alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-05-012 April 11, 2005

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC ISSUES “YELLOW” FINDING AT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR PLANT;

PROPOSES $50,000 FINE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that an inspection finding at the

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station regarding air trapped in portions of its emergency core

cooling system is of “yellow” or of substantial safety significance that will result in additional

NRC inspections and potentially other NRC action. The facility is operated by Arizona Public

Service Co., near Wintersburg, Ariz.

The NRC staff has also proposed a $50,000 civil penalty against the company for a

related failure to perform a written safety evaluation and receive prior NRC approval before

making a change to procedures for maintaining the emergency core cooling system.

NRC conducted a special inspection last summer after operators discovered air trapped in

a section of piping that NRC staff believes could interfere with the performance of pumps needed

to supply water for emergency core cooling and containment spray during some accident

conditions.

Under the NRC’s reactor oversight process, inspection findings are evaluated under a

significance determination process and assigned a color that indicates its safety significance. 

Findings with very low safety significance are labeled “green.” “White” findings have low to

moderate safety significance, “yellow” findings have substantial safety significance, and “red”

findings have high safety significance.

A preliminary “greater than green” finding was described in a January 5 inspection report. 

The letter transmitting the report provided the company with an opportunity to either request a

regulatory and pre-decisional enforcement conference to discuss the issue or to respond in

writing. 
2

During a nine-hour public conference held on Feb. 17, the company maintained that the

air voids found in piping at all three Palo Verde reactors would not have interfered with the

ability of pumps to supply coolant to the reactor core during some severe accidents. The

company also maintained that prior NRC approval of the procedural change made in 1992 was

not necessary.

APS officials corrected the problem when it was brought to their attention last summer,

but Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallet said escalated enforcement action is warranted

because the violations have substantial importance to safety.

“The air voids might have prevented the emergency core cooling system from being able

to perform its safety function during some accidents,” Mallet said. “And we expect our licensees

to prepare written analyses prior to making changes in procedures that raise unreviewed safety

questions and reduce safety margins at a plant.”

The company has 30 days to appeal the NRC staff’s determination of the “yellow”

finding or contest the fine.

###
### §3031. Pay and allowances; date of acceptance of promotion

#### (a) Acceptance and date of promotion

An officer of the commissioned corps who is promoted to a higher grade—

(1) is deemed for all purposes to have accepted the promotion upon the date the promotion is made by the President, unless the officer expressly declines the promotion; and

(2) shall receive the pay and allowances of the higher grade from that date unless the officer is entitled under another provision of law to receive the pay and allowances of the higher grade from an earlier date.

#### (b) Oath of office

An officer who subscribed to the oath of office required by section 3331 of title 5 shall not be required to renew such oath or to take a new oath upon promotion to a higher grade, if the service of the officer after the taking of such oath is continuous.

(Pub. L. 107–372, title II, §231, Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3087.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Provisions similar to this section are contained in section 854a–2 of this title.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF ROBERT PIPER

FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

§ No. 10, 2020

§ 

§

§

Submitted: January 31, 2020

Decided: February 27, 2020

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, 

Justices.

O R D E R

After consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus, the notice to show 

cause, and the responses, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The petitioner, Robert Piper, seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of 

this Court, under Supreme Court Rule 43, to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the 

Court of Common Pleas to correct that court’s allegedly erroneous dismissal of his 

appeal from a violation of probation (“VOP”) sentence entered by the Justice of the 

Peace Court. On January 9, 2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk of this Court issued a 

notice directing Piper to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed under 

Supreme Court Rule 43(b)(vi) because Piper did not first present his petition to the 

Superior Court.

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, Piper states that in March 2019, 

after the Court of Common Pleas dismissed his appeal from the VOP sentence, he 

filed various writs, motions, and appeals in “the lower courts.” He states that “only 
2

several of the filing[s] and proceedings were addressed” and that he has requested 

information on the status of the filings, with no response.

(1) Rule 43(b)(vi) provides that a petitioner may not file in this Court a 

complaint for a writ of mandamus directed to the Court of Common Pleas “unless a 

petition for such writ shall have been first presented to and denied by the Superior 

Court.”1 The Superior Court docket does not reflect that Piper petitioned the 

Superior Court for a writ of mandamus, nor has Piper submitted any evidence of 

such a petition.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 29(b) 

and 43, that the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice

 

1 DEL. SUPR. CT. R. 43(b)(vi). See also, e.g., In re Paskins, 2009 WL 3842042 (Del. Nov. 17, 

2009) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus to the Court of Common Pleas because the 

petitioner had not demonstrated that he first sought a writ from the Superior Court); In re Dickens, 

2003 WL 1446325 (Del. Mar. 19, 2003) (same).
### §1980. Mounted horse unit

(a) The United States Capitol Police may not operate a mounted horse unit during fiscal year 2006 or any succeeding fiscal year.

(b) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief of the Capitol Police shall transfer to the Chief of the United States Park Police the horses, equipment, and supplies of the Capitol Police mounted horse unit which remain in the possession of the Capitol Police as of such date.

(Pub. L. 109–55, title I, §1002, Aug. 2, 2005, 119 Stat. 572.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of this Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is the date of the enactment of Pub. L. 109–55, which was approved Aug. 2, 2005.

#### Codification

Section is from the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006.
Exhibit
      32.2





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 Tax Credit Trust, a Delaware
      statutory business trust Series I (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ended December 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on
      the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of
      Richman American Credit Corp., manager of the Registrant, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Registrant.






/s/
                Neal LudekeNeal
                LudekeChief
                Financial Officer of Richman AmericanCredit
                Corp., Manager of the RegistrantMarch
                28, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1625 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1625

 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''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2003

 Mr. Pascrell introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 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''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT P. HAMMER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1114 Main Avenue in Clifton, New Jersey, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert P. Hammer Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Robert P. 
Hammer Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
CYMER, INC.                                        
CALCULATION OF                                     
EARNINGS PER SHARE                                 
(in thousands, except per share data)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   
                                         Three Months Ended              
                                            March 31, 1996
                                                   
Pro Forma Loss Per Share                           
  <S>                                         <C>
  Pro forma weighted average shares
    of common stock outstanding 
    during the period                          8,612
                                                   
  Pro forma assumed exercise                       
    of outstanding stock options and                             
    warrants (1)                                 -
                                                   
  Pro forma weighted average common                      
   and common equivalent shares                8,612        
                                                   
  Net loss                                     ($260)        
                                                   
  Pro forma loss per share                    ($0.03)        
</TABLE>
               
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Three Months Ended              
                                            March 31, 1997
<S>                                            <C>
Earnings Per Share                                 
                                                   
  Weighted average shares of common
   stock outstanding during the          
   period                                      13,837
                                                   
  Assumed exercise of outstanding 
   stock options and warrants (1)               1,376        
                                                   
  Weighted average common and                      
     common equivalent shares                  15,213        
                                                   
  Net Income                                   $4,408        
                                                   
  Earnings per share                            $0.29        
                                                   
                                                   
(1) Computed using the                             
treasury stock method.  See
Note 2 of Notes to
Consolidated Financial                             
Statements.
                                                   
Note:  Based on the Company's                      
capital structure, there is
no difference between primary
and fully diluted earnings                         
per share.
                                                   




</TABLE>
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-017 March 22, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH DOMINION ENERGY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Dominion Energy officials on

Tuesday, April 6, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the North

Anna nuclear power plant near Mineral, Virginia.

The meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. in the main auditorium of the North Anna Nuclear

Information Center, 1022 Haley Drive, at the plant site near Mineral. The public is invited to observe

the meeting, and NRC officials will be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer any

questions.

A letter from the NRC to Dominion Energy addresses plant safety performance during the

previous year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter states that North Anna

operated safely and plant performance was at a level requiring no additional NRC inspection beyond

normal. The letter is available from Region II Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/na_2003q4.pdf . In addition to the routine

inspections, the NRC will conduct inspections at North Anna associated with the plant’s Independent

Spent Fuel Storage Installation, reactor pressure vessel lower head penetration nozzles, and potential

for reactor containment building sump blockage.

 Inspections will also continue to review the plant’s implementation of security Orders and

requirements, including newly developed portions of the plant security program. 

 Current performance indicators for the two units at the North Anna nuclear power plant are

available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NA1/na1_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NA2/na2_chart.html

###
### §3303. Designation of depositaries

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury designates depositaries of money as provided in this section and under other law.

(b) When necessary to carry out the business of the United States Government and under conditions the Secretary decides are necessary, the Secretary may designate depositaries in foreign countries and in territories and possessions of the United States to receive deposits of public money. The Secretary shall give preference to United States financial institutions the Secretary decides are safe and able to give the service required.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 949.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3303(a) | (no source). | |
| 3303(b) | 31:473. | June 19, 1922, ch. 228, 42 Stat. 662. |

Subsection (a) is added to inform the reader that there are numerous other laws providing for the designation of depositaries. These other laws are scattered throughout the titles of the United States Code.

In subsection (b), the words "carry out" are substituted for "transaction" for consistency. The words "terms and . . . as to security and otherwise" and "of public moneys" are omitted as surplus. The words "territories and possessions of the United States" are substituted for "Territories and insular possessions of the United States" for consistency. The words "to receive deposits of public money" are added for clarity.
EXHIBIT 99.1



<PAGE>


                       CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

William F. Garrett, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Delta Mills,
Inc.  (the "Company"),  hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 29, 2002
          of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
          section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.
1350) and may not be relied upon by anyone for any other purpose. The
undersigned expressly disclaims any undertaking to update such certification
except as required by law.


Date:  September 27, 2002            /s/ William F. Garrett
                                     --------------------------------------
                                     William F. Garrett
                                     President & Chief Executive Officer
Issue Date: 03/23/05 - 1 - 05-008

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL IIPB

Change Notice 05-008

DELETED: TRANSMITTED:

Number Date Number Date

1. -------- -------- IP 56700 03/23/05

2. -------- -------- IP 82201 03/23/05 

3. -------- -------- IP 82202 03/23/05 

4. -------- -------- IP 90700 03/23/05 

5. IMC 2515 App B 01/17/02 IMC 2515 App B 03/23/05 

TRAINING: None

REMARKS: IP 56700 (Calibration) has been reassessed resulting in its reactivation. This

procedure enhances the inspection program by providing a method of

verifying that calibration procedures used are acceptable. 

IP 82201 (Emergency Detection and Classification) has been reassessed

resulting in its reactivation. This IP enhances the inspection program by

including a review of the Emergency Plan and implementing procedures to

ensure they contain criteria concerning protective actions for nonessential

onsite personnel.

IP 82202 (Protective Action Decision Making) has been reassessed resulting

in its reactivation. This IP enhances the inspection program by including a

sampling review of licensee training records for key ERO responders to verify

responder qualifications.

IP 90700 (Feedback of Operational Experience Information at Operating

Power Reactors) has been reassessed resulting in its reactivation. This IP

enhances the inspection program by verifying the feedback of pertinent

operational experience information to operators and the incorporation of

such information into training and retraining personnel.

IMC 2515 App B (Supplemental Inspection Program) has been revised to

add IPs 56700, 82201, 82202, and 90700 to Attachment 1.
05-008 - 2 - Issue Date: 03/23/05 

DISTRIBUTION: Standard

END
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 05-093 June 17, 2005

NRC ISSUES SAFETY EVALUATION FOR

NORTH ANNA EARLY SITE PERMIT APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final safety evaluation report (SER) for

a requested Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna site in Louisa County, Va., about 40 miles

northwest of Richmond.

The ESP process allows an applicant to resolve certain safety and environmental issues related

to siting prior to submitting an application to build a new nuclear power plant. An ESP denotes a site’s

suitability for construction and operation of a nuclear plant. The North Anna application was filed Sep.

25, 2003, by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC. If approved, the permit would allow Dominion to

reserve the site for up to 20 years. A future application for a construction permit or combined license at

the North Anna site could then reference the ESP.

NRC reviewers and inspectors reviewed and verified the information that Dominion provided

to resolve issues noted in a draft SER issued in December 2004. The staff noted several issues that

must be addressed later – in any application to build a new reactor at the site – such as shutdown

actions for the proposed Unit 3 if the adjacent Lake Anna’s water level falls below a certain point. The

staff has also recommended eight conditions to be imposed on the Early Site Permit if the Commission

decides to issue it, including:

– Requiring use of a dry cooling tower by the proposed Unit 4 during normal operation, and

– Requiring a design for a radioactive waste facility with features that preclude any accidental 

 radionuclide release into a liquid pathway (e.g., groundwater).

A final decision on the ESP application is expected in mid-2006, after receipt of a report from

the NRC’s independent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, issuance of the staff’s final

Environmental Impact Statement, and the conclusion of an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

hearing on the application.

NRC staff has reviewed information Dominion provided regarding the ESP site in areas

including:

– site seismology, geology, meteorology and hydrology;

– risks from potential accidents resulting from operation of a nuclear plant at the site;

– the site’s ability to support adequate physical security for a nuclear plant; and
-2-

– proposed major features of the emergency plan Dominion would implement if a reactor is

eventually built at the site.

Dominion will have 14 days to review the SER for proprietary information. The report will

then be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. It will also be available on the NRC’s Web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html . In addition, the Louisa County

Library, 881 Davis Highway in Mineral, Va., has agreed to make the SER available for public

inspection.

###
### **CHAPTER 37—ORGANOTIN ANTIFOULING PAINT CONTROL**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0307

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

ROBERT MICHAEL ZERMENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 6, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 26 2024

03/26/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0307