alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,227
<ALLOWANCES>                                       338
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,897
<PP&E>                                           1,311
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,704
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,754
<BONDS>                                            259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,766
<SALES>                                          7,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,490
<CGS>                                            3,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,214
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (22)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,054
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,034
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       897
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15


</TABLE>
#### Nancy B. Linzee, Respondent, v. Frankfort General Insurance Company, etc., Appellant.

Motions denied, without costs. Present—Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
§ 2424.32 Parties' responsibilities; failure to raise, support, or respond to arguments; failure to participate in conferences or respond to Authority orders. ( a ) *Responsibilities of the exclusive representative.* The exclusive representative has the burden of explaining the meaning, operation, and effects of the proposal or provision; and raising and supporting arguments that the proposal or provision is within the duty to bargain, within the duty to bargain at the agency's election, or not contrary to law, respectively.
( b ) *Responsibilities of the agency.* The agency has the burden of explaining the agency's understanding of the meaning, operation, and effects of the proposal or provision, if the agency disagrees with the exclusive representative's explanations; and raising and supporting arguments that the proposal or provision is outside the duty to bargain or contrary to law, respectively.
( c ) *Responsibilities to sufficiently explain.* Each party has the burden to give sufficiently detailed explanations to enable the Authority to understand the party's position regarding the meaning, operation, and effects of a proposal or provision. A party's failure to provide such explanations may affect the Authority's decision in a manner that is adverse to the party.
( d ) *Failure to raise, support, or respond to arguments.* ( 1 ) Failure to raise and support an argument may, in the Authority's discretion, be deemed a waiver of such argument. Absent good cause: ( i ) Arguments that could have been but were not raised by an exclusive representative in the petition for review, or made in its response to the agency's statement of position, may not be made in this or any other proceeding; and
( ii ) Arguments that could have been but were not raised by an agency in the statement of position, or made in its reply to the exclusive representative's response, may not be raised in this or any other proceeding.
( 2 ) Failure to respond to an argument or assertion raised by the other party may, in the Authority's discretion, be treated as conceding such argument or assertion.
( e ) *Failure to participate in conferences; failure to respond to Authority orders.* Where a party fails to participate in a post-petition conference pursuant to § 2424.23, a direction or proceeding under § 2424.31, or otherwise fails to provide timely or responsive information pursuant to an Authority order, including an Authority procedural order directing the correction of technical deficiencies in filing, the Authority may, in addition to those actions set forth in paragraph (d) of this section, take any other action that, in the Authority's discretion, it deems appropriate, including dismissal of the petition for review (with or without prejudice to the exclusive representative's refiling of the petition for review), and granting the petition for review and directing bargaining or rescission of an agency head disapproval under 5 U.S.C. 7114(c) (with or without conditions).
[88 FR 62459, Sept. 12, 2023; 88 FR 69873, Oct. 10, 2023]
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-05-027 May 5, 2005

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

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO DISCUSS 2004 PERFORMANCE AT TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with Florida Power & Light

officials May 18 to discuss the NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance for 2004 at the Turkey

Point nuclear power plant, located near Homestead, Fla. 

The 1:30 p.m. meeting in the City Council Chambers at the Homestead City Hall is open to

public observation. Before the meeting ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions

on the plant’s safety performance, as well as the agency’s role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.

“Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the St. Lucie plant and all of the nation’s

other commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. “This

meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, local officials and residents

near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any questions

people may have about our oversight.”

 The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess

performance. The colors start with “green” and increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate

with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

Overall, the Turkey Point plant operated safely during 2004, and all performance indicators and

inspections findings were green, requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result of that

performance, the NRC plans to conduct only routine inspections at the plant with the exception of

activities related to reactor head replacement, containment welds and concrete repairs. In addition, a

followup inspection on some unresolved fire protection issues is expected later this year.

A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the

plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the

NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/tp_2004q4.pdf .

Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by

specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

Current information for the St. Lucie plant is available on the NRC web site at:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP3/tp3_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP4/tp4_chart.html .

###
### §185. Suits by and against labor organizations

#### (a) Venue, amount, and citizenship

Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

#### (b) Responsibility for acts of agent; entity for purposes of suit; enforcement of money judgments

Any labor organization which represents employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter and any employer whose activities affect commerce as defined in this chapter shall be bound by the acts of its agents. Any such labor organization may sue or be sued as an entity and in behalf of the employees whom it represents in the courts of the United States. Any money judgment against a labor organization in a district court of the United States shall be enforceable only against the organization as an entity and against its assets, and shall not be enforceable against any individual member or his assets.

#### (c) Jurisdiction

For the purposes of actions and proceedings by or against labor organizations in the district courts of the United States, district courts shall be deemed to have jurisdiction of a labor organization (1) in the district in which such organization maintains its principal office, or (2) in any district in which its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in representing or acting for employee members.

#### (d) Service of process

The service of summons, subpena, or other legal process of any court of the United States upon an officer or agent of a labor organization, in his capacity as such, shall constitute service upon the labor organization.

#### (e) Determination of question of agency

For the purposes of this section, in determining whether any person is acting as an "agent" of another person so as to make such other person responsible for his acts, the question of whether the specific acts performed were actually authorized or subsequently ratified shall not be controlling.

(June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title III, §301, 61 Stat. 156.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original "this Act" meaning act June 23, 1947, ch. 120, 61 Stat. 136, known as the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, which is classified principally to this subchapter and subchapters III (§171 et seq.) and IV (§185 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this act to the Code, see Tables.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 31.1
                    RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, John J. Joyce, Chief Executive Officer of Ambient Corporation, (the
"Company") certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this annual report;

4. The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Company is made known to us by others
within the Company, particularly during the period in which this annual report
is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's 2004 fourth fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting;

5. The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's
auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons
fulfilling the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.


March 31, 2005

                /S/ JOHN J. JOYCE
                JOHN J. JOYCE
                CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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/OPA

No. 05-095 June 22, 2005

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 

TO MEET JULY 6-8 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

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

public meeting July 6-8 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the license renewal

application for the Donald C. Cook nuclear power plant, in Michigan. The committee will also discuss

the final safety evaluation report related to the North Anna (Virginia) early site permit application and

the final draft of Regulatory Guide, DG-1137, which provides guidelines for protecting nuclear power

plants from lightning.

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

11545 Rockville Pike, will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day. The meeting will end at 7 p.m. on Wednesday,

6:45 p.m. on Thursday and 4:30 p.m. on Friday. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site

at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/ . Individuals with questions or

those wanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-

415-7364.

###
From: Nowakowski, Matt

Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:06 AM

To: Hofmeister, Art

Subject: RE: TECO Polk Station GHG Application

Expires: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:00 AM

Art

The following is from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’ s regs on the section 106

process (36 CFR 800):

§ 800.3 Initiation of the section 106

process.

(a) Establish undertaking . The

agency official shall determine whether

the proposed Federal action is an

undertaking as defined in § 800.16(y)

and, if so, wheth er it is a type of activity

that has the potential to cause effects on

historic properties.

(1) No potential to cause effects . If

the undertaking is a type of activity that

does not have the potential to cause

effects on historic properties, assuming

such historic properties were present,

the agency official has no further

obligations under section 106 or this

part.

If you determine that there is no potential to cause effects because there are no historic

properties on the site then you can move forward with no further requirements.

Matt

From: Hofmeister, Art

Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:00 AM

To: Nowakowski, Matt

Subject: TECO Polk Station GHG Application

Here you go, Matt.

Thanks.

Art H ofmeister

Environment Engineer

Air Permits Section

EPA Region 4

(404) 562

- 9115
#### Marion Anthony PUSHIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patrick CONROY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6455.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Marion Anthony Pushia, Appellant Pro Se.

John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Marion Anthony Pushia seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Pushia v. Conroy,*No. CA-01-2449-WMN (D.Md. Feb. 28, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 2443 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-05-041 Oct. 28, 2005

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC LICENSING BOARD TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENT AND RECEIVE PUBLIC

COMMENTS NOV. 3 IN PALISADES LICENSE RENEWAL PROCEEDING

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, an independent judicial arm of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, will hear oral arguments in the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant license renewal

proceeding on Thurs., Nov. 3, in South Haven, Mich. The Board will also receive comments from

interested members of the public in an evening session.

The oral arguments and other issues in the proceeding are scheduled to be heard at 9 a.m. EST

in the Conference Room at the Ramada Inn Lighthouse and Conference Center, 1555 Phoenix Rd.,

South Haven. The session will be open for public observation.

The Board will also receive comments from interested members of the public, known as limited

appearance statements, in a session from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. EST at the same location. Speakers will be

allotted approximately 5 minutes each for their statements.

In the morning proceeding, the Board will consider oral arguments on the admissibility of

issues raised by five organizations and 31 individuals who requested a hearing on the proposed renewal

of the Palisades operating license and petitioned to intervene in the proceeding. If necessary, the

proceeding will continue on the morning of Nov. 4. 

Nuclear Management Co., operator of the plant at Covert, Mich., submitted an application for

renewal of the license for a 20-year period on March 31. The plant’s NRC license is due to expire

March 24, 2011.

The request for a hearing and petition to intervene were submitted on Aug. 8 by Nuclear

Information and Resource Service, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Don't Waste

Michigan, Green Party of Van Buren County, Michigan Land Trustees, and 31 individuals.

Documents related to the license renewal application are available on the NRC’s web site at:

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

the Licensing Board proceeding are available in the NRC’s online document library at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. Use accession number ML052940221 for the

Petitioner’s Request for a hearing and accession number ML052860361 for the Licensing Board’s

Order scheduling the oral argument and public comment session.
###
## SUBTITLE IV—MONEY

Chap.
Sec.
51.
Coins and Currency
5101
53.
Monetary Transactions
5301
#### § 2608.209 Procedure when a decision is not made prior to the time a response is required.

If a response to a demand or request is required before the General Counsel can make the determination referred to in § 2608.201, the General Counsel, when necessary, will provide the court or other competent authority with a copy of this part, inform the court or other competent authority that the demand or request is being reviewed, and seek a stay of the demand or request pending a final determination.
#### Martin V. W. Hall, Respondent, v. Woodmere Homestead Company and Clara W. Richmond, Defendants. John McVickar Richmond, Appellant.

Motion granted to the extent of requiring appellant to correct the printed appeal book on file with the clerk of this court, so that the same shall include the affidavit of Thomas J. Stewart, verified March 12, 1914; the affidavit of Ellen Cooper, verified March 27, 1914; and the affidavit of Paul E. Mead, verified April 3, 1914, read upon the motion which resulted in the order of April 4, 1914, which has been appealed from, and also the two affidavits referred to in the affidavit of William L. Flagg, verified June 17, 1914, and amending the order appealed from by reciting these *968affidavits therein. Upon such corrected record the said appeal is set down for argument on Tuesday, June 23, 1914. Present — Burr, Thomas, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ.
#### § 2640.206 Existing agency exemptions.

An employee who, prior to January 17, 1997, acted in an official capacity in a particular matter in which he had a financial interest, will be deemed to have acted in accordance with applicable regulations if he acted in reliance on an exemption issued by his employing Government agency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 208(b)(2), as in effect prior to November 30, 1989.
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. 06-001 January 3, 2006

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE

TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, JAN. 10-12

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will

meet Jan. 10-12 in Rockville, Md., to continue to discuss, among other things, several items related to

the transportation of radioactive waste – including a study on the impact of a tunnel fire on

transportation casks and a study by the Federal Railroad Administration on the use of dedicated trains

to transport radioactive waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain project. The committee will also meet

with the NRC Chairman and Commissioners to discuss recent and planned activities.

The committee reports to and advises the Commission on all aspects of nuclear waste

management.

The session on Tuesday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and the session on Wednesday

will run from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The session on Thursday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m.

The two-hour meeting between the ACNW and the Commission, which is scheduled for 2 p.m. on

Wednesday, will take place in the Commissioner’s Conference Room, on the first floor of the One

White Flint North Building. The remainder of the meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s

Two White Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Anyone wanting to use video teleconferencing to observe the meeting should contact Theron

Brown, at 301-415-8066 to ensure availability.

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

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2006/ . Individuals interesting in making

statements or those seeking more information should contact Michael Lee, at 301-415-6887. 

###