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

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone 301/415-820

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

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. III-03-038 April 30, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC OVERSIGHT PANEL TO HOLD TWO MEETINGS ON DAVIS-BESSE

REACTOR

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold two meetings on Tuesday, May 6, to

review the status and adequacy of recent activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station

resulting from the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head. The plant, operated by

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company at Oak Harbor, Ohio, has been shut down since

February 16 of last year.

Both meetings will be at the Camp Perry Clubhouse, 1000 Lawrence Road, Bldg. 600, on

Highway 2 west of Port Clinton. A picture identification is required to enter Camp Perry; the

guards will provide visitors with directions to the meeting site.

The first meeting will begin at 2 p.m. (EDT), when the NRC oversight panel, set up to

coordinate the agency’s activities associated with the corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head,

will meet with utility officials. The meeting will focus on the status of repairs at the plant, results

of recent NRC inspections and upcoming activities. The public is invited to observe the business

portion of the meeting and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions of the

NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned. 

The second meeting will begin at 7 p.m. (EDT) to update the public on NRC’s activities

related to the reactor vessel head degradation and will provide a summary of the earlier meeting.

The public will be invited to ask questions and make comments. 

Transcripts of both meetings will be posted in several weeks on the NRC’s web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation.html.

The NRC oversight panel, created on April 29 of last year, includes NRC management

and staff from its Region III office in Lisle, Illinois; the NRC Headquarters office in Rockville,

Maryland; and the NRC Resident Inspector Office at the Davis-Besse site.
Documents on the Davis-Besse corrosion issue, including further details on NRC’s

oversight panel activities, are posted on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov. Select

“Davis-Besse” from the Key Topics menu.

###
#### Harding & Miller, Appellee, v. C. A. Sharpe, Appellant.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Wabash county; the Hon. William H. Green, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 1, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Harding & Miller, a corporation, against C. A. Sharpe in replevin to recover possession of a certain piano stool and scarf. From a verdict and judgment finding the right of property to be in plaintiff, defendant appeals.

H. M. Phipps, for appellant.

E. B. Green and Theo G. Risley, for appellee.

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

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

*533Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § *436*
      ***
      *—when seller entitled to possession as against chattel mortgagee.*Where a corporation sold a piano stool and scarf to certain individuals and received their obligation to pay therefor in instalments and on default in payment the seller returned to the purchasers their obligation and took possession of the property after the purchasers gave a third party a chattel mortgage but before it was recorded, *held*in replevin by the seller against the mortgagee, who had possession of the property, that a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff was proper for the reason that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant at the time plaintiff took possession of the property had a lien thereon which was valid against other lien holders and that the defendant was not in a position to complain.
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 Destination Maternity Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Judd P. Tirnauer, Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Company.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ JUDD P. TIRNAUER                           
|Judd P. Tirnauer                               
|Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
|May 7, 2010                                    



34
Exhibit 32.1

Section 906 Certification

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 (the Form 10-K) of Eastern Virginia Bankshares, Inc. (the
Company), I, Joe A. Shearin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company as of and
for the periods presented in the Form 10-K.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                         |  |  |  |       |  |              
|--- |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | -------------
|    |  |                         |  | 
|By: |  | /s/ Joe A. Shearin      |  |  |  | Date: |  | March 4, 2008
|    |  | Joe A. Shearin          |  |  |  |       |  |              
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |       |  |
<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 March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 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.




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

                                                 May 13, 2003
§ 2601.104 Relationship to other authorities. ( a ) This part does not apply to gifts to the agency of: ( 1 ) Travel and travel-related expenses made pursuant to the authority set forth in 31 U.S.C. 1353; or
( 2 ) Volunteer services made pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 3111.
( b ) This part does not apply to gifts to an individual agency employee, including: ( 1 ) Gifts of contributions, awards or other expenses for training made pursuant to the authority set forth in the Government Employees Training Act, 5 U.S.C. 4111;
( 2 ) Gifts made by a foreign government or organization, or representative thereof, pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7342;
( 3 ) Gifts made by a political organization that may be accepted by an agency employee who, in accordance with the terms of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, at 5 U.S.C. 7323, may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns; or
( 4 ) Gifts made directly or indirectly that an employee may accept in a personal capacity pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 CFR part 2635, subpart B or subpart C.
§ 2601.103 Policy. ( a ) *Scope.* OGE may use its statutory authority to solicit, accept and utilize gifts to the agency that aid or facilitate the agency's work. The authority to solicit, accept and utilize gifts includes the authority to receive, administer, spend, invest and dispose of gifts. Gifts to the agency from individuals or organizations can be a useful adjunct to appropriated funds and may enhance the agency's ability to fulfill its mission, as well as further mutually beneficial public/private partnerships, or other useful arrangements or relationships. Such uses of this authority are appropriate provided that solicitation or acceptance of a gift does not compromise the integrity of OGE, its programs or employees.
( b ) *Use of gifts.* Gifts to OGE may be used to carry out any activity that furthers the mission, programs, responsibilities, functions or activities of the agency. Gifts may be used to carry out program functions whether or not appropriated funds are available for that purpose, provided that such expenditures are not barred by law or regulation. Gifts may also be used for official travel by employees to events or activities required to carry out the agency's statutory or regulatory functions. Gifts to the agency may also be used for the travel expenses of spouses accompanying employees on official travel, if such travel could be paid for by appropriated funds.
( c ) *Sources.* Generally, gifts may be solicited or accepted from any source, including a prohibited source, provided that the standards of this part are met. Gifts generally should be made directly to the agency and not through intermediaries. However, where a gift is offered by an intermediary, both the intermediary and the ultimate source of the gift should be analyzed to determine whether acceptance would be appropriate.
( d ) *Endorsement.* Acceptance of a gift pursuant to this part will not in any way be deemed to be an endorsement of the donor, or the donor's products, services, activities, or policies. Letters to a donor expressing appreciation of a gift are permitted.
( e ) *Type of gift.* The agency may solicit or accept any gift that is within its statutory authority. However, as a matter of policy, OGE will not solicit or accept gifts of currency pursuant to this part. Donors who offer currency should be advised that the gift may be made by check or money order payable to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
[68 FR 60594, Oct. 22, 2003, as amended at 80 FR 57072, Sept. 22, 2015]
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0338 Directorate ID: 2009-SW-51-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model SA341G Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 21 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of the rotating star and subsequent 

loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $6,000

Labor per Helicopter

(6 x $85/work-hour)

$510

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $6,510

Total US Fleet Cost $136,710

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Gary Roach
§ 2423.3 Who may file charges? ( a ) *Filing charges.* Any person may charge an activity, agency, or labor organization with having engaged in, or engaging in, any unfair labor practice prohibited under 5 U.S.C. 7116.
( b ) *Charging Party.* Charging Party means the individual, labor organization, activity, or agency filing an unfair labor practice charge with a Regional Director.
( c ) *Charged Party.* Charged Party means the activity, agency, or labor organization charged with allegedly having engaged in, or engaging in, an unfair labor practice.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,964,595
<SECURITIES>                                   505,161
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,749,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,232,094
<INVENTORY>                                 46,376,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,590,197
<PP&E>                                      44,698,126
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,287,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,386,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       58,657,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       556,691
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,062,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,386,329
<SALES>                                    195,086,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           195,086,958
<CGS>                                      162,327,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              162,327,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            50,298,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               573,692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,771,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,009,507)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,690,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (23,699,507)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.26)
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph Arnold, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*The People of the State of New York, Defendants in Error.

*It seems,*that this court does not sit as an arbiter of manners as to the lower *courts;*and even if there is anything overbearing or indecorous in the manner of the court, in putting a proper question to the prisoner when a witness on his own behalf on a criminal trial, it cannot be reviewed here unless injustice might have resulted.

A general exception to all of a charge, upon a particular point, is unavailable here when a portion of the charge is correct; the attention of the court must be called to the erroneous portions.

(Argued November 26, 1878;

decided December 3, 1878.)

Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an indictment charging him with an assault with intent to kill. The judgment was affirmed mainly upon the opinion of the court below. Upon the trial the prisoner was called as a witness in his own behalf, and in the course of his examination was asked a question by the recorder. It was claimed by the counsel upon the argument here that the question was asked in an overbearing and indecorous manner, and was calculated to throw ridicule upon the prisoner’s statement. *Held,*that the question in itself was proper and nothing in the case indicated anything improper in the mode of asking it; but that if it did this court could not review it unless injustice might have resulted, that “ it does not sit as an *arbiter morum quoad*the lower courts.”

After charging upon a certain point, as requested by the prisoner’s counsel, the court made some remarks in reference thereto. At their close said counsel excepted generally to all of them. It was claimed here that some of them were erroneous. The court did not construe the remarks as did the counsel, but held that if there was a mistake or error the counsel should have called the attention of the court to the particular error, that it was not reached by the general exception where a portion of the charge was clearly correct.

*Max C. Huebner*for plaintiff in error.

*604
      *Benjamin K. Phelps*for defendants in error.

*Per Curiam*

opinion for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.
No. 14-0258 – David Ragonese v. Racing Corporation of West Virginia, d/b/a Mardi 

Gras Casino and Resort 

FILED 

February 12, 2015 

released at 3:00 p.m.
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Benjamin, Justice, concurring: 

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that factual questions exist as to whether the 

petitioner, David Ragonese, was a trespasser at the time he was injured. These factual 

uncertainties preclude summary judgment on the issue of trespass. 

Upon remand, should the fact-finder determine that Mr. Ragonese was not a 

trespasser, this Court’s recent opinion, Hersh v. E-T Enterprises, Limited Partnership, 

232 W. Va. 305, 752 S.E.2d 336 (2013), will control in determining the liability of the 

respondent, Racing Corporation of West Virginia, d/b/a Mardi Gras Casino and Resort 

(“Mardi Gras Casino”). In syllabus point 6 of Hersh, the Court abolished the open and 

obvious doctrine in premises liability negligence actions. Justice Loughry and I dissented 

in Hersh because we believe the open and obvious doctrine embodied in the law 

traditional concepts of personal responsibility and because application of the open and 

obvious doctrine acted to prevent frivolous law suits proceeding past the summary 

judgment phase. I write separately in the present case to reaffirm the position of Justice 

Loughry and myself in Hersh: By eliminating the open and obvious doctrine, this Court 

has fundamentally damaged the means by which premises liability cases proceed through 

our judicial system.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

BIOPOLYMER ENGINEERING, INC. (doing business as Biothera), Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff,

v.

IMMUNOCORP and BIOTECH PHARMACON ASA, Defendants.

____________________

2010-1096

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in Case No. 05-CV-0536, Judge Joan M. Ericksen.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D ARREN B. S CHWIEBERT , Fredrikson & Bryson, P.A. , of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was G RANT D. F AIRBAIRN . Of counsel was L ORA M. F RIEDEMANN

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , L OURIE , and M OORE , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

February 22, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

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

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

No. 05-099 July 7, 2005

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE TO MEET

JULY 19-21 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste will hold a

public meeting July 19-21, in Rockville, Md., where, among other items, members will discuss a draft

paper on low-level radioactive waste management, generic waste-related research and a document from

the International Atomic Energy Agency addressing the subject of geologic disposal facilities for

managing long-lived radioactive waste. The committee members will also be briefed on the evolution

of risk-informed regulations and how they might be applied to facilities other than reactors.

The session on Tuesday will run from 10:15 a.m. to 5:45 p.m.; the session on Wednesday will

run from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and the session on Thursday will run from 8:30 a.m. to noon. The

sessions will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North Building, at 11545

Rockville Pike. For more information on the meeting, contact Sharon Steele, at 301-415-6805. 

A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2005/ .

###
§ 297.207 Denials of access and appeals with respect to such denials. ( a ) If an access request is denied, the Office or agency response will be in writing and will include a statement of the reasons for the denial and the procedures available to appeal the denial, including the name, position title, and address of the Office official responsible for the review.
( b ) Nothing in this part should be construed to entitle a data subject the right to access any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.
( c ) For denials of access made under this subpart, the following procedures apply: ( 1 ) For initial denials made by an agency, when the record is maintained in an Office Governmentwide system of records, a request for adminstrative review should be made only to the Assistant Director for Workforce Information, Personnel Systems and Oversight Group, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
( 2 ) For denials initially made by an Office official, when a record is maintained in an internal or central system of records, a request for administrative review should be made to the Information and Privacy Appeals Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415.
( 3 ) Any administrative review decision that either partially or fully supports the initial decision and denies access to the material the individual originally sought should state the requester's right to seek judicial review of the final administrative decision.