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

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

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

No. I-05-043 August 17, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC TO HOLD AUG. 24th PUBLIC MEETING IN LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J.,

ON LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public information session on Wednesday,

Aug. 24, in Lacey Township (Ocean County), N.J., to discuss how the agency will review an

application for renewal of the operating license for the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. The facility

is located in Lacey and operated by AmerGen Energy Co., LLC.

Scheduled to begin at 7 p.m., the meeting will take place at Lacey Township High School, at 73

Haines St. The NRC’s presentation will include information on how the process works and how the

public can participate. Members of the public are invited to ask questions regarding the agency’s

license renewal review process.

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant has a duration

of up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements

are met.

Last month, AmerGen submitted an application seeking an additional 20 years of operation for

the Oyster Creek plant. The current operating license for the facility is set to expire on April 9, 2009.

The license renewal process requires that both a technical review of safety issues and an

environmental review be performed for each application. The NRC staff is currently reviewing

AmerGen’s application to determine whether it contains enough information to begin a formal review. 

If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally docket, or file, the application and

will announce an opportunity to request a hearing.

The Oyster Creek application is posted on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oystercreek.html#application . It is

also available for review at the NRC’s Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., which can be

reached by phone at 800/397-4209, and at the Lacey Branch of the Ocean County Library, located at 10

E. Lacey Road.

###
(October 16, 1951.)

#### John Cattonar et al., Appellants, *v.*Edward Ermold Co., Respondent.

Peck, P. J., and Van Voorhis, J.

(dissenting). Although the letters exchanged between the attorneys, constituting the alleged written executory accord compromising this action, do not agree upon the settlement in exactly the same words, they nevertheless effectively dispose of the controversy by showing that the minds of the parties met at every point of the settlement agreement. These letters are Exhibits 9 to 15, inclusive, attached to the affidavit of Glen W. Watkins. The subsequent withdrawal of the attorney for plaintiff Cattonar does not impair the binding force of the accord.

Concerning the authority of plaintiffs’ attorney to make a settlement, which plaintiffs contend was withdrawn, no evidentiary facts are contained in the affidavits indicating that defendant was notified of the withdrawal of such authority before the executory accord was made. The previous holding out by plaintiffs of their attorney as authorized to represent them in arriving at a settlement, which is not contradicted by any facts that have been presented, is enough, as the opinion of Special Term states, to establish ostensible authority in the attorney to act for plaintiffs in making the settlement.

The order and judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ., concur in decision; Peek, P. J., and Van Voorhis, J., dissent and vote to affirm, in opinion.

Order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment reversed, the motion denied and the judgment entered herein vacated, with costs to the appellants, on the ground that there are issues of fact which should be disposed of only on a trial. Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the use of our report dated January 31, 2000, with respect
to the consolidated balance sheet of Jones Pharma Incorporated as of December
31, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholder's
equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, not
presented separately herein, and to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-32072, 333-45276, 333-45284,
333-70203 and 333-73053) of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated
January 31, 2000 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Jones
Pharma Incorporated.


                                    ERNST & YOUNG LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
March 30, 2001
#### Catharine Day, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, *v.*The Flushing, North Shore and Central Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued December 2, 1878;

decided December 10, 1878.)

Plaintiff’s intestate was killed at a crossing on defendant’s road. The evidence showed that the deceased had ample *611opportunity before crossing to see the approaching train in time to have avoided it. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant. *Held,*no error; the court citing *Reynolds*v. *JST. Y. O. and H. R. R. R. Go.*(58 N. *Y.,*248).

*E. B. Hinsdale*for appellant.

*Roswell W. Keene*for respondent.

Rapallo, J.,

reads mem. for reversal of order of General Term, and for judgment for defendant on verdict.

All concur, except Church, Ch. J., absent.

Order reversed and judgment accordingly.
#### § 2429.8 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Georgette G. V. Fahnestock et al., as Executors, and of Harris Fahnestock, Jr., et al., as Trustees under the Will of Harris Fahnestock, Deceased, Respondents. Georgette G. V. Fahnestock et al., Respondents; Harris Fahnestock, Jr., et al., Appellants.

The only alternatives are to add to the residuary estate the $100,000 advanced to testator’s daughter Ruth (as the Surrogate did), or else to hold that the will means that the advancements to Ruth should not pass under the will but be adjusted as provided by section 85 of the Decedent Estate Law as in event of intestacy. The former is manifestly what the decedent intended. It would do violence both to the will and to section 85 of the Decedent Estate Law to uphold the contention of appellants that the sum which he had advanced to Ruth was intended to be added exclusively to the trusts created by his will for his children and the issue of deceased children. That would result in a distribution provided for neither by the will nor by the intestate law. Decree, so far as appealed from, affirmed, with costs to all parties to the appeal payable out of the estate. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.; Dore and Callahan, JJ., dissent and vote to modify so as to provide that the widow would participate in the true residuary estate (without taking into consideration the $100,000 advancement) and that the children would likewise participate in the true residuary but among themselves would make adjustment" for the advancement to the daughter Ruth.
###### **Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Eric J.Wedeen, certify that:

 

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of EFC Bancorp, Inc.;

 

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

 

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(c)          Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s controls and procedures and presented in this annual report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and proceduresas of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 
| March 19,  2004          |
|--------------------------|
| /s/ Eric J.  Wedeen      |   |
| Eric J.  Wedeen          |
| Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.17
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
ARGO-TECH CORPORATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN
AND TRUST AGREEMENT
 As Amended and Restated
Effective November 1, 2001




---



##### 



Special Allocations
  Escrow Account
 Argo Tracker
    Distribution of Special Allocations
   -2-




---



##### 



Terminated Plan
  Employee Stock Ownership Plan Provisions
   
     -3-




---



##### 



CONSENT OF THE
ARGO-TECH CORPORATION
EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN
PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
  Signature:
    
    /s/ Frances S. St. ClairPrint Name:
    
    Frances S. St. ClairDate: October 25, 2005Signature:
    
    /s/ James M. CunninghamPrint Name:
    
    James M. CunninghamDate: October 25, 2005Signature:
    
    /s/ Paul R. KeenPrint Name:
    
    Paul R. KeenDate: October 25, 2005Signature:
    
    /s/ Paul A. SkladPrint Name:
    
    Paul A. SkladDate: October 25, 2005Signature:
    
    /s/ Michelle L. McCormickPrint Name:
    
    Michelle L. McCormickDate: October 26, 2005
 -4-
### §2237. Information for national security

Any non-Federal interest shall provide the United States the information necessary for military readiness planning and harbor, inland harbor, and national security, including information necessary to obtain national security clearances for individuals employed in critical harbor and inland harbor positions.

(Pub. L. 99–662, title II, §209, Nov. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 4106.)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 24, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00239

- CV

Debora Alisa DARDEN

, Appellant

v.

Darrell Keith DARDEN

, Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI17644 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed by July 18, 2019 . Neither the brief nor a motion for

extension of time has been filed. It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chi ef Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

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

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

 

No: 06-059 April 28, 2006

NRC PLANS FOR POSSIBLE AVIAN FLU PANDEMIC; 

HOLDS WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS ISSUES

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated planning to address the potential effects

of an avian flu pandemic on its operations and held a workshop yesterday to discuss relevant issues.

The NRC is focusing on those critical functions that must be maintained in the event of high

absenteeism caused by an avian flu pandemic and the regulatory relief or other actions that may be

necessary to maintain the safe operation of nuclear power plants facing similar staff shortages.

Based on federal government planning assumptions, the NRC is determining how to maintain

mission-critical functions with absenteeism as high as 40 percent for periods of weeks in the course of

a 12- to 18-month period. Other federal government agencies are conducting similar assessments. The

nuclear power industry is creating its own business continuity planning and site-specific options, and is

discussing its efforts and potential needs with the NRC.

“We need to think creatively and strategically and work together to address this potentially

serious issue,” said NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield, who was asked by Chairman Nils J. Diaz to

assume a lead role in the review of the planning effort. “Such a pandemic, should it occur, will be a

serious issue for this country, and maintaining the electrical grid while continuing to provide for the

safety and security of our communities will be one of the most important tasks this country faces.”

The workshop, closed to the public due to the sensitive nature of much of the discussions,

included several panels and drew attendees from other federal agencies, state government and power

companies. Discussions included a status of the flu and the availability of vaccines and antiviral

medication; steps that might minimize the spread of the disease, including sequestering employees; the

status of resident inspectors; the possibility of and process for granting regulatory relief from minimum

staffing or work hour requirements; and the possibility of deferring certain activities, such as exercises.

The NRC anticipates continuing discussions with the industry and the possibility of issuing

generic guidance or other information in upcoming months.

The agency formed an internal working group in March that is preparing a report, to be

finalized in the next few months, outlining what key mission-critical activities the NRC must maintain

and how to use teleworking, recent retirees, deferring activities, and other strategies to maintain critical

functions. After the report is approved by the Commission, appropriate portions will be made public.

###
Skip header section

People Business Geography Newsroom Subjects A to Z Search@Census

## Current Construction Reports

**C20 - Housing Starts**

Provides monthly statistics for the United States and regionson new privately owned housing units started, authorized inpermit-issuing places; and authorized, but not started at end ofperiod.

The report includes both monthly and seasonally adjusted estimates ofunits started and authorized.  Comparative data are shown for earlieryears.

All documents are in PDF format.   [PDF] or  denotes a file in Adobe’s Portable Document Format. To view the file, you will need the Adobe® Reader® available free from Adobe.  This symbol  indicates a link to a non-government web site.  Our linking to these sites does not constitute an endorsement of any products, services or the information found on them. Once you link to another site you are subject to the policies of the new site.

| YEAR | C20 -- Housing Starts |
|------|-----------------------|
| 2001 | Jan                   | Feb | Mar | *Apr* | *May* | *Jun* | *Jul* | *Aug* | *Sep* | *Oct* | *Nov* | *Dec* |
| 2000 | Jan                   | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 1999 | Jan                   | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 1998 | Jan                   | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 1997 | Jan                   | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 1996 | Jan                   | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |

Additional information on Construction Statistics

Source:  *U.S. Census Bureau*

Skip footer section

Privacy Policy 2010Census DataTools Information Quality Product Catalog Contact Us Home
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1566-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina (FEMA-1566-DR), dated October 7, 2004, and related determinations.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 26, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of South Carolina is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of October 7, 2004:

Berkeley, Charleston, and Georgetown Counties for Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program)

Michael D. Brown,

Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04-24707 Filed 11-4-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
§ 330.201 Purpose. ( a ) The Reemployment Priority List (RPL) is a required component of an agency's placement programs to assist its current and former competitive service employees who will be or were separated by reduction in force (RIF) under part 351 of this chapter, or who have recovered from a compensable work-related injury after more than 1 year, as required by part 353 of this chapter. In filling vacancies, an agency must give its RPL registrants placement priority for most competitive service vacancies before hiring someone from outside its own permanent competitive service workforce. An agency may choose to consider RPL placement priority candidates before other agency permanent competitive service employees under its Career Transition Assistance Plan (CTAP) established under subpart F of this part, after fulfilling agency obligations to its CTAP selection priority candidates.
( b ) Agencies must use an RPL to give placement priority to their: ( 1 ) Current competitive service employees with a specific notice of RIF separation or a Certification of Expected Separation issued under part 351 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Former competitive service employees separated by RIF under part 351 of this chapter; and
( 3 ) Former competitive service employees fully recovered from a compensable injury (as defined in part 353 of this chapter) after more than 1 year.
( c ) All agency components within the local commuting area use a single RPL and are responsible for giving placement priority to the agency's RPL registrants.
( d ) With prior OPM approval, an agency may operate an alternate placement program which satisfies the basic requirements of this subpart, including veterans' preference, as an exception to the RPL regulations under this subpart. This provision is limited to reemployment priority because of RIF separation and allows agencies to adopt different placement strategies that are effective for their programs and satisfy employee entitlements to reemployment priority.
469 P.2d 152

#### Rudolph HUNTER, George Johnson, Carl “Gap” Hughes and Steve Tillet, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Joe ANGEL, Individually, and as Judge of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, sitting in and for the County of San Miguel, and the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of said State, Respondent.

No. 9055.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 27, 1970.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and TACK-ETT, WATSON, SISK and McKENNA, Justices concurring.

Ordered that the alternative writ of prohibition heretofore issued herein on May 14, 1970, be and the same is hereby made permanent.