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

 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 03-057 May 7, 2003

NRC RENEWS LICENSE FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC

POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3, FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 YEARS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has renewed the operating license of the

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, located approximately 18 miles south of

Lancaster, Pennsylvania, for an additional 20 years. The plant is operated by Exelon Generation

Company.

Exelon submitted its license renewal application to the NRC on July 2, 2001. The license

for Peach Bottom 2 will now expire on August 8, 2033, and the license for Peach Bottom 3 will

now expire on July 2, 2034.

The NRC’s environmental review is described in a site-specific supplement to the NRC’s

“Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,"

(NUREG-1437, Supplement 10). In the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS), issued in January 2003, the staff concluded that there were no impacts that would preclude

renewal of the license for environmental reasons. Two public meetings on the EIS were held in

Delta, Pennsylvania, on July 31, 2002.

In its “Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Peach Bottom Atomic

Power Station, Units 2 and 3,” NUREG-1769, issued in February 2003, the NRC staff concluded

that there were no safety concerns that would preclude license renewal, because the licensee had

demonstrated the capability to manage the effects of plant aging. In addition, the NRC conducted

inspections of the plants to verify information submitted by the licensee. Copies of the EIS and

safety evaluation are available on the NRC Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/peach-bottom.html .

On March 14, 2003, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards -- an independent

body of technical experts which advises the Commission -- issued its recommendation that the

operating licenses for Peach Bottom, Units 2 and 3, be renewed. That recommendation is

contained in "Report on the Safety Aspects of the License Renewal Applications for the Peach

Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3." A copy of this document is available on the NRC

Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/letters/2003/5002027.html .
A complete listing of completed renewal applications, as well as those currently under

review, can be found on the NRC’s Web site at this address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html .

###
### §1476. Emergencies

In cases of extreme urgency requiring measures to be taken immediately, the Secretary may take those measures rendered necessary by the urgency of the situation without the prior consultation or notification as required by section 1475 of this title or without the continuation of consultations already begun.

(Pub. L. 93–248, §7, Feb. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 9.)
#### Ernest M. High, Appellant, v. Trade Union Courier Publishing Corporation, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 922.]
Third Department,

October, 1953.

(October 16, 1953.)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Otis Luke Washington, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Defendant was indicted for murder in the second degree and ' convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. The essential questions here are to determine if it was the act of the defendant which caused the death of the decedent; and if that be found, to determine if defendant was then acting in self-defense.

Whether defendant killed decedent is an open question on this record on which a jury could readily find one way or another; but whether defendant was the aggressor or acted in self-defense when singlehanded he engaged in a *897fight with the decedent and two of decedent’s companions on the street, is a very close question. It required unusual care on the part of counsel on both sides to keep the attention of the jury focused on this problem and not diverted to tangent questions.

We think there ought to be a new trial in the interests of justice. Upon such a trial, the proceedings of counsel on both sides ought to be directed solely to aiding the jury in determining the essential questions in the case. Both sides tended, on the trial here reviewed, to divert the jury’s attention from the important and close problems it had in hand. We regard the reasons for the assignment of counsel, the compensation of counsel on assignment, the feeling of the jurors toward the administration of justice in the county generally, and the color of the defendant, or of any of the witnesses, as quite immaterial.

A great many additional errors on the trial are assigned by appellant to seek reversal. Many of them, even if technical errors, would not warrant disturbing the judgment. Some of them are not errors. Defendant was not permitted to show the kind of a knife which decedent was accused of using in a Florida indictment for homicide on which decedent had been acquitted. We think this was properly excluded.

The criminal action in which decedent had been acquitted was no proof of his vicious or dangerous propensities, especially in the absence of any proof that the defendant here knew either of the accusation or of the decedent’s propensities. The authenticated certificate of conviction of *“*Ottie ” Luke Washington for misdemeanor in California was properly received. Where a court can see that clerical or other error might exist, the exhibit is receivable and the question of identity with proper instructions, left to the jury.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed, on the facts, and in the interests of justice a new trial ordered.

Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the facts, and in the interests of justice a new trial ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1529 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1529

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the 
                dismissal of certain involuntary cases.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1529

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To amend title 11 of the United States Code with respect to the 
                dismissal of certain involuntary cases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Involuntary Bankruptcy Improvement 
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 303 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(l)(1) If--
            ``(A) the petition under this section is false or contains 
        any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement;
            ``(B) the debtor is an individual; and
            ``(C) the court dismisses such petition;
the court, upon motion of the debtor, shall expunge from the records of 
the court such petition, all the records relating to such petition in 
particular, and all references to such petition.
    ``(2) If the debtor is an individual and the court dismisses a 
petition under this section, the court may enter an order prohibiting 
all consumer reporting agencies (as defined in section 603 of the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act) from making any consumer report (as defined in 
section 603 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act) that contains any 
information relating to such petition or to the case commenced by the 
filing of such petition.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 10, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
(October 19, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of Irving Steinberg, Appellant, against William D. Meisser et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the County of Nassau, Respondents, and Albert A. Arditti, Intervener, Respondent.*

*

 Affd. with memorandum 291 N. Y. 685.

Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 American Bio Medica
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2002
(the "Report"), I, Keith E. Palmer, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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/ Keith E. Palmer
                                               -----------------------------
                                               Keith E. Palmer
                                               Chief Financial Officer and
                                               Vice President

                                               November 13, 2002
§ 122.119 Transportation to another U.S. port. ( a ) *Application.* Air cargo shipments may be transferred for transportation as transit air cargo from the port of arrival to another port in the U.S. under this section. The director of the port of arrival may require Customs supervision of the transfer.
( b ) *Time.* Transit air cargo traveling to a final port of destination in the U.S. shall be delivered to Customs at its destination within 30 days from the date the receiving airline gives the receipt for the cargo at the port of arrival.
( c ) *Transit air cargo manifest copies.* Four copies of the transit air cargo manifest, including a carrier manifest copy, shall be filed by the airline giving a receipt for moving the cargo shipments to their destination. The permit copy is used and kept by Customs at the port of arrival.
( d ) *Failure to deliver on time* — ( 1 ) *Procedure.* If transit air cargo does not arrive at the destination port on time, the director of the port of arrival shall take action as provided in §§ 18.6 and 18.8 of this chapter. The amount of duty and tax shall be decided at the port of arrival on the basis of information: ( i ) On the permit copy kept at the port of arrival; and
( ii ) Obtained from the carriers as necessary. The director of the port of arrival shall notify the airline that presented a receipt for the cargo that there has been a failure to deliver.
( 2 ) *Responsibility of airline.* When the airline that presented a receipt for the cargo receives notice of discrepancies, the airline shall answer within 90 days of the date of such notice to the director of the port of arrival. The answer shall provide any information or documents related to the value and description of the cargo involved that the receipting airline and the importing airline can produce.
( e ) *Surface movement to port of destination.* If an aircraft arrives at the port of arrival with cargo to be carried as transit air cargo, the cargo may be transferred to another carrier for surface movement to the port of destination. The transfer is allowed under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The bond of the party receiving the cargo for surface movement must cover the transfer and surface movement;
( 2 ) The description of the cargo on the transit air cargo manifest must be complete;
( 3 ) The entire shipment listed in the transit air cargo manifest must be shipped from the port of arrival to the port of destination by the same surface carrier; and
( 4 ) The requirements of § 122.114(b) must be followed.
[T.D. 88-12, 54 FR 9292, Mar. 22, 1988; T.D. 00-22, 65 FR 16518, Mar. 29, 2000, as amended by CBP Dec. 17-13, 82 FR 45405, Sept. 28, 2017]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-05-0054 - Proposed Rule:  Radiological Criteria for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18)

Accession Number: ML041550790

Date Released: Monday, April 18, 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.
    - ML050750495 - SECY-05-0054 - Proposed Rule:  Radiological Criteria for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18) (11 page(s), 3/31/2005)
    - ML022980606 - SRM-SECY-02-0133 - Control of Solid Materials: Options and Recommendations for Proceeding. (2 page(s), 10/25/2002)
    - ML050750533 - SECY-05-0054-Attachment 2-Federal Register Notice for Proposed Rule Radiological Criteria for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18)  Attachment 2 (108 page(s), 3/31/2005)
    - ML050830505 - SECY-05-0054-Attachment 3 - - Draft GEIS - Controlling the Disposition of Solid Material - ML050800255 (1 page(s), 3/31/2005)
    - ML050760205 - SECY-05-0054-Attachment 4 - Regulatory Analysis for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (10 CFR Part 20 - RIN 3150-AH18) Attachment 4 (82 page(s), 3/31/2005)
    - ML050760262 - SECY-05-0054-Attachment 5 -   Cooperating Agency and Agreement State Letters re:  Proposed Rule and Draft GEIS for Radiological  Criteria for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (55 page(s), 3/31/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
Return
      to Main Document





EXHIBIT
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Mexoro Minerals Limited (the “Company”) on
      Form
      10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2006, as filed with the United
      States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:








(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; 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:
      March 16, 2007


/s/
      Kurt
      Bordian


Chief
      Financial Officer
# Delegation of Certain Functions Related to the Sudan Peace Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby delegate to you the determination, certification, and reporting functions conferred upon the President by sections 6(b)(1) and 6(c) of the Sudan Peace Act (Public Law 107-245). 

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. 04-24302

Billing code 4710-10-P
#### Michael Tuohey, Respondent, v. Edward J. McGratty and Charles McGratty, Doing Business under the Firm Name, etc., Appellants.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present— Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
#### § 2429.6 Oral argument.

The Authority or the General Counsel, in their discretion, may request or permit oral argument in any matter arising under this subchapter under such circumstances and conditions as they deem appropriate.
#### § 1216.204 Service of requests or demands.

Requests or demands for official records or information or testimony under this subpart must be served on the Clerk of the Board, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419-0002 by mail, fax, or e-mail and clearly marked “Part 1216 Request for Testimony or Official Records in Legal Proceedings.” The request or demand will be immediately forwarded to the General Counsel for processing.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 File Nos. 33-87591, 33-95803, 33-90727) pertaining to the 1998 Stock
Plan, 1999 Directors' Stock Option Plan; the 1998 Stock Option Plan; and the
1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1998 Stock Plan, Promedix.com Inc. 1998 Stock
Option Plan, SpecialityMD.com Corporation 1998 Stock Option Plan of our report
dated February 20, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Ventro Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2000.

                                                 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
February 20, 2001
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. 04-051 April 28, 2004

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

TO MEET MAY 6 - 8 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will hold a

public meeting May 6 - 8 in Rockville, Maryland. The committee’s discussions will include, among

other items, the proposed use of mixed-oxide lead test assemblies at the Catawba nuclear power plant,

and potential adverse effects from power uprates at nuclear power plants.

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North building, at

11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day. The meeting will be open to the public.

A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2004/agenda-512.pdf . For additional

information, please contact Dr. Sher Bahadur, at 301-415-7362, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

###
### §1226. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was comprised of Pub. L. 92–340, §7, as added Pub. L. 99–399, title IX, §906, Aug. 27, 1986, as amended. Subsections (a) and (b) of section 7 of Pub. L. 92–340 were redesignated and transferred to section 70116 of Title 46, Shipping, by Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §402(b)(1), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4264. Subsection (c) of section 7 of Pub. L. 92–340 was redesignated subsec. (f) and transferred to section 70103 of Title 46 by Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §402(c)(1), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4264. Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §408(a), (d)(1), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4268, concurrently redesignated and transferred subsections (a) and (b) of section 7 of Pub. L. 92–340 to section 70102a of Title 46 and identically redesignated subsection (c) of section 7 of Pub. L. 92–340 as subsec. (f) and transferred it to section 70103 of Title 46. However, Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8507(d)(1), (7), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4754, subsequently repealed section 408 of Pub. L. 115–282, effective on the date of enactment of Pub. L. 115–282 (Dec. 4, 2018), and provided that the provisions of law redesignated, transferred, or otherwise amended by such section 408 were amended to read as if that section had not been enacted.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1226, Pub. L. 92–340, §7, formerly title I, §106, July 10, 1972, 86 Stat. 427; renumbered §7 and amended Pub. L. 95–474, §2, Oct. 17, 1978, 92 Stat. 1475, related to requirement respecting federally licensed pilots on any foreign or domestic self-propelled vessel engaged in the foreign trade when operating in the navigable waters of the United States in areas, etc., where a pilot is not otherwise required by State law, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98–557, §29(g), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2875.

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

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8507(d)(7), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4754, provided that: "This section [probably means "subsection"] [amending this section, section 70103 of Title 46, Shipping, and section 312 of Title 49, Transportation, and repealing section 70102a of Title 46] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115–282) [Dec. 4, 2018] and apply as if included therein."
### §112h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 112h was editorially reclassified as section 5538 of this title.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

No. III-05-037 August 26, 2005

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $16,250 FINE AGAINST WESTINGHOUSE FOR

SAFETY VIOLATIONS AT SHUTDOWN FUEL FACILITY IN MISSOURI

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $16,250 fine against Westinghouse

Electric Co. for violations of NRC safety requirements during decommissioning activities at the

company’s Hematite Fuel Manufacturing Facility in Festus, Mo.

The fine is proposed for two violations of requirements for assuring that uranium used in

nuclear fuel processing is properly controlled and stored to preclude any accidental nuclear reaction. 

The violations were identified in an NRC inspection conducted from January through April.

The Hematite plant processed and fabricated fuel for nuclear power plants from 1974 until

operations ceased in 2001. Westinghouse has been performing limited decommissioning activities at

the site, including surveys and removal of processing equipment and piping, ventilation ducts, and

other material contaminated with low-enriched uranium.

NRC inspectors found that components containing uranium residues were not properly

analyzed before being stored and that the plant's procedures did not include necessary controls for

handling and storing uranium-contaminated components.

"The NRC imposes strict requirements for surveying and storing equipment containing uranium

fuel residues," said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. “Although Westinghouse failed to

meet these requirements, our inspectors determined the possibility of an accidental nuclear reaction at

the Hematite facility was very low.”

Caldwell noted that since these violations were identified, Westinghouse has taken steps to

correct the deficiencies and assure that uranium-contaminated equipment is properly evaluated and

stored during decommissioning activities.

The company has until Sept. 26 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is protested and

subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, Westinghouse may request a hearing.

The letter and Notice of Violation issued to the company are available from the NRC’s Region

III Office of Public Affairs and will be posted on the NRC’s web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html#materials .
 ###