss the appea l

. P ER CUR IAM
P anel consi sts of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Poissan t.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-04-0182 - Status of Risk-Informed Regulation in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

Accession Number: ML042090482

Date Released: Friday, September 23, 2005

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML042460705 - SECY-04-0182 - Status of Risk-Informed Regulation in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (4 page(s), 10/7/2004)
    - ML042460733 - SECY-04-0182-Attachment 1:  Overview of a Framework for Risk-Informed Decision-Making in NMSS (5 page(s), 10/7/2004)
    - ML042460735 - SECY-04-0182-Attachment 2:  Potential Resource Savings by Using a Systematic Risk-Informing Process (3 page(s), 10/7/2004)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO

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

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), the undersigned officer of Gateway, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Gateway), does hereby certify that:

a)
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) of Gateway fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Gateway.

Dated: May 9, 2006



By:

/s/    JOHN P.
GOLDSBERRYJohn P. Goldsberry Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
### §6404. Agency requirements

Not later than 1 year after the date on which guidance is issued or updated under subsection (b) or (c), respectively, of section 6403, the head of each agency shall—

(1) ensure that all of the Federal awards that the agency issues use data standards for all future information collection requests; and

(2) amend existing information collection requests under chapter 35 of title 44 (commonly known as the "Paperwork Reduction Act") to comply with the data standards established under section 6402 of this chapter, in accordance with the guidance issued by the Secretary and the Director under section 6403 of this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 116–103, §4(a), Dec. 30, 2019, 133 Stat. 3269.)
#### § 2421.22 Determinative challenged ballots.

*Determinative challenged ballots* are challenges that are unresolved prior to the tally and sufficient in number after the tally to affect the results of the election.

[60 FR 67291, Dec. 29, 1995]
§ 2422.10 How do you challenge the validity of a showing of interest? ( a ) *Validity.* Validity questions are raised by challenges to a showing of interest on grounds other than adequacy.
( b ) *Validity challenge.* The Regional Director or any party may challenge the validity of a showing of interest.
( c ) *When and where validity challenges may be filed.* Your challenges to the validity of a showing of interest must be in writing and filed with the Regional Director or the Hearing Officer before the hearing opens, unless you show good cause for granting an extension. If no hearing is held, you must file challenges to the validity of a showing of interest before action is taken under § 2422.30.
( d ) *Contents of validity challenges.* Your challenges to the validity of a showing of interest must be supported with evidence.
( e ) *Regional Director investigation and Decision and Order.* The Regional Director will conduct an investigation if deemed appropriate. The Regional Director's determination that a showing of interest is valid is final and binding and is not subject to collateral attack or appeal to the Authority. If the Regional Director finds that the showing of interest is not valid, the Regional Director will issue a Decision and Order dismissing the petition or denying the request to intervene.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# An Experimental Investigation of Internally Ignited Fires in Nuclear Power Plant Control Cabinets(NUREG/CR-4527,SAND86-0336)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
October 7, 2003

Illinois Emergency Management Agency

Division of Nuclear Safety

ATTN: Mr. Michael Parker

1035 Outer Park Drive

Springfield, IL 62704

Dear Mr. Parker:

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and your staff regarding the Memorandum of

Understanding between the NRC and the State of Illinois (MOU) and other initiatives proposed

by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency. Although I was unable to attend, I understand

that the discussions were candid and beneficial which resulted in a successful meeting. 

We thank you and your predecessors for what we consider to be a successful program to have

State of Illinois representatives perform inspections for and on behalf of the NRC at Illinois

nuclear power plants. We recognize the importance of open communications with you to

ensure continued successful implementation of the MOU and are committed to that end. To

facilitate this stronger communication on the day-to-day implementation of the MOU, I have

assigned Ann Marie Stone, the Branch Chief responsible for oversight at Braidwood, Byron,

and Clinton Nuclear Power Plants, as the lead for technical issues. She can be reached at

(630) 829-9729. As always, Roland Lickus will maintain responsibility for policy issues related

to the MOU.

As stated at the meeting, we would like to continue our dialog concerning the MOU and our

goal is to meet again in October 2003. Please submit potential topics for discussion by mid

October to Ann Marie Stone. We are also interested in holding our annual meeting in

December 2003. Arrangements for these meetings will be made in the near future. 

Sincerely,

/RA/

Steven A. Reynolds, Acting Director

Division of Reactor Projects
See Previous Concurrences

DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ORPCheckout\FileNET\ML032801679.wpd

To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy

OFFICE RIII N RIII C RIII

NAME AMStone:dtp* RLickus* SReynolds

DATE 09/17/03 09/18/03 10/07/03

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
IEMA -2-

ADAMS Distribution

JLC1

GEG

CDP1

RJC1

PLH

BLB

MAR

AMS1
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Thad M. Brown, certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have: 

 

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)  Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: March 8,2004
### §1414. License and permit fees

No application for the issuance or transfer of a license for exploration or permit for commercial recovery shall be certified unless the applicant pays to the Administrator a reasonable administrative fee which shall be deposited into miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. The amount of the administrative fee imposed by the Administrator on any applicant shall reflect the reasonable administrative costs incurred in reviewing and processing the application.

(Pub. L. 96–283, title I, §104, June 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 563.)
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1625

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 7, 2003

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1114 Main Avenue in Clifton, New Jersey, 

as the ‘‘Robert P. Hammer Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1625 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1114 Main Avenue in Clifton, New Jersey, shall 

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert P. Hammer Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Robert P. Hammer Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 6, 2003. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
J

~ "IEO ST,q T

, S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY r WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 y ~l~ft► z

0 F~ lqC PROS

~ G ~~ APR 1 1 21 1 11

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
J. R. Stroble Director, National TRU Prograni Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Dear Mr. Stroble: This is in response to your Apri18, 2011, request for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence with the Department of Energy's (DOE) draft amended certification letter to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterizing transuranic (TRU) waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE TRU waste generator sites. We concur that DOE's latest draft amended certification letter comports with all of EPA's existing approvals for CH TRU waste (debris, soils, and solids) and RH TRU waste (debris and solids) at SRS. The purpose of this amended certification is to correctly identify the certified container sizes for which Real-Time Radiography and Nondestructive Assay units are certified to characterize. EPA has also received and reviewed quarterly tiering reports covering Tier 2 changes to the waste characterization program implemented by CCP at SRS and have found all changes made to be acceptable. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft amended certii

- ication memo for SRS-CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9422.
Sincerely,

~~~ 

# ,Dlt , ~ 

# ) Edward Feltcorn Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable 0 Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: (Electronic Distribution)

Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA Raymond Lee, EPA
### §2716a. Financial responsibility civil penalties

#### (a) Administrative

Any person who, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, is found to have failed to comply with the requirements of section 2716 of this title or the regulations issued under that section, or with a denial or detention order issued under subsection (b)(2) of that section, shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty, not to exceed $25,000 per day of violation. The amount of the civil penalty shall be assessed by the President by written notice. In determining the amount of the penalty, the President shall take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the degree of culpability, any history of prior violation, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require. The President may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty which is subject to imposition or which had been imposed under this paragraph. If any person fails to pay an assessed civil penalty after it has become final, the President may refer the matter to the Attorney General for collection.

#### (b) Judicial

In addition to, or in lieu of, assessing a penalty under subsection (a), the President may request the Attorney General to secure such relief as necessary to compel compliance with section 2716 of this title, including a judicial order terminating operations. The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to grant any relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.

(Pub. L. 101–380, title IV, §4303, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 539; Pub. L. 115–232, div. C, title XXXV, §3547(d), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 2328.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of title I of Pub. L. 101–380 which comprises this subchapter.

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–232, §3547(d)(1), substituted "subsection (b)(2)" for "subsection (c)(2)".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–232, §3547(d)(2), substituted "section 2716" for "this section 2716".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

Specific functions of President under this section delegated to Secretary of Department in which Coast Guard is operating and Secretary of the Interior by section 5(b) of Ex. Ord. No. 12777, Oct. 18, 1991, 56 F.R. 54765, as amended, set out as a note under section 1321 of this title.
§ 220.7 Properly filed petition; identical and overlapping petitions from same petitioner. ( a ) *In general.* A petition will not be considered to be properly filed unless the petition and the Commission disclosure form are filed in accordance with and contain the information required by §§ 220.3 through 220.5
( b ) *Identical and overlapping petitions.* ( 1 ) A petition will not be considered to be properly filed if the petitioner has previously filed, and has not withdrawn, a petition for duty suspension or reduction during the current filing cycle: ( i ) For an article that is identical to that in the current petition;
( ii ) For an article whose article description includes the article covered by the current petition; or
( iii ) For an article that is included in the scope of the current petition.
( 2 ) Should the Commission find that a petitioner has filed one or more identical or overlapping petitions and that such earlier filed petitions have not been withdrawn, the Commission will generally consider the earliest filed pending petition to be the petition of the petitioner.
§ 2634.401 Overview. ( a ) *Purpose.* The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 created two types of qualified trusts, the qualified blind trust and the qualified diversified trust, that may be used by employees to reduce real or apparent conflicts of interest. The primary purpose of an executive branch qualified trust is to confer on an independent trustee and any other designated fiduciary the sole responsibility to administer the trust and to manage trust assets without participation by, or the knowledge of, any interested party or any representative of an interested party. This responsibility includes the duty to decide when and to what extent the original assets of the trust are to be sold or disposed of, and in what investments the proceeds of sale are to be reinvested. Because the requirements set forth in the Ethics in Government Act and this part assure true “blindness,” employees who have a qualified trust cannot be influenced in the performance of their official duties by their financial interests in the trust assets. Their official actions, under these circumstances, should be free from collateral attack arising out of real or apparent conflicts of interest.
( b ) *Scope.* Two characteristics of the qualified trust assure that true “blindness” exists: The independence of the trustee and the restriction on communications between the independent trustee and the interested parties. In order to serve as a trustee for an executive branch qualified trust, an entity must meet the strict requirements for independence set forth in the Ethics in Government Act and this part. Restrictions on communications also reinforce the independence of the trustee from the interested parties. During both the establishment of the trust and the administration of the trust, communications are limited to certain reports that are required by the Act and to written communications that are pre-screened by the Office of Government Ethics. No other communications, even about matters not connected to the trust, are permitted between the independent trustee and the interested parties.
§ 251.103 Definitions. ( a ) *Organization representing Federal employees and other organizations* means an organization other than a labor organization that can provide information, views, and services which will contribute to improved agency operations, personnel management, and employee effectiveness. Such an organization may be an association of Federal management officials and/or supervisors, a group representing minorities, women or persons with disabilities in connection with the agencies' EEO programs and action plans, a professional association, a civic or consumer group, and organization concerned with special social interests, and the like.
( b ) *Association of management officials and/or supervisors* means an association comprised primarily of Federal management officials and/or supervisors, which is not eligible for recognition under Chapter 71 of title 5 of the U.S. Code or comparable provisions of other laws, and which is not affiliated with a labor organization or federation of labor organizations.
( c ) *Labor organization* means an organization as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(4), which is in compliance with 5 U.S.C. 7120, or as defined in comparable provisions of other laws.
### §312. Appointment oath

Each person who is appointed as an officer of the National Guard shall subscribe to the following oath:

"I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of ____________ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and of the Governor of the State of ____________, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of ________ in the National Guard of the State of ____________ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God."

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 603.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 312 | 32:112. | June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §73 (1st par.); restated June 15, 1933, ch. 87, §11 (1st par.), 48 Stat. 157; July 9, 1952, ch. 608, §806(c), 66 Stat. 507. |

The words "Each person who is appointed as an" are inserted for clarity.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

p1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139376 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139376 

 COA: 282697 

Kalamazoo CC: 07-000624-FC 

EMMANUEL JAMARR ATKINS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.