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

# 08/17/05 - Forthcoming Meeting with the Public to Discuss NRC's Safety Culture Initiatives.

Accession Number: ML052570006

Date Released: Thursday, August 4, 2005

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML052150089 - 08/17/05 Public Meeting Notice to Discuss NRC's Safety Culture Initiatives. (3 page(s), 8/4/2005)
    - ML052280331 - Attachment 3  - 08/17/05 Public Meeting Notice to Discuss NRC's Safety Culture Initiatives Presentation. (18 page(s), 8/17/2005)
    - ML052150352 - 08/17/05 Public Meeting Notice to Discuss Safety Culture Response Plan dated August 3, 2005. (4 page(s), 8/3/2005)
    - ML052150348 - 08/17/05 Public Meeting Notice to Discuss Safety Culture Attributes Table. (9 page(s), 8/3/2005)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7387

WILLIAM A. VENEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CA-01-6-3)

Submitted: January 18, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. Veney, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William A. Veney appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §

2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). He alleges the district court erred

by failing to appoint counsel to assist him and failing to liberally construe his pro se § 2254 petition. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. See Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1989); Beaudett

v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274 (4th Cir. 1985). 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
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2      Section 906 Certification of CFO

                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Armor Electric Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Merrill
Moses, as President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.




BY:  /S/ MERRILL MOSES
     ------------------------
Merrill Moses
President and CFO
August 9, 2005
§ 591.304 Criteria for determining remoteness. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a duty post shall be determined to be a remote duty post for basic allowance eligibility purposes when: ( 1 ) Normal ground transportation (e.g., automobile, train, bus) is available on a daily basis and the duty post is 80 kilometers (50 miles), or more, one way from the nearest established community or suitable place of residence. Distance shall be computed in road or rail kilometers (miles) over the most direct route traveled from the center of the city, or other appropriate point for large cities or areas; or
( 2 ) Daily commuting is impractical because the location of the duty post and available transportation are such that agency management requires employees to remain at the duty post for their workweek as a normal and continuing part of the conditions of employment; or
( 3 ) Transportation may be accomplished only by boat, aircraft, or unusual conveyance, or under extraordinary conditions, and the distance, time, and commuting conditions result in expense, inconvenience, or hardship significantly greater than that encountered in metropolitan area commuting. A determination may only be made on an individual location basis.
( b ) Except when the criteria in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section are met, the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are not met: ( 1 ) When the duty post is within the boundary of a metropolitan area, a developed urban area, or community of sufficient size to provide adequate consumer facilities; and
( 2 ) When the duty post is within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the center of, or other appropriate point for large cities or areas, a metropolitan area, a developed urban area, or community of sufficient size to provide adequate consumer facilities. (This generally excludes a post of duty within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of any city of 5,000 or more population.)
( c ) A determination of remoteness for a duty post outside the 50 United States will be made on an individual location basis, taking into consideration the distance, time, and commuting conditions, and the extent to which these factors result in significant expense, inconvenience, or hardship.
[44 FR 55134, Sept. 25, 1979, as amended at 58 FR 32278, June 9, 1993]
NRC MEETING DEC. 4 IN EVENSVILLE, TENN., TO DISCUSS 

OVERSIGHT OF WATTS BAR UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION 

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the public in Evensville, 

Tenn., on Tuesday, Dec. 4, to discuss how the agency will oversee construction activities 

and licensing of the incomplete Unit 2 at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant, about 10 

miles south of Spring City, Tenn. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the 

plant, has told the NRC it intends to restart construction activities in December. 

 “TVA has an active construction permit for Unit 2, and our job will be to ensure 

TVA’s construction and quality control efforts meet our requirements for building a safe 

reactor,” said Catherine Haney, Director of the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing 

in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “We want the communities near 

Watts Bar to understand the process, including any hearings that might take place 

regarding Unit 2.” 

 The meeting will be held in the Little Theater of the Rhea County High School, 

405 Pierce Road in Evensville, from 7 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. NRC staff presentations will 

describe the overall process for reviewing TVA’s work, which includes safety and 

environmental assessments, as well as how the public can participate in the process. The 

NRC will host an open house at 6 p.m., so members of the public have the opportunity to 

talk informally with agency staff. 

 The NRC will decide whether to issue an operating license for Unit 2 in 

accordance with the agency’s regulations. Unit 2, if completed, would be an 1,100-MWe, 

Westinghouse-designed pressurized water reactor essentially the same as the operating 

Unit 1. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv 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. 

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 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 07-148 November 8, 2007
| **Exhibit 32.1** |
|------------------|

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

| In connection    with the Quarterly Report of China Media Group Corporation a Texas corporation (the    "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months period ending March 31, 2012, as    filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    "Report"), Cheng Pheng LOI, Chief Executive 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been    provided to China Media Group Corporation, and will be retained by China Media Group    Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon    request.
/s/ Cheng Pheng LOI
--------------------------
Cheng Pheng LOI
Chief Executive    Officer
May 16, 2012 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### §750. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 642

Section, act Aug. 1, 1914, ch. 223, §1, 38 Stat. 658, related to leaves of absence to employees of Lighthouse Service.
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial
Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Entravision Communications Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on our
knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    WALTER F. ULLOA                      
|                     |  |  |  | Walter F. Ulloa Chief Executive Officer     
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 16, 2009 |  |  |  | /S/    CHRISTOPHER T.
YOUNG                 
|                     |  |  |  | Christopher T. Young Chief Financial Officer
§ 302.201 Persons entitled to veteran preference. In actions subject to this part, each agency shall grant veteran preference as follows: ( a ) When numerical scores are used in the evaluation and referral, the agency shall grant 5 additional points to preference eligibles under section 2108(3) (A) and (B) of title 5, United States Code, and 10 additional points to preference eligibles under section 2108(3) (C) through (G) of that title.
( b ) When eligible candidates are referred without ranking, the agency shall note preference as “CP” for preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C), as “XP” for preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(D) through (G), as “SSP” for preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(H) and as “TP” for all other preference eligibles under that title.
[55 FR 9407, Mar. 14, 1990, as amended at 85 FR 63191, Oct. 7, 2020]
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 1441

REINA MARISOL RAMOS DE CHACON; V.K.C.R.; A.J.C.R.

,

Petitioner s
,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : October 27, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Abdoul Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland , for Petitioner s

. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony W. Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Reina Marisol Ramos De Chacon and her two daughters, native s and citizen s of El

Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board)

dismissing t he i r appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of De Chacon’s application

for asylum. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of De

Chacon’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting eviden ce. We

conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the

administrative factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial

evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. Elias

– Zacarias , 502 U.S . 478, 481

(1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review

. We dispense with oral argument

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

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITIO N DENIED
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-3752

_____________________________

ROBERT JAMES POOLEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

August 2, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### § 1631.2 Purpose and scope.

This subpart contains the regulations of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, implementing 5 U.S.C. 552. The regulations of this subpart describe the procedures by which records may be obtained from all organizational units within the Board and from its recordkeeper. Official records of the Board, except those already published in bulk by the Board, available pursuant to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552 shall be furnished to members of the public only as prescribed by this subpart. To the extent that it is not prohibited by other laws the Board also will make available records which it is authorized to withhold under 5 U.S.C. 552 whenever it determines that such disclosure is in the interest of the Thrift Savings Plan.
§ 553.202 Request for delegation of authority to approve reemployment without reduction or termination of annuity in emergencies or other unusual circumstances. ( a ) *Request by agency head.* The head of an agency may request OPM to delegate to the agency authority to approve individual exceptions on a case-by-case basis in specific circumstances. Authority to submit such a request may not be redelegated to an official below the agency's headquarters level (or, in the case of the Department of Defense, to an official below the headquarters level of the military department or Defense agency).
( b ) *Content of request.* The request for delegation must include: ( 1 ) Description of the situations for which authority is requested. The situation must result from emergencies posing immediate and direct threat to life or property or from other unusual circumstances.
( 2 ) Identification of the occupations, grades, and locations of positions that might be filled under the delegated authority.
( 3 ) Statement of the expected duration of the reemployment to be approved under the requested authority.
( c ) *Delegation agreement.* OPM will set out the conditions for use of each authority that it delegates under the provisions of this section in a delegation agreement. The agreement will remain in effect without time limit unless OPM specifies a termination date in the agreement, or unless OPM withdraws the delegated authority upon finding that the circumstances justifying the delegation have changed substantially or that the agency has failed to manage the authority in accordance with the law, the regulations, and the agreement itself.
[56 FR 6206, Feb. 14, 1991, as amended at 57 FR 12406, Apr. 10, 1992; 72 FR 53412, Sept. 19, 2007]
# L_2018305EN.01002801.xml

| 29.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 305/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 305/28

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 61/2017

of 17 March 2017

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2018/1825]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1945 of 14 October 2016 on equivalences between categories of driving licences (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1945 of 14 October 2016 on equivalences between categories of driving licences (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Decision (EU) 2016/1945 repeals Commission Decision 2014/209/EU (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision (EU) 2016/1945 repeals Commission Decision 2014/209/EU (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement and which is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text of point 24fb (Commission Decision 2014/209/EU) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement is replaced by the following:

‘
  32016 D 1945: Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1945 of 14 October 2016 on equivalences between categories of driving licences (OJ L 302, 9.11.2016, p. 62).’

Article 2

The text of Decision (EU) 2016/1945 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 18 March 2017, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 17 March 2017.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Claude MAERTEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 302, 9.11.2016, p. 62.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 120, 23.4.2014, p. 1.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
§ 550.371 Scope. If an agency permits an employee to make an allotment for dues to a foreign affairs agency organization, the agency must also provide, in accordance with section 15 of Executive Order 11636: ( a ) that the employee be allowed to revoke the authorization at least every six months; and
( b ) that the allotment terminates when the dues withholding agreement between a foreign affairs agency and the organization is terminated or ceases to be applicable to the employee.
[46 FR 2325, Jan. 9, 1981. Redesignated at 71 FR 66828, Nov. 17, 2006]
##### 



2005 AWARD AGREEMENT
 Optionee: Larence Park
    
    Optionee ID #: 264172121Grant number: 2440002
    
    Optioned shares: 150,000Grant date: July 1, 2005
    
    Price per share: $17.95
 Larence Park
      Award
   1




---



##### 



Definitions
         2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Vesting; Exercise Date
 Normal Vesting rd th th
 4




---



##### 



Accelerated Vesting
 Retention of Vested Options provided however
 Method of Exercise
  Exercise by Broker-Dealer
  Tax Withholding
  5




---



##### 



Transfer of Option
  Certain Legal Restrictions
  Disputes
  Governing Law
  6




---



##### 



Payments
  Miscellaneous
       7




---



##### 



eFunds Corporation
    
    
    
    RecipientBy:
    
    /s/ Paul F. Walsh

Paul F. Walsh
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Larence Park
Larence ParkChief Executive Officer
 
 8
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                           Subsidiaries of the Company
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                           Jurisdiction of Incorporation
----                                           -----------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
eFunds Corporation                             California
Analytic Research Technologies, Inc.           Minnesota
eFunds Canada, Inc.                            Canada
eFunds Government Services, Inc.               Delaware
Chex Systems, Inc.                             Minnesota
eFunds Holdings Limited                        United Kingdom
eFunds International Limited                   United Kingdom
Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc.      Delaware
iDLX Corporation                               Delaware
iDLX International B.V.                        Netherlands
iDLX Holdings N.V.                             Netherlands
eFunds IT Solutions Group, Inc.                Delaware
eFunds International India Private Limited     India
eFunds Overseas, Inc.                          Minnesota
Access Cash International L.L.C.               Delaware
ACI-Canada, Inc.                               Minnesota
Access Cash Canada Co.                         Canada
</TABLE>