alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7305. State auditing requirements

(a) The chief executive officer of each State shall conduct financial and compliance audits of block grant amounts received under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35, 95 Stat. 357) and amounts received under a consolidated assistance program established or provided for in the Act. An audit shall be conducted for the 2-year period beginning on October 1, 1981, and for each 2-year period thereafter. As far as practicable, the audit shall be conducted consistent with standards the Comptroller General prescribes for the audit of governmental entities, programs, activities, and functions.

(b) An audit under subsection (a) of this section is in place of other financial and compliance audits of those amounts that the chief executive officer of the State is required to conduct under another provision of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 97–35, 95 Stat. 357) unless the other provision, by explicit reference to this section, provides otherwise.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1041.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7305 | 31:1243(note). | Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, §1745, 95 Stat. 764. |

In subsection (a), the word "prescribes" is substituted for "established", and the word "entities" is substituted for "organizations", for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), the words "of funds" and "conducted" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 97–35, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 357. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00670

- CV

Dessiree Shvonne MARSHALL,

Appellant

v.

Bonnie MULLER, Appellee

From the 4 07th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 20521 Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 28, 2017

, we ordered appellant to provide written proof of payment for the reporter’ s record. On December 8, 2017, Appellant timely responded with proof of payment

. Three days later, on December 11, 2017, the complete reporter’s record was filed

. Accordingly, Appellant’s brief is due on January 10, 2018.

_________ ________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of December, 2017

.

__ _________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
### **CHAPTER 47—OCEAN EXPLORATION**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—EXPLORATION

Sec.
3401.
Purpose.
3402.
Program established.
3403.
Powers and duties of the Administrator.
3404.
Education, workforce training, and outreach.
3405.
Ocean Exploration Advisory Board.
3406.
Authorization of appropriations.
3407.
Definitions.
3408.
National Ocean Mapping, Exploration, and Characterization Council.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—NOAA UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM

3421 to 3426. Repealed.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document



	

 	 	Exhibit 4.36





	press release	 	Contact

Roger Clinch

Communications Manager

(506) 547-6012

clinch@bms.ca




 
 

NORANDA'S BRUNSWICK SMELTER EXPERIENCED
  FIRE IN ITS SILVER REFINERY
  No Injuries Reported and Damage was limited to the Silver Refinery    
  


        BELLEDUNE, NB, January 27, 2003 — Noranda Inc. reported today
that on Saturday, January 25, 2003, a fire occurred in the silver refinery at its lead smelter located in Belledune, New Brunswick. 



        There were no injuries reported and production at the lead operation was not interrupted, as the fire was isolated to the Silver Refinery. The fire departments
from the neighbouring communities assisted the Smelter's emergency response team in extinguishing the fire.


        Smelter
Manager, Thompson Hickey, issued the following statement: "The most important thing is that none of our employees were injured. The quick response of our
employees and internal emergency response team, as well as the assistance from the neighbouring fire departments were successful in limiting the fire to a specific area of the Plant. Our lead
production has not been interrupted and the plant continues to operate at full capacity today. The cause of the fire is not yet known."


        Brunswick's
current average annual production is 100,000 tonnes of lead and twelve million ounces of silver and the smelter employs 470 people. 


        Noranda Inc. is a leading international mining and metals company with more than 48 mining and metallurgical operations and
projects under development in 17 countries. Noranda is one of the world's largest producers of zinc and nickel and is a significant producer of copper, primary and fabricated aluminum, lead, silver,
gold, sulphuric acid and cobalt. Noranda is also a major recycler of secondary copper, nickel and precious metals. It is listed on The Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange
(NRD).


-30-










QuickLinks


NORANDA'S BRUNSWICK SMELTER EXPERIENCED FIRE IN ITS SILVER REFINERY No Injuries Reported and Damage was limited to the Silver Refinery
#### § 1639.30 Non-waiver of rights by payments.

An employee's involuntary payment of all or any portion of a debt being collected under this subpart must not be construed as a waiver of any rights which the employee may have under 5 U.S.C. 5514 or any other provisions of a written contract or law, unless there are statutory or con tractual provisions to the contrary.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-36 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, February 26, 1999)

NRC STAFF PROPOSES NEW PLAN FOR EVALUATING FOREIGN OWNERSHIP,

CONTROL OR DOMINATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSE APPLICANTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is seeking comment on a new plan to be used

in evaluating foreign ownership, domination or control of applicants for commercial nuclear

power plant licenses.

It is to be utilized, effective immediately, in reviewing license transfer applications, some

involving foreign interests, brought about by electric industry deregulation. The document,

known as a standard review plan, outlines the steps the NRC will take and the types of

information it will need in reviewing such applications.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 precludes the issuance of a reactor license to any

company owned, controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or foreign

government. Existing regulations require corporations to disclose where they are incorporated

and do business; the citizenship of their directors and principal officers; and the extent, if any, of

foreign ownership, control, or domination. The plan provides guidance for gathering additional

information, if necessary, from an applicant regarding foreign influence and describes how

assurances about these issues are to be obtained from a prospective licensee.

Although the NRC staff plans to begin using the new standard review plan immediately,

a draft copy will be published shortly in the Federal Register for public comment. A final plan

will be developed after the comments are analyzed.

###
§ 1215.8 Procedures for salary offset. ( a ) Deductions to liquidate an employee's debt will be by the method and in the amount stated in the Chairman's notice of intention to offset as provided in § 1215.4. Debts will be collected in one lump sum where possible. If the employee is financially unable to pay in one lump sum, collection must be made in installments.
( b ) Debts will be collected by deduction at officially established pay intervals from an employee's current pay account unless alternative arrangements for repayment are made.
( c ) Installment deductions will be made over a period not greater than the anticipated period of employment. The size of installment deductions must bear a reasonable relationship to the size of the debt and the employee's ability to pay. The deduction for the pay intervals for any period must not exceed 15 percent of disposable pay unless the employee has agreed in writing to a deduction of a greater amount.
( d ) Unliquidated debts may be offset against any financial payment due to a separated employee including but not limited to final salary payment or leave in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3716.
Exhibit 32.2

| (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                               |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Dated:  January      12, 2009 |   |   |   | By: |   | /s/ Paul      Campbell |
|                               |   |   |   |   |   | Paul      CampbellInterim      Chief Financial Officer |
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00192-CV

Magdalena Ruiz Perkild

v.

Erika Salazar

On appeal from the

357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2019-DCL-01858-E

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 6, 2019
### §666. Public-availability requirement; national defense; patent agreements

No research shall be carried out, contracted for, sponsored, cosponsored, or authorized under authority of this chapter, unless all information, uses, products, processes, patents, and other developments resulting from such research will (with such exceptions and limitations, if any, as the Secretary may find to be necessary in the interest of national defense) be available to the general public. Whenever in the estimation of the Secretary the purposes of this chapter would be furthered through the use of patented processes or equipment, the Secretary is authorized to enter into such agreements as he deems necessary for the acquisition or use of such patents on reasonable terms and conditions.

(Pub. L. 86–599, §4, formerly §6, July 7, 1960, 74 Stat. 337; renumbered §4, Pub. L. 109–58, title X, §1009(a)(1)(D), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 934.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 4 of Pub. L. 86–599 was classified to section 664 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–58, §1009(a)(1)(C).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,285
<ALLOWANCES>                                       658
<INVENTORY>                                     15,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,573
<PP&E>                                          35,489
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,225
<BONDS>                                        140,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,536
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                        25,708
<OTHER-SE>                                   (122,936)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,034
<SALES>                                        107,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,504
<CGS>                                           78,288
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,615
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   233
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,453)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       921
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,374)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,374)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-33,972-89

EX P ARTE HERMAN LEE KINDRED, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. F R 30721-M IN THE 27T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM BELL COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of burg lary of a motor vehicle and sentenc ed to fi v e y ea rs’ imprisonment afte r revoc ation of shock proba t i o n . Ap p licant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. We have p re v i o u s l y dismiss ed five subsequent applications in this cause . See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 4. I t is obvious from the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise g rounds that wer e previously reje cted on the merits or that should have been raised in previous applications. We hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a fr i v o l o us lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones , 972

S.W .3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E § 498.0045(a- 1). Shou l d Ap plicant file future habea s ap p l i cations in this cause , we will not consider the merits of hi s applications unl ess he shows that the fac tual or leg al basis of h i s g rounds was unavailable in a previously filed application. This applica tion is di smissed. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Filed: January

12, 2022 Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 719-720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-243]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Air Traffic Procedures Advisory 
Committee (ATPAC) will be held to review present air traffic control 
procedures and practices for standardization, clarification, and 
upgrading of terminology and procedures.

DATES: The meeting will be held from Monday, January 26, from 1 p.m. to 
4:30 p.m., and Tuesday, January 27 to Wednesday, January 28, from 9 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Northern California TRACON, 
11375 Douglas Road, Mather, California, 95655.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John A. Clayborn, Executive 
Director, ATPAC, Air Traffic Planning and Procedures, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3725.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is 
hereby give of a meeting of the ATPAC to be held Monday, January 26, 
from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesday, January 27, to Wednesday, 
January 28, from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    The agenda for this meeting will cover: a continuation of the 
Committee's review of present air traffic control procedures and 
practices for standardization, clarification, and upgrading or 
terminology and procedures. It will also include:
    1. Approval of Minutes.
    2. Submission and Discussion of Areas of Concern.
    3. Discussion of Potential Safety Items.
    4. Report from Executive Director.
    5. Items of Interest.

[[Page 720]]

    6. Discussion and agreement of location and dates for subsequent 
meetings.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
available. With the approval of the Chairperson, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons desiring to attend 
and persons persons desiring to present oral statement should notify 
the person listed above not later than January 16, 2004. The next 
quarterly meeting of the FAA ATPAC is planned to be held from April 5-
8, 2004, in Washington, DC.
    Any member of the public may present a written statement to the 
Committee at any time at the address given above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2003.
David W. Madison,
Acting Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 04-243 Filed 1-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 23-0214
RANDY CHRISTOPHERARCHIBALD, SR.,

Petitioner,

v. PETERBLUDWORTH, Warden, Crossroads Correctional Center,

Respondent. 

## t'IR 18 2n23

ORDER , -d Court oontana

Randy Christopher Archibald, Sr. petitions this Court for habeas corpus relief, because "[t]he State breached the Plea-agreement by misleading the courts with false information." He argues that his sentence and incarceration are both illegal because of violations ofhis due process and other constitutional rights. He puts forth that he "was neverchargedwith acrime[,]"butthat"thisrevolvesaroundtwoCountyJail[]infractions." Archibald requests his immediate release from prison, an evidentiary hearing, and a reduction ofhis sentence. This Court has heard Archibald's arguments previously. In 2019, Archibald appealed the Cascade County District Court Judgment of Conviction and Sentencing Order. State v. Archibald, No. DA 19-0545, 2021 MT 174N,

## ¶ 2, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 609 (Jul. 13, 2021). Through counsel, Archibald argued that "the State should not have been allowed to alter its sentencing recommendations because he did not violate the conditions ofpretrial release." Archibald, ¶2. This Court affirmed his convictions pursuant to his nolo contendere plea to three felonies and two misdemeanors in a nonbinding plea agreement. Section 46-12-211(1)(c), MCA. Archibald, 

## III 2-3. We pointed out that Archibald signed an acknowledgment ofwaiver ofrights and that he "admitted to being cited for disciplinary infractionswhile in custody." Archibald,

## lig4,6. We determined that 04/18/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0214

### Itlhe language in the plea agreement requiring Archibald to refrain from committing

additional crimes is clear and unambiguous." Archibald,

## ¶ 11. We found no error in the court's decision that his "pretrial disciplinary incidents violated the agreement which warranted the State's new sentencingrecommendations." Archibald,¶ 11. Archibaldhas not demonstrated an illegal sentence or illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. He appealed his convictions and sentence, and this Court concluded that Archibald's conduct violated the plea agreement. Archibald, ¶ 7. Archibald's constitutional claims have no footing because we have addressed them in his prior appeal. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA;Archibald,¶ 11. He is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or his immediate release. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Archibald's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Randy Archibald, Sr. personally. DATED this ?' My ofApril, 2023.

ChiefJustice

Justices
#### In the Matter of Samuel Sobel for Reinstatement to the Bar.

Motion for reinstatement denied. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-101

December 10, 1999

NRC TO MEET WITH NEW JERSEY COMPANY

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with officials of Southeastern Plastics

Corporation on Wednesday, December 15, to discuss apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The apparent violations were found during an inspection this Fall.

The predecisional enforcement conference, which is open to the public for observation

only, will be held in the NRC Region I office, 475 Allendale Road, in King of Prussia, Pa.

Southeastern Plastics Corporation manufactures plastic sheeting at its plant in New

Brunswick. Since 1986, the company had purchased four gauges containing radioactive material

to measure the thickness of the plastic sheeting.

On October 27, the NRC learned that one of the gauges had been found at a warehouse in

Washington Township owned by Zeta Consumer Products Corporation - a sister corporation of

Southern Plastics. The gauge had been stored with other pieces of used equipment that had been

brought to the warehouse to be sold at an auction. There did not appear to be any risk of

radiation exposure to workers or the public because the unit appeared to be intact and the source

assembly shielded. The inspector found that Southeastern Plastics did not maintain required

records of receipt, installation or removal of the gauge. It has since been returned to the

manufacturer for disposal.

In addition, the inspector found that the company has been unable to locate one of the

other three gauges, but has made arrangements to dispose of the other two.

The decision to hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference does not mean that the

NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken.

Rather, the purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to

provide the licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective actions. No

decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. Those decisions will be

made by senior NRC officials at a later time.

#
Exhibit 31-2



Certification

I, Robert D. Kump, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A, which amends an Annual Report on Form 10-K of Energy East Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement 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.





|Date: April 29, 2008 | By/s/ Robert D. Kump       Robert D. Kump
       Senior Vice President and 
       Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------