alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Owen Finnerty, by guardian, etc., Respondent, *v.*James H. Prentice, Appellant.

(Argued September 30, 1878;

decided January 21, 1879.)

This case is not reported in full for the reason that the opinion for affirmance was not concurred in by a majority of the court.

*W. P. Prentice*for appellant.

*Fred. A. Ward*for respondent.

Andrews, J.,

reads for affirmance; Church, Ch. J. and Earl, J., concur ; Miller, J., concurs in result; Hand J., reads for reversal; Folger and Rapadlo, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

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

No. III-02-053 October 1, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC EXPANDS SPECIAL INSPECTION OF WORKER RADIATION EXPOSURES AT

DAVIS-BESSE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has expanded its inquiry into the circumstances

surrounding the radiation exposures received by several workers at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station while working on the steam generators in February of this year. The plant, operated by

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company is located at Oak Harbor, Ohio.

The NRC initiated a special inspection in April, which focused on how microscopic radioactive

particles were carried off the Davis-Besse site on the clothing of several workers who had performed

maintenance on the plant’s steam generators. The workers were employed by a contractor conducting

activities at the Davis-Besse plant. Isolated, low-levels of radioactive contamination was 

subsequently found at various locations in Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The steam

generator work was not related to the reactor vessel head damage discovered at the plant in early

March.

During a review of the incident, the NRC staff raised questions with FirstEnergy about the level

of radiation exposure of the workers involved with the steam generator work. FirstEnegy has

concluded that worker exposures were within NRC limits. The NRC arranged for an independent

radiation dose assessment of one of the workers by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

However, the company’s and the NRC’s estimates differ, and the NRC has decided to expand

its original inspection to examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the event and generate the

final analysis on the radiation dose received by the workers. 

The expanded NRC special inspection will focus on work planning, the precautions taken

during the steam generator work, the measurements of radioactive contamination received by the

workers at the time, and the radiation dose received as a result of any inhalation or ingestion of

radioactive material by the workers. 

The inspection team is led by a manager from the NRC’s Region III Office in Lisle, Illinois,

and includes four Region III radiological protection specialists and is supplemented by contractor

expertise.
A report detailing the findings of how the discreet radioactive particles had been carried off the

Davis-Besse site and the radiation dose received by the workers will be publicly available on the NRC

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

# # #
### §10641. Grant authority

The Attorney General shall award grants to rural State criminal justice agencies, Byrne agencies, or other agencies as designated by the Governor of that State and approved by the Attorney General, to develop rural States' capacity to assist local communities in the prevention and reduction of crime, violence, and substance abuse.

(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §2985, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title I, §11027(b), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 3797y of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Short Title

For short title of section 11027 of Pub. L. 107–273, which enacted this subchapter, as the "Crime-Free Rural States Act of 2002", see section 11027(a) of Pub. L. 107–273, set out as a Short Title of 2002 Act note under section 10101 of this title.
### §20943. Federal assistance in identification and location of sex offenders relocated as a result of a major disaster

The Attorney General shall provide assistance to jurisdictions in the identification and location of a sex offender relocated as a result of a major disaster.

(Pub. L. 109–248, title I, §144, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 606.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 16943 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
(November 10, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of The Incorporated Village of Roslyn, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Easements in Real Property Situated in Said Village. Florence E. Conklin et al., as Administrators With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Herbert J. Conklin, Deceased, Appellants.

*1014Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb $>tates {!Courtof**~peaIs** 

# fortbejf 

# eberaI{!Circuit

DAVIDW. MOLTZEN, 

### Petitioner, 

### v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

### Respondent.

2012-3145 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. SF0432100994-I-1. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER The Department of Labor moves for a 43-day extension of time, until November 2, 2012, to file its response brief. Mr. Moltzen opposes. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: Case: 12-3145 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/27/2012DAVID MOLTZEN V. LABOR 2 The motion is granted. The Department of Labor's response briefis due on or before November 2,2012. FOR THE COURT 

## SEP 21 2012 Date

cc: David W. Moltzen Allison Kidd-Miller, Esq. s27 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

# u.s.**~L"'jpEALS** FOR THeFEDERft.!.r:!'CUIT 

### SEP 

### 2/ LUll JANHORBALY 

### ClERK Case: 12-3145 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/27/2012
(May 10, 1949.)

#### Pauline Zeder, Appellant, *v.*Church of St. Stanislaus, Respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The court improperly limited the plaintiff to a theory of recovery not contained in the pleadings, nor urged at the trial, by charging the jury that plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery if the door that struck her had been opened by someone other than an agent or employee of defendant, unless the door itself was defective in its construction and operation. The error was repeated when in answer to the jury’s request for a clarification of that portion of the charge the court said: “My charge was, as I recall it, and my charge is now that if that door was caused to swing by somebody other than an agent or employee of the church, that the church would not be responsible unless the *797door itself was defectively built and defectively operated, so that no matter who operated it it was still a defective and improper door.”

The claimed negligence of the defendant was the creation and maintenance of a dangerous condition and not the maintenance of a defective door. If a dangerous condition did in fact exist, the identity of the person who opened the door would be immaterial.

One of the important factual issues in the ease was whether the construction and maintenance of solid wooden outside doors, which when closed afforded no means of ascertaining whether anyone was on the other side, opening outward from a seven-inch step so as to extend some distance over a wide platform step immediately below them, constituted a dangerous condition, in that it placed persons using the platform step in apparent safety, in a position to be injured by the unexpected outward swing of the doors. The determination of that issue was exclusively within the province of the jury *(Anderson*v. *Christ Church of Bay Ridge,*245 App. Div. 814). The effect of the court’s charge was to take that important issue from them.

It is true that one of the principal issues presented to the jury for decision was the place of the happening of the accident, defendant adducing proof by way of claimed admissions of plaintiff that it happened inside the building and not on the outside step or platform. Plaintiff must prove the negligence as charged. If the accident did happen inside the building and not on the outside platform, plaintiff could not recover. Accordingly, defendant contends that the jury resolved that issue in its favor and that the verdict should not be disturbed. But the difficulty with this contention on this record is that the jury’s verdict in defendant’s favor was a general verdict and we may not say that the verdict was based solely on a finding that the accident did not happen on the step as claimed by plaintiff.

As a consequence the judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Janice Lee, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of
     hanarotelecom incorporated (the "Company").

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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
     report.

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
     information included in this report, fairly present in all material
     respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
     the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
         by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

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

     (c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
         covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control
         over financial reporting.

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

     (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.



Date: August 10, 2006

    /s/ Janice Lee
--------------------------------------
Janice Lee
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Delightfully Frozen Corp. a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Ken Graham, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Delightfully Frozen Corp., and will be retained by Delightfully
Frozen Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


/s/ Ken Graham
--------------------------
Ken Graham
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
November 2, 2004
NATHAN RENNER JUNG

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1073

Opinion filed March 20, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

Nathan Renner Jung, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the

merits.

ROBERTS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 295.208 Restrictions that apply to released records. ( a ) The General Counsel may impose conditions or restrictions on the release of official records and information, including the requirement that parties to the proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure. The terms of the protective order or of a confidentiality agreement must be acceptable to the General Counsel. In cases where protective orders or confidentiality agreements have already been executed, OPM may condition the release of official records and information on an amendment to the existing protective order or confidentiality agreement.
( b ) If the General Counsel so determines, original OPM records may be presented for examination in response to a demand or request, but they are not to be presented as evidence or otherwise used in a manner by which they could lose their identify as official OPM records, and they are not to be marked or altered. In lieu of the original records, certified copies will be presented for evidentiary purposes (see 28 U.S.C. 1733).
§ 1630.13 Procedures for review of determination to deny access to or amendment of records. ( a ) Individuals who disagree with the refusal to grant them access to or to amend a record about them should submit a written request for review to the Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, 77 K Street, NE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20002. The words “PRIVACY ACT—APPEAL” should be written on the letter and the envelope. Individuals who need assistance preparing their appeal should contact the Board's Privacy Act Officer.
( b ) The appeal letter must be received by the Board within 30 calendar days from the date the requester received the notice of denial. At a minimum, the appeal letter should identify: ( 1 ) The records involved;
( 2 ) The date of the initial request for access to or amendment of the record;
( 3 ) The date of the Board's denial of that request; and
( 4 ) The reasons supporting the request for reversal of the Board's decision. Copies of previous correspondence from the Board denying the request to access or amend the record should also be attached, if possible.
( c ) The Board reserves the right to dispose of correspondence concerning the request to access or amend a record if no request for review of the Board's decision is received within 180 days of the decision date. Therefore, a request for review received after 180 days may, at the discretion of the Privacy Act Officer, be treated as an initial request to access or amend a record.
[55 FR 18852, May 7, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 55331, Nov. 7, 1994; 77 FR 11384, Feb. 27, 2012]
§ 330.608 Other agency CTAP responsibilities. ( a ) An agency must make a career transition orientation session available to all agency surplus and displaced employees with information on selection priority under this subpart and subparts B and G. Such orientation sessions may be in person or web-based through an agency automated training system or intranet.
( b ) An agency must give each agency CTAP eligible written information on selection priority under its plan, explaining how to locate and apply for agency vacancies and request selection priority. The agency may meet this requirement by providing a copy of its CTAP established under § 330.603.
( c ) An agency must take reasonable steps to ensure that agency CTAP eligibles have access to information on all vacancies, including how CTAP eligibles can apply, what proof of eligibility is required, and the agency definition of “well-qualified” for the vacancy.
( d ) If the agency can document that there are no CTAP eligibles in a local commuting area, the agency need not post the vacancy for CTAP eligibles.
( e ) An agency must provide a CTAP eligible who applied for a specific vacancy written notice of the final status of his or her application, including whether the eligible was determined to be well-qualified. The agency notice must include the results of the independent, second review under § 330.605(b), if applicable; whether another CTAP selection priority candidate was hired; whether the position was filled under an exception listed in § 330.609; and whether the recruitment was cancelled.
#### § 293.309 Reconstruction of lost OPFs.

Agencies will take necessary precautions to safeguard all OPFs. In the event of a lost or destroyed OPF, the current (or last, in the case of a former Federal employee) employing agency shall take the necessary action to reconstruct the essential portions of the OPF as specified in the Guide to Personnel Recordkeeping or other Office instructions.

[50 FR 3309, Jan. 24, 1985, as amended at 66 FR 66709, Dec. 27, 2001]
### **CHAPTER 18—PATENT RIGHTS IN INVENTIONS MADE WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE**

Sec.
200.
Policy and objective.
201.
Definitions.
202.
Disposition of rights.
203.
March-in rights.
204.
Preference for United States industry.
205.
Confidentiality.
206.
Uniform clauses and regulations.
207.
Domestic and foreign protection of federally owned inventions.
208.
Regulations governing Federal licensing.
209.
Licensing federally owned inventions.
210.
Precedence of chapter.
211.
Relationship to antitrust laws.
212.
Disposition of rights in educational awards.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2000**—Pub. L. 106–404, §4(b), Nov. 1, 2000, 114 Stat. 1744, substituted "Licensing federally owned inventions" for "Restrictions on licensing of federally owned inventions" in item 209.

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–620, title V, §501(15), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3368, added item 212.

**1982**—Pub. L. 97–256, title I, §101(5), Sept. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 816, redesignated chapter 38, as added by Pub. L. 96–517, §6(a), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3018, comprising sections 200 to 211, as chapter 18, and transferred chapter 18, as so redesignated, to end of this part from end of part IV.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Exhibit 10.1 Description of Compensatory Plan


 


This description is provided pursuant to Paragraph 10(ii) to Item 601
of Regulation S-B, which provides for a written description of a compensatory
plan when no formal document contains the compensation information.


 


Steve Roe is our General
Manager.  On December 16, 2003 the Board
of Directors of Little Sioux Corn Processors, L.L.C. approved compensation for
Mr. Roe in the amount of $105,000 for calendar year 2004.
NRC NEWS                      U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                             Office of Public Affairs Region IV                            611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400                        Arlington, TX  76011-4005

No. IV-06-023 October 30, 2006Contact: Victor Dricks                                                                        E-Mail: opa4@nrc.govPhone: 817-860-8128

NRC MONITORS ALERT AT ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is monitoring the situation at ArkansasNuclear One, Unit 2, where an alert has been declared following a fire in an electrical panelresulting in the loss of power to some safety related equipment.

The NRC has activated its Incident Response Center in Arlington, Texas, from whichstaff are coordinating the agency’s response to events. NRC resident inspectors are monitoringthe licensee’s response to events at the site.

“The plant is stable and there is no danger to public health or safety,” Region IVAdministrator Bruce S. Mallett said. “The licensee is determining the extent of damage and ourresident inspectors will ensure that the cause of this event are fully understood.” 

An Alert is the second lowest of four emergency classifications. Entergy Operationsdeclared the Alert at 1:04 p.m. Central Time following a fire in an electrical panel resulting in theloss of power to some safety equipment, including an emergency feedwater system.

The licensee reported the fire was quickly extinguished. Unit 1 was operating at 100percent power; Unit 2 was at 67 percent power. Both units remain on line.

###

NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html .  The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBElink.  E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
### SUBCHAPTER XI—VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND