alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. 06-126 October 6, 2006

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING IN PIKETON, OHIO, TO DISCUSS

FINAL SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR CENTRIFUGE PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Oct. 18 in Piketon, Ohio, to

discuss its final Safety Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed gas

centrifuge uranium enrichment plant to be constructed and operated by USEC Inc.

The meeting will be held at the Ohio State University Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, in

Piketon, from 7 - 9 p.m. Members of the NRC technical staff will present brief summaries of the safety

and environmental reports, and the bulk of the meeting will be devoted to answering questions from the

public.

USEC Inc. submitted its license application for the plant, to be known as the American

Centrifuge Plant, on Aug. 23, 2004. USEC proposes to use a design based on gas centrifuge technology

developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to enrich uranium for use in fuel for commercial

nuclear power reactors. The plant is to be built at DOE’s Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

reservation in Piketon.

The Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1851), published in September, documents the NRC

staff’s review and safety and safeguards evaluation of USEC’s application. The review evaluates the

facility’s potential adverse impacts on worker and public health and safety, under both normal

operating and accident conditions. The review also considers physical protection of special nuclear

material and classified matter, material control and accounting of special nuclear material, as well as

the management organization, administrative programs and financial qualifications provided to ensure

the facility’s safe design and operation.

The Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-1834) was published in April. That study

concluded that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts that would preclude

granting a license. Both documents are available on the NRC Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/usecfacility.html .
The license review process is scheduled for completion in February, following an adjudicatory

hearing by the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board.

###

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 SUBSCRIBE link. 

E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
### Part P—Restorative Practices
### §2719. State financial responsibility

A State may enforce, on the navigable waters of the State, the requirements for evidence of financial responsibility under section 2716 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–380, title I, §1019, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 506.)
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. 04-020 February 9, 2004

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING IN EUNICE, N.M., ON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

PROCESS FOR PROPOSED URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting March 4 in Eunice, N.M., to

seek information on environmental issues to be included in the environmental review of a uranium

enrichment facility proposed for Lea County.

The meeting will be held at the Eunice Community Center, 1115 Avenue I, from 7 - 10 p.m. It

is part of the public “scoping” process for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The scoping process is designed

to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS and to

identify the significant issues related to the proposed enrichment plant.

Louisiana Energy Services (LES), an international consortium of energy companies, submitted

a license application and an environmental report for the proposed gas centrifuge plant, to be called the

National Enrichment Facility, in December. The NRC formally accepted and docketed the application

on January 22. On January 30, the Commission issued an order establishing a 30-month time frame for

review of the application.

The following issues have been tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS, although the final

list may omit some or include others based on public input: land use, transportation, geology and soils,

water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, historical and cultural resources, visual and scenic

resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, public and occupational health, and waste

management.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments on environmental issues relating

to the proposed facility until March 18 to the Chief, Rules and Directive Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Please note “Docket Number 70-

3103" on the comments. Due to the current mail situation in Washington, commentors are encouraged

to send their comments via electronic mail to LES_EIS@nrc.gov .

Information about the LES project, including the license application and environmental review,

is available through the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/lesfacility.html

###
Exhibit 99.3 

 

AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT 

 

THIS AMENDMENT is made this 28th day of July, 2004, by and between OMEGA INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, PROUDFOOT REPORTS, INC., a NewYork corporation (collectively, the “Pledgors”), and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (the “Bank”). 

 

Recitals 

 

The Pledgors and the Bank executed a Security Agreement (as amended from time to time, the “Security Agreement”) dated February 27, 2004. The parties wish to amend the Security Agreement in accordance with the terms hereof.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, theparties agree as follows: 

 

1. The term “Note” asdefined in the Recitals to the Security Agreement is hereby amended so that, from and after the date hereof, the term “Note” shall mean that certain Renewal Promissory Note dated July 28, 2004, executed by First Advantage Corporation,doing business in Florida as First Advantage Holding, Inc. (the “Borrower”) in favor of the Bank in the principal amount of $15,000,000.00 (as such Note may be amended, extended or renewed from time to time). 

 

2. Each Pledgor certifies that as of the date hereof: (a) all of itsrepresentations and warranties in the Security Agreement are true and correct as if made on the date hereof; and (b) no Default or Event of Default has occurred under the Security Agreement. The Security Agreement, as modified herein, shall continuein full force and effect from and after the date hereof. 

 

DATEDthe day and year first above written. 

 

 

PROUDFOOT REPORTS, INC.By: /s/    John LamsonIts: Vice President   
 

2
### §11191. Content of materials

Materials produced, procured, or distributed both using funds appropriated to carry out this chapter and for the purpose of preventing hate crimes that result in acts of physical violence, shall not recommend or require any action that abridges or infringes upon the constitutionally protected rights of free speech, religion, or equal protection of juveniles or of their parents or legal guardians.

(Pub. L. 93–415, title II, §299J, as added Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title II, §12220, Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1893.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–415, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1109, known as the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1974 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 5681 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after Nov. 2, 2002, and applicable only with respect to fiscal years beginning on or after the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after Nov. 2, 2002, see section 12223 of Pub. L. 107–273, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment note under section 11101 of this title.
{0273.001 / 111 / 00087691.DOCX} Vapors to Flare or Vapor

Recovery System

Activity A: Release Point 1

(15 kg/day)

Activity B: Release Point 2

Fugitive Air (3.5 kg/day)

Tar Oil

(178,700 kg/day) Blended Fuel Oil in Refineries Fuel Blending Tar Oil

Storage Railcar

Offloading 

### NOTES:

Special Symbols/Nomenclature 

## :

Reference Drawings:

Block Flow Diagram

Fuel Oil Blending in

Refineries

Date

11/10/11 

### Rev #

0
§ 532.207 Time schedule for wage surveys. ( a ) Wage surveys shall be conducted on a 2-year cycle at annual intervals.
( b ) A full-scale survey shall be made in the first year of the 2-year cycle and shall include development of a current sample of establishments and the collection of wage data by visits to establishments. With the unanimous consent of the members of a Local Wage Survey Committee, data may also be obtained from a private sector establishment or establishments during a full-scale wage survey by telephone, mail, or electronic means.
( c ) A wage-change survey shall be made every other year using only the same employers, occupations, survey jobs, and establishment weights used in the preceding full-scale survey. Data may be collected by telephone, mail, electronic means, or personal contact.
( d ) Scheduling of surveys shall take into consideration the following criteria: ( 1 ) The best timing in relation to wage adjustments in the principal local private enterprise establishments;
( 2 ) Reasonable distribution of workload of the lead agency;
( 3 ) The timing of surveys for nearby or selected wage areas; and
( 4 ) Scheduling relationships with other pay surveys.
( e ) The Office of Personnel Management may authorize adjustments in the normal cycle as requested by the lead agency and based on the criteria in paragraph (d) of this section or to accommodate special studies or adjustments consistent with determining local prevailing rates.
( f ) The beginning month of appropriated and nonappropriated fund wage surveys and the fiscal year during which full-scale surveys will be conducted are set out as appendices A and B to this subpart and are incorporated in and made part of this section.
[55 FR 46141, Nov. 1, 1990, as amended at 86 FR 11859, Mar. 1, 2021]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7154

GARY M. WADE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM S. HAINES,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-01-102-5)

Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 22, 2002

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary M. Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn Ellen

Warfield, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary M. Wade seeks to appeal the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and dismissing as untimely

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not

be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court

dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a

certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner

can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We

have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the

district court that Wade has not made the requisite showing. See

Wade v. Haines, No. CA-01-102-5 (N.D.W. Va. July 1, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5038

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOSE LEPE-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-05-25)

Submitted: May 8, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

U. Wilfred Nwauwa, LAW OFFICES OF U. WILFRED NWAUWA, Charlotte,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United

States Attorney, C. Nicks Williams, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2004).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jose Lepe-Rodriguez appeals the sixty-three-month

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to reentry after

deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2000).

Lepe-Rodriguez challenges the reasonableness of his sentence,

asserting that the district court erred in sentencing him in four

ways: 1) the court failed to adequately explain its sentencing

determination; 2) the court failed to consider all 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2005) factors in determining the

sentence; 3) the court gave exclusive consideration to the

Guideline*

 range, effectively rendering it mandatory; and 4) the

court imposed a sentence greater than necessary to comply with the

purposes of sentencing. We find, however, that the district court

sentenced Lepe-Rodriguez only after appropriately considering and

examining the Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, as

instructed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

“The district court need not discuss each factor set

forth in § 3553(a) ‘in checklist fashion’; ‘it is enough to

calculate the range accurately and explain why (if the sentence

lies outside it) this defendant deserves more or less.’” United

States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting

United States v. Dean, 414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005)). The

district court sentenced Lepe-Rodriguez within the applicable
- 3 -

advisory Guideline range and well below the twenty-year statutory

maximum set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). We cannot conclude

that, under these circumstances, Lepe-Rodriguez's sentence is

unreasonable. See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th

Cir. 2006); United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.

2006) (finding that sentence imposed within properly calculated

advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert.

denied, __ U.S. __, 2006 WL 1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-

10474).

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               8
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                       357
<INVENTORY>                                      2,304
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,896
<PP&E>                                           1,954
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,075
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,160
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,075
<SALES>                                          4,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,278
<CGS>                                            2,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   603
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    553
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
§ 2634.1007 Cases in which Certificates of Divestiture will not be issued. The Director of the Office of Government Ethics, in his or her sole discretion, may deny a request for a Certificate of Divestiture in cases where an unfair or unintended benefit would result. Examples of such cases include: ( a ) *Employee benefit plans.* The Director will not issue a Certificate of Divestiture if the property is held in a pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, or other employee benefit plan and can otherwise be rolled over into an eligible tax-deferred retirement plan within the 60-day reinvestment period.
( b ) *Tax-Deferred and Tax-Advantaged Accounts.* The Director will not issue a Certificate of Divestiture if the property is held in an Individual Retirement Account, college savings plan (529 plan), or other tax-deferred or tax-advantaged account (e.g., 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, etc.), which allow the account holder to exchange the property for permissible property without incurring a capital gain.
( c ) *Complete divestiture.* The Director will not issue a Certificate of Divestiture unless the employee agrees to divest all of the property that presents a conflict of interest, as well as other similar or related property that presents a conflict of interest under a Federal conflict of interest statute, regulation, rule, or Executive order. However, any property that qualifies for a regulatory exemption at part 2640 of this chapter need not be divested for a Certificate of Divestiture to be issued. Example: A Department of Agriculture employee owns shares of stock in Better Workspace, Inc. valued at $25,000. As part of his official duties, the employee is assigned to evaluate bids for a contract to renovate office space at his agency. The Department's designated agency ethics official discovers that Better Workspace is one of the companies that has submitted a bid and directs the employee to sell his stock in the company. Because Better Workspace is a publicly traded security, the employee could retain up to $15,000 of the stock under the regulatory exemption for interests in securities at § 2640.202(a) of this chapter. He would be able to request a Certificate of Divestiture for the $10,000 of Better Workspace stock that is not covered by the exemption. Alternatively, he could request a Certificate of Divestiture for the entire $25,000 worth of stock. If he chooses to sell his stock down to an amount permitted under the regulatory exemption, the Office of Government Ethics will not issue additional Certificates of Divestiture if the value of the stock goes above $15,000 again.
( d ) *Property acquired under improper circumstances.* The Director will not issue a Certificate of Divestiture: ( 1 ) If the eligible person acquired the property at a time when its acquisition was prohibited by statute, regulation, rule, or Executive order; or
( 2 ) If circumstances would otherwise create the appearance of a conflict with the conscientious performance of Government responsibilities.
§ 2604.304 Appeal of denials. ( a ) *Right of appeal.* If a request has been denied in whole or in part, the requester may appeal the denial by mail or email to the Program Counsel of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Requests sent by mail should be addressed to 1201 New York Avenue NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3917. The envelope containing the request and the letter itself should both clearly indicate that the subject is a Freedom of Information Act appeal. Email requests should be sent to *usoge@oge.gov* and should indicate in the subject line that the message contains a Freedom of Information Act appeal.
( b ) *Letter of appeal.* The appeal must be in writing and must be sent within 90 calendar days of receipt of the denial letter. An appeal should include a copy of the initial request, a copy of the letter denying the request in whole or in part, and a statement of the circumstances, reasons or arguments advanced in support of disclosure of the record.
( c ) *Action on appeal.* The disposition of an appeal will be in writing and will constitute the final action of OGE on a request. A decision affirming in whole or in part the denial of a request will include a brief statement of the reason or reasons for affirmance, including each FOIA exemption relied on. If the denial of a request is reversed in whole or in part on appeal, the request will be processed promptly in accordance with the decision on appeal.
( d ) *Judicial review.* If the denial of the request for records is upheld in whole or in part, OGE will notify the person making the request of the right to seek judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4).
( e ) *Dispute Resolution Services.* If the denial of the request for records is upheld in whole or in part, OGE will notify the requester about the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and provide contact information for that office.
[80 FR 57073, Sept. 22, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 94216, Dec. 23, 2016]