alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 29, 2006

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-06-0056 - COMPLETION

OF DECOMMISSIONING AT KAISER ALUMINUM FACILITY

AND CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) UNDER THE U.S. NUCLEAR

REGULATORY COMMISSION / U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING

The Commission has approved both letters, subject to the changes noted below, and approved

the staff’s proposal to process future level 2 consultations without prior Commission approval. 

The staff should inform the Commission coincident with future EPA consultations.

Changes to the letter to EPA

1. Page 1, paragraph 4, revise lines 2 and 3 to read ‘ ... MOU for tThorium-232 (Th-232)

and rRadium-226. EPA ....’ 

2. Page 1, last paragraph, in lines 3 and 5, revise “thorium” to read “thorium-232". 

3. Page 2, line 2 from the top, revise “thorium” to read “thorium-232". 

Changes to the letter to Kaiser

4. Page 1, paragraph 3, line 7, insert a period after “EPA” and delete the remainder of the

sentence.

5. Page 1, last paragraph, revise lines 2 and 3 to read ‘ ... MOU for tThorium-232 (Th-232)

and rRadium-226. NRC ....’ 

6. Page 2, line 1 from the top, revise “thorium” to read “thorium-232". 

7. Page 2, 1st full paragraph, line 7, delete “human”. 

8. Page 2, last paragraph, revise line 3 to read ‘ ... 301-415-7295 , to establish the time

frame and conditions for a level2 consultation.’ Delete the last sentence (Please contact

NRC as ... this site.) 
cc: Chairman Klein 

Commissioner McGaffigan 

Commissioner Merrifield 

Commissioner Jaczko 

Commissioner Lyons

OGC

CFO

OCA

OPA

Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR
§ 630.1116 Termination of a disaster or emergency. The disaster or emergency affecting the employee as an emergency leave recipient terminates at the earliest occurrence of the following conditions. ( a ) When the employing agency determines that the disaster or emergency has terminated;
( b ) When the employee's Federal service terminates;
( c ) At the end of the biweekly pay period in which the employee, or his or her personal representative, notifies the emergency leave recipient's agency that he or she is no longer affected by such disaster or emergency;
( d ) At the end of the biweekly pay period in which the employee's agency determines, after giving the employee or his or her personal representative written notice and an opportunity to answer orally or in writing, that the employee is no longer affected by such disaster or emergency; or
( e ) At the end of the biweekly pay period in which the employee's agency receives notice that OPM has approved an application for disability retirement for the emergency leave recipient under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees' Retirement System, as appropriate.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION I, William T. Bromage, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Webster Preferred Capital Corporation. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4. The registrant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 registrant 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
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures; and
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
quarter in case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operations of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 10, 2005By:
    
    /s/ William T. BromageWilliam T. BromagePresident(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 316.904 Classification.

Post-secondary student positions under the General Schedule or appropriate pay plan must be classified to the -99 series of the appropriate occupational group. Federal Wage System positions filled under the authority in this subpart must be classified to the -01 series of the appropriate occupational group. Agencies may refer to OPM's, “Introduction to the Position Classification Standards” at *https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/positionclassificationintro.pdf* for a definition of these positions. In addition, agencies can refer to the “Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families” available at *https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/classification-qualifications/classifying-general-schedule-positions/occupationalhandbook.pdf.*
#### § 532.103 Coverage.

The provisions of this part shall apply to prevailing rate employees and agencies covered by section 5342 of title 5, United States Code.
H. R. 1610

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

An Act

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120

East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, Missouri, as the ‘‘Walt Disney Post Office

Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, Missouri, and known as

the Marceline Main Office, shall be known and designated as the

‘‘Walt Disney Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Walt Disney

Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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. 06-130 October 20, 2006

NRC ISSUES TECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR THE IDAHO 

NATIONAL LABORATORY TANK FARM FACILITY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for the

Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility at the Idaho National

Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho, that concludes the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has met

appropriate criteria for determining that the residual waste in the tanks is not high-level waste and

clears the way for DOE to clean and stabilize the tanks.

 The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA)

requires DOE to consult with the NRC when determining that certain wastes associated with spent

nuclear fuel reprocessing are not high-level wastes. The NDAA has three criteria for making that

determination: 

1) The waste does not require permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository for spent

nuclear fuel or high-level waste;

2) The waste has had highly radioactive radionuclides removed to the maximum extent

practical; and 

3) The waste will be disposed of in compliance with NRC regulations for land disposal of

waste.

In September 2005, DOE submitted its waste “Determination for the Idaho Nuclear Technology

and Engineering Center Tank Farm Facility” for NRC review as required by the NDAA. Based on this

information, NRC staff has concluded in that there is reasonable assurance that the applicable criteria

of the NDAA can be met for residual waste associated with the Tank Farm Facility. NRC’s Technical

Evaluation Report includes DOE’s disposal strategy, applicable review criteria, and the NRC staff’s

review, analysis and conclusions. 

This TER marks the successful completion of the consultation under Section 3116 of the

NDAA. This is the second TER prepared by the NRC under the NDAA. The first was for the disposal

of salt waste at the Savannah River Site.
A copy of the TER is available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management

Systems (ADAMS) under accession number ML062490108. ADAMS is accessible via the agency’s

web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . 

###

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.
466 P.2d 118

#### CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rose SANCHEZ and Vickie Padilla, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 381.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Feb. 13, 1970.

*273Robert E. Melton, Albuquerque, for appellee.

Timothy P. Woolston, Albuquerque, for appellants.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Defendants pleaded guilty, in Municipal Court, to petty larceny and were sentenced. Subsequently, they appealed to the district court. The City moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that a plea of guilty does not entitle defendants to „appeal. The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss and defendants appeal that ruling.

We reverse for reasons hereinafter stated.

Section 21-10-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Supp. 1969) states:

> “All appeals from inferior tribunals to the district courts shall be tried anew in said courts on their merits, as if no trial had been had below, except as otherwise provided by law.”

The question presented is whether one who pleads guilty in an inferior court may appeal to the district court.

The City argues that “[t]o allow an appeal to be taken after a guilty plea * * * would seriously impede or delay the orderly and speedy administration of justice in both the inferior and superior courts.” With this we do not agree, but assuming it is correct, then this is a situation which calls for legislative therapy and not judicial surgery.

Here the framers of our Constitution saw fit to provide for de novo appeals in all cases from the probate courts and other inferior courts by Art. VI, § 27 of the New Mexico Constitution which reads:

> “Appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final judgments and decisions of the probate courts and other inferior courts to the district courts, and in all such appeals, trial shall be had de novo unless otherwise provided by law. (As amended November 8, 1966).”

They imposed no condition except a proviso that the Legislature could, by law, change the' right granted. We can find no such change nor have we been cited to any. Section 21-10-1, supra, makes no change to support the City’s position. The terms of that section are clear and without limitation.

The defendants have a right of appeal to the district court by the plain terms of § 21-10-1, supra. This right of appeal is the right to have the case disposed of upon its merits, de novo, in the district court. Our statute vests the district court with coordinate jurisdiction to proceed in the case as if it had been originally commenced in that court.

The Order granting the City’s Motion to' Dismiss the Appeal should be set aside and defendants’ cases reinstated on the court docket.

It is so ordered.

SPIESS, C. J., and OMAN, J., concur.
§ 582.202 Service of legal process. ( a ) A person using this part shall serve interrogatories and legal process on the agent to receive process as explained in § 582.201. Where the legal process is directed to an agency, and the purpose of the legal process is to compel an agency to garnish an employee's pay, the legal process need not expressly name the agency as a garnishee.
( b ) Service of legal process may be accomplished by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service only upon the agent to receive process as explained in § 582.201, or if no agent has been designated, then upon the head of the employee-obligor's employing agency. The designated agent shall note the date and time of receipt on the legal process.
( c ) Parties bringing garnishment actions shall comply with the service of process provisions in this section. Service will not be effective where parties fail to comply with the service of process provisions of this section, notwithstanding whether the person bringing the garnishment action has complied with the service of process requirements of the jurisdiction issuing the legal process.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

www.nrc.gov

 

No. I-05-064 December 6, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC ASSIGNS NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR

TO HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in the Region I office in King of Prussia have

selected George J. Malone as the senior resident inspector at the Hope Creek nuclear power plant. 

Hope Creek is in Hancocks Bridge, N.J.

For the past two years, Malone has been a resident inspector at Salem Units 1 and 2. 

He joined the NRC in March 2002 as an operations engineer in the Region I Division

of Reactor Safety. Prior to joining the agency, he worked as an engineer at Bechtel-Bettis, Inc.,

in Charleston, S.C. He has a master’s and a bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering from the

University of Illinois. 

“George Malone has the experience and commitment to safety that will help the NRC ensure

that Hope Creek conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect public health and

safety," said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors.

They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring

significant work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. 

The Hope Creek residents can be reached at 856/935-5373.

###
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)I, Allan J. Kent, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of GeoGlobal Resources Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: May 11, 2006 /s/ Allan J. Kent     Allan J. Kent    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  
Page 38
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 9 ,

2012 .

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_____________ ____________ NO. 14 - 12 - 00 247 - CV

_________ ___________ _____ BBG GROUP, L.L.C., MILO NICKEL AND THOMAS MICHAEL LEBLANC , Appellant s V. MBI GLOBAL, L.L.C. , Appellee On Appeal from the 2 15 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2008 - 50193 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N On March 8, 2012, Hunter Buildings & Manufacturing, L.P., Hunter Buildings, L.L.C., and Hunter Buildings International, L.L.C. ("Hunter appellants") filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment signed December 9, 2011 , and the appeal was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14 - 12 - 00 246 - CV. Subsequently on March 8, 2012,2

BBG Group, L.L.C., Milo A. Nickel, and Thomas Michael LeBlanc ("BBG appellants") filed a notice of appeal from the same judgment, which was assigned to this court under our appellate number 14 - 12 - 00 247 - CV. On July 2 6 , 2012, the Hunter appellants and BBG appellants filed a n unopposed joint motion to consolidate the se app eals. The motion is granted and the court consolidates the two above - referenced causes for all purposes . The issues, records, and documents filed in cause number 14 - 12 - 00 247 - CV are consolidated into cause number 14 - 12 - 00 246 - CV. The consolidated appeal shall proceed under appeal number 14 - 12 - 00 246 - CV, and appeal number 14 - 12 - 00 247 - CV is hereby dismissed . See Livingston v. Arrington , No. 03 - 11 - 00197 - CV, No. 03 - 11 - 00266 - CV, 2011WL 2297705, *1 (Tex. App. -- Austin Jun. 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op). Appellate deadlines will run from the date that the record in appeal number 14 - 12 - 00246 - CV is complete. PER CURIAM P anel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and J ustices Seymore a nd B rown .
§ 536.305 Adjusting an employee's retained rate when a pay schedule is adjusted. ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, when the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range for an employee's position of record is increased while the employee is receiving a retained rate, the employee is entitled to 50 percent of the amount of the increase in that maximum rate, subject to the maximum rate limitation in § 536.306. This 50-percent adjustment rule applies only when the maximum rate increases are attributable to the adjustment of the employee's existing pay schedule or the establishment of a new pay schedule that covers the employee's existing position of record.
( 2 ) As provided in 5 CFR 531.206, a retained rate adjustment under paragraph (a)(1) of this section is a general pay adjustment that must be applied before any geographic conversion under § 536.303(b) or any other simultaneous pay action. The retained rate adjustment under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be determined based on the employee's position of record and official worksite as in effect immediately before the effective date of the adjustment.
( 3 ) Consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5363(c), a change in the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range based on a change in the employee's official worksite is not considered in applying paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The employee's new retained rate must be determined under the geographic conversion rule in § 536.303(b).
( 4 ) Paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not apply to an increase in an employee's highest applicable rate range that results from a change in the employee's position of record. Such an increase is not attributable to an adjustment in the pay schedule applicable to the employee's position and thus is not an increase as described in 5 U.S.C. 5363(b)(2)(B).
( b ) When a pay schedule adjustment causes an employee's retained rate (after any adjustment under this section) to become equal to or lower than the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range for the grade of the employee's position, the employee is entitled to the maximum rate of the highest applicable rate range, and pay retention ceases to apply.