alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. IV-08-015 

Contact: Victor Dricks 

Phone: (817) 860-8128 

 

 April 28, 2008 

 E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS 2007 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 

FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Bay City, Texas, on May 14, 

with representatives of South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co., to discuss the agency=s 

assessment of safety performance for last year at the South Texas Project nuclear plant. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Bay 

City Civic Center, 201 Seventh St., Bay City. 

In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions from the public on the safety performance of South Texas Project, as well as the NRC=s 

role in ensuring safe plant operation. 

 AThe NRC continually reviews the performance of South Texas Project and the nation=s 

other commercial nuclear power facilities,@ NRC Region IV Administrator Elmo E. Collins said. 

AThis meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety 

performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant.@

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2007 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on 

the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stp_2007q4.pdf . 

The NRC utilizes color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess 

nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with "green" and then increase to "white," 

"yellow" or "red," commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

611 Ryan Plaza Drive – Suite 400 

Arlington, Texas 76011-4005 

Telephone: (817) 860-8128 
The NRC said South Texas project operated safely during 2007 and will receive regular, 

or baseline inspections during 2008. 

Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas. 

Current performance information for South Texas Project Unit 1 is available on the NRC 

web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP1/stp1_chart.html . Current 

performance information for Unit 2 is available at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STP2/stp2_chart.html . 

 ### 

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 SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
### §152102. Organization

(a) Federal Charter.—National Mining Hall of Fame and Museum (in this chapter, the "corporation"), incorporated in Colorado, is a federally chartered corporation.

(b) Expiration of Charter.—If the corporation does not comply with any provision of this chapter, the charter granted by this chapter expires.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1410.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 152102(a) | 36:4101. | Nov. 14, 1988, Pub. L. 100–655, §§101, 116, 102 Stat. 3849, 3852. |
| 152102(b) | 36:4115. | |

Section

This section is substituted for the source provisions for consistency in the revised title and to eliminate unnecessary words.
#### Wittemann Brothers, Respondent, v. The Wittemann Company, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Burr, J., not voting.
#### Marie SKAGGS, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 5, 1947.

C. P. See, Jr. for movant.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and Guy H. Herdman, Assistant Attorney General, for opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the Lawrence circuit court for selling liquors in local option territory and punished by a fine of $100 and 30 days in jail. The motion for an appeal to this court is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6178

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO SALINAS-CASTILLO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cr-00188-REP-4)

Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Salinas-Castillo, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Francisco Salinas-Castillo appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se 

motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Salinas-Castillo, No. 3:10-cr00188-REP-4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2018). 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.

AFFIRMED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 117
          - [CGD01-04-139]

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

# SUMMARY:

The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Northern Avenue Bridge, mile 0.1, across Fort Point Channel, at Boston, Massachusetts. This temporary deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position from December 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004. This temporary deviation is necessary to facilitate mechanical repairs at the bridge.

# DATES:

This deviation is effective from December 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (617) 223-8364.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Northern Avenue Bridge has a vertical clearance of 7 feet at mean high water and 17 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.599.

The bridge owner, the City of Boston, requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate necessary mechanical repairs, the replacement of the bridge operating gears, at the bridge. The bridge cannot open during the prosecution of these mechanical repairs.

Under this temporary deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position from December 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35 and will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible.

Dated: October 26, 2004.

David P. Pekoske,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04-24970 Filed 11-8-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2091 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2091

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a project for water 
              supply, Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2003

Mr. Alexander introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out a project for water 
              supply, Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BASTROP-MOREHOUSE PARISH, LOUISIANA.

    (a) Water Supply Project.--The Secretary shall conduct a study for 
the project for water supply, Bastrop-Morehouse Parish, Louisiana, and, 
if the Secretary determines that the project is feasible, may carry out 
the project.
    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $12,500,000. Such sums shall 
remain available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 1

mhtml:file:///C:/Users/tdefosse/AppData/Local/Temp/ct_trail_map.mht!http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/afo/ct... 06/21/17
### [§31. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4715(b)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–580]

Section, acts July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 93–596, §1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949, authorized the Commissioner to prescribe regulations for agents and attorneys.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1999 Amendment note under section 1 of this title.
§ 838.725 Effect on employee and retiree election rights. ( a ) A court order acceptable for processing that awards a former spouse survivor annuity does not affect a retiring employee's or retiree's rights and obligations to make survivor elections under subpart F of part 831 of this chapter or subpart F of part 842 of this chapter.
( b ) A court order acceptable for processing that awards a former spouse survivor annuity requires OPM to pay a former spouse survivor annuity and prevents OPM from paying an elected survivor benefit to a widow or widower or another former spouse if the election is inconsistent with the court order.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Van Wess, Appellant, against Nurnberg Thermometer Company et al., Respondents. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

*1051All concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We have issued our report dated March 10,2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Pacific Mercantile Bancorp and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report into Registration Statement Nos. 333-65634 and 333-123853 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form S-8 under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, by Pacific Mercantile Bancorp on July 23, 2001 and April 5, 2005, respectively. 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Irvine, California 

March 10, 2006
EXHIBIT 32.1

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Brinx Resources Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  January  31,  2007,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Leroy
Halterman,  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





  /s/ LEROY HALTERMAN
--------------------------------------------------
Leroy Halterman
President, Secretary & Treasurer
(principal executive and financial officer)
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report of @Road, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Krish Panu, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| March 22, 2006     |
|-------------------------|
| /s/ KRISH PANU          |
| Krish Panu              |
| Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Bankers Trust Company, as Successor Trustee under the Will of Clarence W. Seamans, Deceased, Appellant. Payson W. Loomis et al., Appellants; Charles Pokorny, as Special Guardian for Andrea C. Loomis and Others, Infants, Respondent.

In an accounting proceeding, decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, insofar as appealed from, modified on the facts by reducing the aHowance to the special guardian from the sum of $4,000 to $1,500. As so modified the decree is unanimously affirmed, without costs. An allowance of $1,500 to the special guardian, under aU the circumstances, is ample compensation. Present — CarsweH, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ.; Beldoek, J., not voting.
#### § 847.432 Effect of a refund of FERS deductions.

OPM will inform the NAFI retirement system of the amount of service performed under FERS, without regard to whether a refund of contributions for such period has been paid under FERS.
#### Century Insurance Company, Ltd., et al., Respondents, v. 19-29 Rockwell, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **5 0**  **4**

BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR. , P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN TIM RILEY , Respondent

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 5 :1 3

- cv - 0 1866

- DCN )

Submitted : August 28 , 2014 Decided: September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING , and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Christopher D. Florian, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr. , a s tate prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 ( 2012 ) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits , a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U .S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional r ight. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lisenby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Albert Sides and Albert Delgado, Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Townley, Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### Thomas McLane, appellee, v. Ollie M. McLane, appellant.

Filed March 24, 1911.

No. 16,378.

1. Pleading: Sufficiency on Appeal. If a petition is not attacked until after an appeal to this court, it should he liberally construed for the purpose of sustaining the judgment.

2. Divorce: Petition: Sufficiency. The petition in this case is sufficient to sustain a decree divorcing the plaintiff from the defendant.

Appeal from the 'district court for Richardson county: Leander M. Pemberton, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Edwin Falloon,*for appellant.

*Reavis & Reavis, contra.*

Root, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree of divorce. No bill of exceptions of the evidence is presented, but the defendant contends that the facts stated in *834the petition are not sufficient to give the court jurisdiction or to justify a decree of divorce.

The plaintiff, in a petition filed March 15, 1909, alleges that “he has been a resident of Richardson county, Nebraska, for more than six months preceding the filing of the petition.” The plaintiff also in effect further alleges that about September 1, 1907, and for two years prior thereto, the parties resided in Kansas City, Missouri, and about the last named date the defendant induced him to visit his sister in Richardson county, and subsequently, without just cause, refused to permit him to return home, but threatened him with arrest should he do so, and thereafter, solely because of his physical condition, abandoned and cruelly refused to care for or nurse him, although he was in failing v health and unable to procure by his own efforts the necessities of life.

The petition was not assailed in the district court, but the defendant answered, admitting the marital relations, and denying all other allegations. Under the circumstances of this case the positive allegation of six months’ residence in Nebraska should prevail over any inconsistent inference that may be drawn from other statements in the petition.

So, also, concerning the alleged acts of cruelty, the evidence may have disclosed that the plaintiff while sick and destitute was, without cause or excuse, wantonly and cruelly abandoned by the defendant, excluded from his home and thrown upon the charity of li is relatives or of the public, and thereby his morbid physical condition aggravated. The evidence may have exhibited such a condition brought about by the deliberate wrongful conduct of the defendant as to bring the case clearly within the rule announced in *Ellison v. Ellison,*65 Neb. 412, and reaffirmed in *Preuit v. Preuit, ante,*p. 124, and in *Myers v. Myers, ante,*p. 656.

The petition should be liberally construed for the purpose of sustaining the judgment. *Latenser v. Misner,*56 Neb. 340; *Sorensen v. Sorensen,*68 Neb. 483; *Western*
      *835
      *Travelers Accident Ass’n v.*Tomson, 72 Neb. 674. In our opinion in tbe condition of tbe record tbe petition sustains tbe decree.

The judgment of the district court, therefore, is

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

         CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
                  SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Brian John, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Teeka Tan Products, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Teeka Tan Products, Inc.

August 14, 2006                     By: /s/ Brian John
                                        --------------
                                        Brian John, CEO,
                                        principal executive officer and
                                        principal accounting officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 451.102 Definitions.

*Award* means something bestowed or an action taken to recognize and reward individual or team achievement that contributes to meeting organizational goals or improving the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of the Government or is otherwise in the public interest. Such awards include, but are not limited to, employee incentives which are based on predetermined criteria such as productivity standards, performance goals, measurement systems, award formulas, or payout schedules.

*Award program* means the specific procedures and requirements established by an agency or a component of an agency for granting awards under subchapter I of chapter 43 and subchapter I of chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, and this subpart.
### §152110. Service of process

The corporation shall comply with the law on service of process of each State in which it is incorporated and each State in which it carries on activities.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1412.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 152110 | 36:4109. | Nov. 14, 1988, Pub. L. 100–655, §109, 102 Stat. 3851. |

Section

The words "in furtherance of its corporate purposes" are omitted as unnecessary.