alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30
                                 NOTE
                                 ----
US $68,700,000                                                  Hamburg, Germany
                                                               February 28, 2002

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, SPIEGEL, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the "Maker") hereby promises to pay Otto-Spiegel finance G.m.b.H. & Co. KG
("Payee"), at the time or times set forth herein and subject to the terms and
conditions hereof, the principal sum of Sixty-Eight Million Seven Hundred
Thousand Dollars and no cents (US $68,700,000) on or before November 29, 2002
(the "Maturity Date").

     The Maker further promises to pay simple interest at the rate of four
percent (4%) per annum on the principal balance outstanding hereunder at the end
of each day computed as of the close of each business day (hereinafter defined).
Such interest accrued to date shall be paid monthly, in arrears, on the last
business day of each month and on the Maturity Date. For purposes hereof, the
term "business day" shall mean any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or other
day on which commercial banks are authorized or required to close under the laws
of the Federal Republic of Germany.

     No portion of any principal payment made pursuant to this Note shall be
applied in respect of any interest due hereunder and no portion of any interest
payment made pursuant to this Note shall be applied in respect of any principal
payment due hereunder.

     The Maker may prepay this Note at any time Without premium or penalty and
in whole or in part (but if in part, in whole multiples of $100,000).

     If prior to the Maturity Date, the Maker fails to make any payment due
hereunder and such failure shall continue uncured for a period of three (3)
business days, the Payee, at its option, may, by written notice delivered to the
Maker, accelerate the payment of principal hereunder and declare all amounts due
hereunder immediately due and payable.

     The Payee shall not be deemed to have modified or waived any of its rights
or remedies hereunder unless such modifications or waiver is in writing and
signed by the Payee, and then only to the extend Specifically set forth therein.
A waiver in one event shall not be construed as continuing or as a waiver of or
bar to such right or remedy on a subsequent event.

     This Note may not be supplemented, extended, modified or terminated except
by an agreement in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement of
any such waiver, change, modification or discharge is sought.

     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the Federal Republic of Germany without reference to conflicts of law or choice
of law principles.

                                           Spiegel, Inc.

                                           By:  /s/
                                                ----------------------
                                           Its: CEO
                                                ----------------------
### §3108. Prohibition against circulation privilege

An obligation issued under sections 3102–3104(a)(1) and 3105–3107 of this title may not bear the circulation privilege.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 942.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3108 | 31:753(d)(1st sentence). | Sept. 24, 1917, ch. 56, 40 Stat. 288, §18(d)(1st sentence); added Mar. 3, 1919, ch. 100, §1, 40 Stat. 1310. |
| | 31:757c(d)(last sentence). | Sept. 24, 1917, ch. 56, 40 Stat. 288, §22(d)(last sentence); added Feb. 4, 1935, ch. 5, §6, 49 Stat. 21; restated Feb. 19, 1941, ch. 7, §3, 55 Stat. 8. |
| | 31:757c–2(c)(last sentence). | Sept. 24, 1917, ch. 56, 40 Stat. 288, §22A(c)(last sentence); added Nov. 8, 1966, Pub. L. 89–800, §5, 80 Stat. 1515. |
| | 31:758. | Sept. 24, 1917, ch. 56, §7(1st sentence), 40 Stat. 291. |

The reference in 31:758 to certificates authorized under 31:757 is omitted because the authority under 31:757 was ended by section 2(b)(3) of the Public Debt Act of 1941 (ch. 7, 55 Stat. 7).
CFO Certification



  
 Exhibit 10.2 
 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 Matrix Service Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I Bradley S. Vetal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge: 
  

	 	3.
	 
	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 
 

  

	 	4.
	 
	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 



  
 This certification is deemed to accompany this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, but is not deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise. 
  
 

 
  
 Michael J. Hall 
 Vice President – Financial

 And Chief Financial Officer 
 January 9, 2003
### §704. Accountability: relief from upon order to active duty

Upon ordering any part of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States to active duty, the President may, upon such terms as he may prescribe, relieve the State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, whichever is concerned, of accountability for property of the United States previously issued to it for the use of that part.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 613; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, §1234(b)(1), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(b)(3), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 704 | 50:1121. | July 9, 1952, ch. 608, §711, 66 Stat. 504. |

The words "to active duty" are substituted for the words "into the active military service of the United States". The word "conditions" is omitted as covered by the word "terms". The word "previously" is substituted for the word "theretofore". The word "liability" is omitted as covered by the word "accountability". The words "that part" are substituted for the words "such portion of the National Guard of the United States or of the Air National Guard of the United States".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 substituted "State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands" for "State or Territory, Puerto Rico, or the District of Columbia".

1988—Pub. L. 100–456 struck out "the Canal Zone," after "Puerto Rico,".
#### § 59.21 Purpose of subpart.

This subpart lists actions that must be taken by a community to become eligible and to remain eligible for the Program.

[41 FR 46968, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979]
§ 1820.21 Fees. ( a ) *Witness fees.* OSC may assess fees for attendance by a witness. Such fees will include fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules. If no such fees are prescribed, witness fees will be determined based on 28 U.S.C. 1821, and upon the rule of the federal district closest to the location where the witness will appear. Such fees will include the costs of time spent by the witness to prepare for testimony, in travel, and for attendance in the legal proceeding, plus travel costs.
( b ) *Payment of fees.* A requestor must pay witness fees for current OSC employees and any record certification fees by submitting to the General Counsel a check or money order for the appropriate amount made payable to the United States Department of Treasury.
§ 2418.17 How does a debtor request a special review based on a change in circumstances such as catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability? ( a ) *Material change in circumstances.* A debtor who owes an FLRA debt may, at any time, request a special review by the FLRA of the amount of any offset, administrative wage garnishment, or voluntary payment, based on materially changed circumstances beyond the control of the debtor such as, but not limited to, catastrophic illness, divorce, death, or disability.
( b ) *Inability to pay.* For purposes of this section, in determining whether an involuntary or voluntary payment would prevent the debtor from meeting essential subsistence expenses (costs incurred for food, housing, clothing, transportation, and medical care), the debtor shall submit a detailed statement and supporting documents for the debtor, his or her spouse, and dependents, indicating: ( 1 ) Income from all sources;
( 2 ) Assets;
( 3 ) Liabilities;
( 4 ) Number of dependents;
( 5 ) Expenses for food, housing, clothing, and transportation;
( 6 ) Child-care or elder-care expenses;
( 7 ) Medical expenses; and
( 8 ) Exceptional expenses, if any.
( c ) *Alternative payment arrangement.* If the debtor requests a special review under this section, the debtor shall submit an alternative proposed payment schedule and a statement to the FLRA, with supporting documents, showing why the current offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule imposes an extreme financial hardship on the debtor. The FLRA will evaluate the statement and documentation and determine whether the current offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule imposes extreme financial hardship on the debtor. The FLRA shall notify the debtor in writing of such determination, including, if appropriate, a revised offset, garnishment, or payment schedule. If the special review results in a revised offset, garnishment, or repayment schedule, then the FLRA will notify the appropriate agency or other persons about the new terms.
### §5361. Congressional findings and purpose

(a) Findings.—Congress finds the following:

(1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire transfers.

(2) The National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent such sites.

(3) Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry.

(4) New mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions or regulations on the Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or national borders.

(b) Rule of Construction.—No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting, or regulating gambling within the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 109–347, title VIII, §802(a), Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1952.)

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

#### Internet Gambling In or Through Foreign Jurisdictions

Pub. L. 109–347, title VIII, §803, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 1962, provided that:

"(a) In General.—In deliberations between the United States Government and any foreign country on money laundering, corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government should—

"(1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering, corruption, or other crimes;

"(2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of foreign governments, through information sharing or other measures, in the enforcement of this Act [probably means title VIII of Pub. L. 109–347, which enacted this subchapter, see Short Title of 2006 Amendment note set out under section 5301 of this title]; and

"(3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling operations are being used for money laundering purposes.

"(b) Report Required.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit an annual report to the Congress on any deliberations between the United States and other countries on issues relating to Internet gambling."
#### Sam Birnbaum, as Administrator of the Estate of Dora Birnbaum, Deceased, Appellant, v. Samuel L. Siegler, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff’s intestate, the complaint sets forth three causes of action in commingled form: (1) based on the alleged negligence of defendant, a surgeon, in the performance of an operation on February 7, 1942; (2) based on defendant’s alleged negligence in the performance of an operation on February 9, 1942; (3) based on defendant’s performance of the operation on February 9, 1942, without authority, the consent to that operation having been obtained by defendant’s alleged false representations. The complaint also contains a companion action for loss of services. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety at .the close of the case. Judgment modified on the law and the facts by striking therefrom the ordering paragraph and inserting in place thereof the following: “Adjudged that the commingled causes of action be severed; that as to the causes of action based on negligence in the performance of the operations on February 7, 1942, and February 9, 1942, the complaint be and the same hereby is dismissed; and a new trial is directed solely as to the cause of action based on the alleged unauthorized operation.” As thus modified, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The dismissal of the complaint, insofar as it was based on the alleged negligent performance by defendant of the two operations, was proper. However, the complaint also proceeded on the theory that the second operation was performed with the consent of the husband, obtained by representations which were false to the knowledge of defendant. In legal effect, a consent so obtained is not valid. Performance of an operation without valid consent previously obtained constitutes an assault on the patient, for which the surgeon would be liable. *(Schloendorff*v. *New York Hospital,*211 H. Y. 125, 130; *Pratt*v. *Davis,*224 111. 300; *Mohr*v. *Williams,*95 Minn. 261; *Wall*v. *Brim,*138 F. 2d 478; *Beringer*v. *Lackner,*331 HI. App. 591.) There was a question of fact presented on this issue which should have been submitted to the jury. It is within our power to sever causes of action and affirm the judgment as to one though we reverse it as to the other. *(Bremer*v. *Manhattan By. Go.,*191 H. Y. 333.) Present — Cars-well, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
§ 2420.1 Purpose and scope. The regulations contained in this subchapter are designed to implement the provisions of chapter 71 of title 5 and, where applicable, section 431 of title 3 of the United States Code. They prescribe the procedures, basic principles or criteria under which the Federal Labor Relations Authority or the General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, as applicable, will: ( a ) Determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation under 5 U.S.C. 7112;
( b ) Supervise or conduct elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative by a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit and otherwise administer the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 7111 relating to the according of exclusive recognition to labor organizations;
( c ) Resolve issues relating to the granting of national consultation rights under 5 U.S.C. 7113;
( d ) Resolve issues relating to determining compelling need for agency rules and regulations under 5 U.S.C. 7117(b);
( e ) Resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith under 5 U.S.C. 7117(c);
( f ) Resolve issues relating to the granting of consultation rights with respect to conditions of employment under 5 U.S.C. 7117(d);
( g ) Conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices under 5 U.S.C. 7118;
( h ) Resolve exceptions to arbitrators' awards under 5 U.S.C. 7122; and
( i ) Take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate effectively to administer the provisions of chapter 71 of title 5 of the United States Code.
[45 FR 3497, Jan. 17, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 46158, Aug. 31, 1998]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130981 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130981 

 COA: 264713 

Oakland CC: 84-062640-FC 

MAURICE LAMAR WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0918 

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. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Development of Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-6863, SAND2004-5900)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6863, Volume 1 (PDF - 2.50 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**December 2004**Date Published:**January 2005

**Prepared by:** L.J. Dotson, J. Jones Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185-0779 

D. Schneck, NRC Project Manager R. Sullivan, NRC Technical Lead

**Prepared for:** Division of Preparedness and Response Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

NRC Job Code J3103

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Since the publication of NUREG/CR-4831, *State of the Art in Evacuation Time Estimate Studies for Nuclear Power Plants*, technologies supporting the development of Evacuation Time Estimates (ETEs) have substantially changed and additional evacuation considerations have emerged. ETEs are part of the planning basis for each nuclear power plant (NPP), and as such, ETE studies are required to be performed by licensees to estimate the time needed to evacuate the public in the unlikely event of a serious accident. As advancements in new technologies that support evacuations and evacuation planning continue, and as new information on evacuations becomes available, it is important that these technologies and information be considered in development of an ETE.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
### Part 1—National Money Laundering and Related Financial Crimes Strategy
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: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 04-113 September 14, 2004

 NRC TESTIFIES ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SECURITY 

BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has strengthened requirements of licensees at nuclear

power plants, conducted vulnerability assessments and identified mitigation strategies in order to

further improve security and evaluate potential threats, a top agency official said in testimony today

before a House subcommittee. 

Luis Reyes, the NRC’s Executive Director for Operations, testified before the House

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. He told lawmakers

that even prior to the terrorist attacks, the agency had required nuclear plants to have security programs

that included sophisticated surveillance equipment and armed response forces. These already robust

security measures have since been supplemented with increased security patrols, additional security

posts, increased vehicle standoff distances, improved coordination with law enforcement and other

measures. 

In addition, the NRC has completed an extensive set of vulnerability assessments and

strengthened safety-related mitigation procedures and strategies for NRC-licensed activities involving

radioactive materials and nuclear facilities. The NRC has also revamped its mock-attack program to

test licensees’ defense against new terrorist realities.

“Our vulnerability studies confirm that it would be difficult for even determined adversaries to

both damage the reactor core and release radioactivity that would affect public health and safety.

Further, the studies confirm that even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to terrorist use

of a large aircraft, NRC’s emergency planning basis remains valid,” Reyes stated. 

The written testimony also includes details on:

• Specific security-related orders issued to nuclear power plants after Sept. 11, 2001;

• Collaboration between NRC, the Department of Homeland Security and other security officials

to ensure an integrated response to threats;

• Vulnerability studies and the enhanced mock-attack exercise program;
• A comprehensive baseline inspection program to verify effectiveness of security measures and

confirm compliance; and

• Revised standards for the release of security information to the public.

The written testimony will be available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/congress-docs/congress-testimony/2004/ . For additional information on the enhancements

to nuclear safety since 9/11, go to http://www.nrc.gov .

# # #