alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-03-0114 - Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 140, "Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements"

Accession Number: ML031630889

Date Released: Thursday, July 17, 2003

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML031630849 - SECY-03-0114 - Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 140, "Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements" (3 page(s), 7/8/2003)
    - ML031631041 - SECY-03-0114Atch1 - Federal Register Notice: Final Rule, 10 CFR Part 140, "Adjustment of the Maximum Retrospective Deferred Premium" (6 page(s), 7/8/2003)
    - ML031631033 - SECY-03-0114Atch2 - Authority Statement - Final Rule: 10 CFR Part 140, "Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements" (1 page(s), 7/8/2003)
    - ML031631106 - SECY-03-0114Atch3 - Notice of Final Rule re 10 CFR Part 140, "Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements" (1 page(s), 7/8/2003)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 Bio Medica
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, Keith E. Palmer, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.




                                                     /s/ Keith E. Palmer
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Keith E. Palmer
                                                     Chief Financial Officer and
                                                     Vice President

                                                     August 12, 2003
#### George H. Molner, Appellee, v. Anna Molner, Appellant.

Gen. No. 5,859.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Dobbance Dibell, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 15, 1914.

*234Statement of the Case.

Bill by George H. Molner against Anna Molner for. a divorce charging adultery. An answer denying the charge was filed and also a replication, and the case was heard by the court without a jury. From a decree finding the defendant guilty of adultery, defendant appeals.

Q. J. Chott, for appellant.

Edward R. Nadelhoffer, for appellee.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Divorce, § *45*
      ***
      *—sufficiency of the evidence to prove cause of divorce.*Section 8 of the divorce statute, J. & A. j[ 4223, requiring, that the cause of divorce be fully proven by reliable witnesses, does not apply when a trial is had and issues joined by bill, answer and replication. In such case the ordinary chancery rules apply and the weight of the testimony is the thing to be considered even though that question may be decided in favor of a party having but one witness.

2. Divorce, § *46*
      ***
      *—proof sufficient to sustain charge of adultery.*Decree of divorce finding wife guilty of adultery, *held*sustained by the testimony of the paramour, where the wife denies what the paramour says and is discredited in her testimony by the fact that she denies other circumstances tending to incriminate her that are sworn to by other witnesses in corroboration of the paramour, and there is also *testimony of*other witnesses of her acts tending *to*show an adulterous disposition.

3. Appeal and error, § *1713*
      ***
      *—when errors not argued are deemed waived.*Where numerous errors are assigned on the record but no reference is made in the argument to any of the errors assigned, except that the decree is not warranted by the evidence, all other errors will be deemed waived.

Dibbll, J., took no part in this decision.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Whitney

delivered the opinion of the court.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                  In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, Brian A. Markison, Chief Executive Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, 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 this report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date: March 16, 2005                             /s/ Brian A. Markison
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Brian A. Markison
                                                 President and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE J. WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (3:01-cr-00190-LMB-1)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 5, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence J. White, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Terrence J. White appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for writ of audita querela. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

White , No. 3:01-cr-00190-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 Written Statement Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The undersigned, the Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary of Webster
Preferred Capital Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date
hereof:  (a)
    the Form 10-K Report of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gregory S. MadarGregory S. MadarSenior Vice President,Treasurer and Assistant Secretary(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)March 10, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to Webster Preferred Capital Corporation and will be retained by Webster Preferred Capital
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 191.103 Additional requirements. ( a ) *Manufacturer claims domestic drawback.* In the case of medicinal preparations and flavoring extracts, the claimant must file with the drawback entry, a declaration of the manufacturer showing whether a claim has been or will be filed by the manufacturer with the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) for domestic drawback on alcohol under sections 5111, 5112, 5113, and 5114, Internal Revenue Code, as amended (26 U.S.C. 5111, 5112, 5113, and 5114).
( b ) *Manufacturer does not claim domestic drawback* — ( 1 ) *Submission of statement.* If no claim has been or will be filed with TTB for domestic drawback on medicinal preparations or flavoring extracts, the manufacturer must submit a statement setting forth that fact to the Director, National Revenue Center, TTB.
( 2 ) *Contents of the statement.* The statement must show the: ( i ) Quantity and description of the exported products;
( ii ) Identity of the alcohol used by serial number of package or tank car;
( iii ) Name and registry number of the distilled spirits plant from which the alcohol was withdrawn;
( iv ) Date of withdrawal;
( v ) Serial number of the applicable record of tax determination (*see* 27 CFR 17.163(a) and 27 CFR 19.626(c)(7)); and
( vi ) CBP office where the claim will be filed.
( 3 ) *Verification of the statement.* The Director, National Revenue Center, TTB, will verify receipt of this statement, forward the original of the document to the drawback office designated, and retain the copy.
[USCBP-2018-0029, 83 FR 65066, Dec. 18, 2018]]
#### § 2424.10 Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.

Where an exclusive representative and an agency are unable to resolve disputes that arise under this part, they may request assistance from the Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADR) Program or the Office of Case Intake and Publication (CIP), which will refer requests to the CADR Program. Upon request, as resources permit, and as agreed upon by the parties, CADR representatives will attempt to assist the parties to resolve these disputes. Parties seeking information or assistance under this part may call the CADR Office at (771) 444-5802 or the Office of CIP at (771) 444-5805, or write those offices at 1400 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20424-0001. A brief summary of CADR activities is available on the internet at *www.flra.gov.*

[88 FR 62456, Sept. 12, 2023]
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-99-95

November 17, 1999

NRC ASSIGNS NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR AT

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia,

Pa., have selected Laura A. Dudes as the new senior resident

inspector at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey

Township, N.Y.

She succeeds Joseph Schoppy, who was selected as the senior

resident inspector at Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station in

Hancock’s Bridge, N.J.

Most recently, Ms. Dudes was a resident inspector at the

Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y. She joined

the NRC in 1994 in the Reactor Engineer Intern Program. After

completing that two year program, she worked as a reactor

engineer in the Civil, Mechanical and Materials Engineering

Branch in the Region I Division of Reactor Safety.

In 1997 she was recognized by the NRC Region I Federal

Women’s Program as its “Woman of the Year.”

Ms. Dudes earned both Master of Science and Bachelor of

Science degrees in mechanical engineering at the Stevens

Institute of Technology in Hoboken, N.J.

Ms. Dudes joins Resident Inspector Thomas Hipschman at

Oyster Creek. The resident inspectors can be reached at 609/693-

0702.

#
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-05-0104 - Options and Recommendation for the Potential Role of the NRC During the Development of the Department of Energy Environmental Impact Statement on Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C Radioactive Waste (SRM-MO50215).

Accession Number: ML051540273

Date Released: Monday, June 27, 2005

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML051380325 - SECY-05-0104 - Options and Recommendation for the Potential Role of the NRC During the Development of the Department of Energy Environmental Impact Statement on Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C Radioactive Waste (SRM-M050215). (10 page(s), 6/13/2005)
    - ML051540458 - Attachment 1 - DOE Advance Notice of Intent. (4 page(s), 5/4/2005)
    - ML051540447 - Attachment 2 - DOE Cooperating Agency Invitation Letter. (2 page(s), 5/18/2005)
    - ML051580272 - Attachment 3 - Excerpt from Proposed Section 635 of H.R.6, the "Energy Policy Act of 2005". (4 page(s), 4/20/2005)
    - ML051580571 - SECY-05-0104 - Attachment 4 - Requirements and Guidance Associated with Cooperating and Commenting Agency Roles. (1 page(s), 6/13/2005)
    - ML051580574 - SECY-05-0104 - Attachment 5 - Information Supporting The Advantages and Disadvantages of Each NRC Option. (5 page(s), 6/13/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### §§ 1850.104-1850.109 [Reserved]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. C. Eril Le Tang, Appellant.

Motion for stay denied. Motion to dismiss appeal from order denying defendant’s motion for a certificate that it is reasonable that the charge herein be prosecuted by indictment (N. Y. City Grim. Cts. Act, § 31, subd. 1, par. [c]), granted and appeal dismissed. The order is not appealable. *(People*v. *Mascóla,*174 App. Div. 360.) Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
Exhibit 10.36



DANI

INVESTMENT

PARTNERS



Sept. 12, 2003



Bill Dippel

Vice President, Operations

Conceptus, Inc.



Dear Bill,



I have received your letter on behalf of Conceptus Inc., which is an Offer of Lease Extension and I am in agreement with your offer of $1 Per Sq. Ft.



Your New Monthly Rent will be $20,000 commencing on Jan. 1, 2004  Dec. 31, 2005.



I would expect the Direct Deposit Procedure to Remain as well as All Other
Agreements made in our Original Lease Dated November 14, 2000.



Thank you for
your continued Attention to Detail in keeping our building so nice.



Sincerely,



|/s/ Dennis Farrey       
|------------------------
|Dennis Farrey           
|Dani Investment Partners



Dated: 09/12/03



---

Conceptus Inc.



August 26, 2003



Dani Investment

Dane Prenovitz

1353 Shoreway Rd.

Belmont, Ca 94002



Dear Dane,



As we discussed, Conceptus would like to exercise its 2-year option to extend our current lease in your building at 1021 Howard Avenue, San Carlos, CA until December 31,
2005. We would expect all other terms and conditions of the existing lease to remain in effect except the monthly rent. In exercising this option, we would like to offer what we believe to be fair market value of $1.00 per square foot.



If you are in agreement we would like to complete this transaction as soon as possible.
Please contact me at 650-9628-4700.



Best
Regards,



|/s/ William Dippel        
|--------------------------
|William Dippel            
|Vice President, Operations
|Conceptus, Inc.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03309

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03309\03309_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03309\03309_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03309\03309_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03309\03309_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\03309_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\03309_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\03309_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\03309_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03309\Certification Statement Plant ID 03309.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\03309 follow up questions.doc Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\03309 follow up questions_response_2.10.2011.doc Draft Questions for Follow Up

03309\Supplemental Documents\3309 aerial map.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\3309 water balance diagram.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\Part C, Section 2.1 Document 1.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\Part C, Section 2.1, Document 2.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\Part C, Section 2.1, Document 3.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\Part C, Section 2.1, Document 4.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\Part C, Section 2.1, Document 5.pdf Plant submitted survey file

x 03309\Supplemental Documents\Questionnaire follow up for Lawrence.rtf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





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 Bio Medica Corporation (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
      with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2007 (the "Report"),
      I,
      Stan Cipkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 Company.





/s/
                Stan CipkowskiChief
                Executive OfficerNovember
                13, 2007
### §6309. Non-propagation of core-based statistical area delineations

(a) In General.—Beginning on the date of enactment of the MAPS Act of 2021, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, any change to the standards of core-based statistical area delineations pursuant to section 3504(e) of title 44—

(1) shall not propagate automatically for any non-statistical use by any domestic assistance program, including any such use as required through—

(A) statutory reference to any core-based statistical area delineation; or

(B) administrative or regulatory reference to any core-based statistical area delineation; and

(2) shall propagate for any non-statistical use by any domestic assistance program only—

(A) if a relevant agency determines that such a propagation—

(i) supports the purposes of the program; and

(ii) is in the public interest; and

(B) through affirmative adoption through notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to section 553 of title 5.

(b) Definitions.—The definitions in section 4 of the MAPS Act of 2021 shall apply to this section.

(Added Pub. L. 117–219, §5(a), Dec. 5, 2022, 136 Stat. 2272.)

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

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of the MAPS Act of 2021, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 117–219, which was approved Dec. 5, 2022.

Section 4 of the MAPS Act of 2021, referred to in subsec. (b), is section 4 of Pub. L. 117–219, which is set out as a note under section 6102 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4523

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAMES DEAN HAM,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00006-KDB-DSC-1)

Submitted: September 23, 2020 Decided: October 6, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Anthony Bach, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. R. Andrew Murray, United 

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James D. Ham appeals the 37-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his 

supervised release. On appeal, Ham argues only that the revocation sentence was 

procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to explain its decision to impose 

a sentence consecutive to the sentence for Ham’s new criminal convictions. We affirm. 

“A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of 

supervised release.” United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640 (4th Cir. 2013). “We will 

affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly 

unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing revocation sentences, 

“we first must determine whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively reasonable,” 

evaluating the same general considerations employed in our review of original sentences. 

United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017). “A revocation sentence is 

procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains the chosen sentence after 

considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and 

the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Slappy, 872 F.3d at 207 (footnote omitted).

If we find a sentence unreasonable, then we proceed to determine whether it is “plainly” 

so. Webb, 738 F.3d at 640. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that 

Ham’s plea agreement provided that the revocation sentence was to run consecutive to the 

term imposed on the new criminal convictions, and the sentence is not plainly 

unreasonable.
3

Therefore, we affirm the revocation judgment. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED