alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Safety & Security Cu

Safety & Security Cu

Policy Statement Wor

Policy Statement Wor

Shawn W. Seeley, Chair Shawn W. Seeley, Chair

-e

Organization of Agreement S

Organization of Agreement S

February 3, February 3, 2009
Combining Expectat

Combining Expecta

 Both are necessary Both are necessary

–Need better definition of Need better definition of goal(s

)

– 

– Must use a common sense appro

Must use a common sense appro

 Performance based Performance based

– 

– Already done for Health & Safety Already done for Health & Safety

– 

– Why not include Security Why not include Security –does i

does i

“prescriptive prescriptive

”

?
Combining Expectat

Combining Expecta

 Challenges by States Challenges by States

–Unfunded mandates? Unfunded mandates?– 

– Limited resources? Limited resources?

 Safety & Security are interconne

Safety & Security are interconne

– 

– Currently being done in most Stat

Currently being done in most Stat

– 

– Is it really different? Is it really different?
Materials Area Atten

Materials Area Atten

 Need to Need to 

“Simplify Guidance Simplify Guidance

”

–Make it Make it 

“un

-burdensome burdensome

”

 What is the relative risk What is the relative risk vs bene

bene

 Need uniformity based upon sou

Need uniformity based upon sou
Materials Area Atten

Materials Area Atten

 Current level of understanding: Current level of understanding:

–Need to be generic enough but ad

Need to be generic enough but ad

various types of licensees various types of licensees

– 

– Is NRC only reacting to Congress 

Is NRC only reacting to Congress 

expense of the States? expense of the States?
Moving Forward Moving Forward

 Questions to ponder: Questions to ponder:

–If you are not secure are you not s

If you are not secure are you not s

– 

– If you are not safe are you not sec

If you are not safe are you not sec

–If IAEA doesn If IAEA doesn’t view safety & secu

t view safety & secu

why should we? why should we?
Moving Forward Moving Forward

 Look at Vulnerability Look at Vulnerability vs Actual R

Actual R

–i.e. Portable gauges/GL i.e. Portable gauges/GL’s vsTable 

Tabl

 What actual data do we have fo

What actual data do we have fo

decisions or success/failure? decisions or success/failure?

–i.e. how many devices have been i.e. how many devices have been 

stolen/attempted stolen before stolen/attempted stolen before vs

implementation of increased secu

implementation of increased secu

requirements requirements
Moving Forward Moving Forward

 Need to Need to 

“Listen to the Stakehold

Listen to the Stakehold

–Presumption that NRC knows bes

Presumption that NRC knows bes

 Need to continue Need to continue 

“Questioning A

Questioning A

 Need to continue to Need to continue to 

“Trust but V

Trust but V

–Don’t assume things are as they a

t assume things are as they a
Thank you! Thank you!

Questions Questions
### §150108. Restrictions

(a) Stock and Dividends.—The corporation may not issue stock or declare or pay a dividend.

(b) Political Activities.—The corporation or a director or officer as such may not contribute to, support, or participate in any political activity or in any manner attempt to influence legislation.

(c) Distribution of Income or Assets.—The income or assets of the corporation may not inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to, a director, officer, or member during the life of the charter granted by this chapter. This subsection does not prevent the payment of reasonable compensation to an officer or member in an amount approved by the board of directors.

(d) Loans.—The corporation may not make a loan to a director, officer, or employee.

(e) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authorization.—Except by agreement, the corporation may not claim congressional approval or the authority of the United States Government for any of its activities.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1387.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 150108(a) | 36:2308(d). | Apr. 10, 1984, Pub. L. 98–257, §8(a)–(e), 98 Stat. 128. |
| 150108(b) | 36:2308(c). | |
| 150108(c) | 36:2308(a). | |
| 150108(d) | 36:2308(b). | |
| 150108(e) | 36:2308(e). | |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "any shares of" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (b), the words "as such" are substituted for "acting as such officer or director" for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (c), the words "inure to the benefit of" are substituted for "inure to" for consistency in the revised title.

In subsection (e), the word "mutual" is omitted as unnecessary.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 64108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24575]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--World Airline Entertainment Association

    Notice if hereby given that, on September 15, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the World Airline 
Entertainment Association (``WAEA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: World Airline 
Entertainment Association, McLean, VA. The nature and scope of WAEA's 
standards development activities are: development of standards and 
other technical specifications for in-flight airline entertainment and 
related products.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-24575 Filed 11-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No. 41,627

#### Robert Clyde Messmore, Appellant, v. Tracy A. Hand, Warden, Kansas State Penitentiary, Lansing, Kansas, *Appellee.*

(347 P. 2d 402)

Opinion filed December 12, 1959.

*Homer Davis,*of Leavenworth, was on the briefs for the appellant.

*J. Richard Foth,*assistant attorney general, argued the cause, and *John Anderson, Jr.,*attorney general, was with him on the briefs for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fatzer, J.:

In this habeas corpus proceeding the petitioner, Robert Clyde Messmore, seeks his release from confinement in the Kansas State Penitentiary. The district court denied the writ and petitioner has appealed.

A review of the record reveals that the petitioner has made no attempt to comply with Rule No. 5 of this court and we have repeatedly held in a long line of decisions that failure to comply *775therewith, by setting forth in the appellant’s abstract the specification of errors complained of, is fatal and precludes appellate review. *(Dupont v. Lotus Oil Co.,*168 Kan. 544, 213 P. 2d 975, and cases therein cited; *City of Independence v. Wendorff,*169 Kan. 14, 216 P. 2d 820; *Miller v. Rath,*173 Kan. 192, 244 P. 2d 1213.) In *Quick, Receiver, v. Purcell,*179 Kan. 319, 295 P. 2d 626, it was said:

> “. . . Rule No. 5 of this court (see 174 Kan. XI; G. S. 1949, 60-3826, ‘Rules of the supreme court’ No. 5) long in force and effect, among other things, provides:

> “ ‘. . . The appellant’s abstract shall include a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered. . . .’

> “The rule has been printed repeatedly in various volumes of the Kansas reports. Its purpose is designed to promote definiteness, fairness and orderly procedure of litigation on appellate review. It was intended to be of benefit to both the Bench and Bar alike. Specifically, its purpose is to advise both appellee and this court concerning error, or errors, which the appellant claims the trial court committed in rendering its judgment.

> “Manifestly, this court cannot review error which is claimed was committed, if none is specified. Error is never presumed *(Quivira, Inc. v. Quivira Co., Inc.,*173 Kan. 339, 245 P. 2d 972; *Elliott v. P. H. Albright Farm Loan Co.,*129 Kan. 280, 282 Pac. 749), and it is the duty of the party complaining to indicate wherein it was committed. *(Fakes v. Osborne,*165 Kan. 176, 193 P. 2d 218.) All that the abstract of the instant appeal contains is a motion for a new trial and a notice that appellant appeals from the judgment rendered against him. A motion for a new trial or a notice of appeal does not constitute a specification of error within the meaning and purport of Rule No. 5. *(Lambeth v. Bogart,*155 Kan. 413, 125 P. 2d 377.)” (1. c. p. 320.)

See, also, *North American Finance Corporation v. Circle-B, Inc.,*180 Kan. 34, 299 P. 2d 576; *Rice v. Hovey,*180 Kan. 38, 299 P. 2d 45.

In the instant case the abstract contains neither a motion for a new trial, nor the notice of appeal and specification of errors are not set forth. In view of the foregoing, it is the judgment of this court that this appeal must be and it is hereby dismissed.

It is so ordered.
No. II-09-004 January 20, 2009 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 562-4416 

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT BRUNSWICK NUCLEAR PLANT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has dispatched a Special Inspection Team to the 

Brunswick nuclear power plant, operated by Progress Energy near Southport on the southeastern 

coast of North Carolina. The team will inspect and assess circumstances associated with a Jan. 1 

malfunction of a component on one of the plant’s four emergency diesel generators and the 

discovery of a similar condition on another. 

During testing on Jan. 1, a component on Emergency Diesel Generator #3 designed to 

limit the amount of fuel available during startup did not return to its original position. That 

problem may have prevented the diesel generator from working as designed had it been needed. 

While testing the other three diesel generators, plant employees identified a similar 

condition on the #4 diesel and declared it inoperable. Plant workers made adjustments to the 

limiter on the #4 diesel and replaced the component on the #3 diesel. Both diesel generators were 

tested and declared operable on Jan. 2. 

The NRC’s three-person Special Inspection Team, which includes two region-based 

inspectors and a resident inspector stationed at the site, is developing a sequence of events 

related to the issue; reviewing the company’s actions following discovery; evaluating the 

adequacy of the company’s past post-maintenance testing; and identifying any generic issues for 

Brunswick or other nuclear plants. 

 The special inspection began Tuesday, Jan. 20, and is expected to continue until early 

February. The NRC will issue a report within 45 days of the completion of the inspection. 

### 

 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, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
### §12185. Limitations on use of funds

#### (a) Matching requirement

Not to exceed 50 percent of the total amount to be invested by an entity under this subpart may be derived from funds made available from a line of credit under this subpart.

#### (b) Technical assistance and administration

Not to exceed 10 percent of the amounts available from a line of credit under this subpart shall be used for the provision of training or technical assistance and for the planning, development, and management of economic development projects. Community development corporations shall be encouraged by the Secretary to seek technical assistance from other community development corporations, with expertise in the planning, development and management of economic development projects. The Secretary shall assist in the identification and facilitation of such technical assistance.

#### (c) Local and private sector contributions

To receive funds available under a line of credit provided under this subpart, an entity, using procedures established by the Secretary, shall demonstrate to the community development corporation that such entity agrees to provide local and private sector contributions in accordance with section 12182(b)(2)(D) of this title, will participate with such community development corporation in a loan, guarantee or investment program for a designated business enterprise, and that the total financial commitment to be provided by such entity is at least equal to the amount to be drawn from the line of credit.

#### (d) Use of proceeds from investments

Proceeds derived from investments made using funds made available under this subpart may be used only for the purposes described in section 12181 of this title and shall be reinvested in the community in which they were generated.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title III, §31115, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1884.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 13825 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
NRC ISSUES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR VOGTLE EARLY SITE PERMIT 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) on the proposed Early Site Permit (ESP) for the Vogtle site, about 26 miles 

southeast of Augusta, Ga. The report contains the NRC's finding that there are no environmental 

impacts that would prevent issuing the ESP. 

The report, NUREG-1872, AFinal Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site 

Permit at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Site,@ is available on the NRC Web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1872/index.html. The staff bases 

its conclusion on its thorough, independent review of an environmental report from the applicant, 

Southern Nuclear Operating Co. The EIS takes into account consultations with federal, state, 

tribal and local agencies and consideration of comments received during the public scoping 

process. 

 

The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related issues, such as environmental 

impacts, for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site. 

Southern Nuclear filed the Vogtle application Aug. 15, 2006. Southern Nuclear has also applied 

for a Combined License to build and operate two AP1000 reactors on the site described in the 

ESP application. 

The NRC staff’s technical review of the ESP application will also include a safety 

evaluation report. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board must also conclude a hearing on the 

Vogtle ESP application before the agency’s final decision, which is currently expected by late 

2009. 

### 

 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. 08-152 August 18, 2008
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 July 31, 2005, 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
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Qlinks  America,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Jeffrey Huitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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.


                                        By: /s/Jeffrey Huitt
                                        ---------------------
                                            Jeffrey Huitt,
                                            Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 19, 2008
#### Nettie L. Spencer et al., Appellants, v. Theodore C. Mueller, et al., Defendants. C. M. Anderson and A. W. Anderson, copartners, Appellees.

Gen. No. 19,352.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus Kavanash, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 21, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Bill by Nettie L. Spencer and Albert Lang, trustee, against Theodore O. Mueller, O. M. Anderson and A. W. Anderson, copartners, etc., to forclose a trust deed securing certain notes executed by Theodore O. Mueller and Anna, his wife, owners of the conveyed premises, on which they contracted for the erection of certain improvements. Spencer was the holder of the notes *54and Lang was the trustee and also occupied the relation of contractor for the improvements. Anderson Brothers were the subcontractors and were made defendants to the bill. The Anderson Brothers in their answer, in the nature of an intervening petition, set up a claim for a mechanic’s lien. A mechanic’s lien was decreed against the premises and from that part of the decree, complainants appeal.

Adams, Crews, Bobb & Wescott, for appellants.

F. W. Balcomb, for appellees; Charles D. McGrath, of counsel.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Mechanics’ Liens, § *147*
      ***
      *—when filing of intervening petition for lien not premature.*Where subcontractors in a proceeding to foreclose a trust deed in which they were made party defendants filed intervening petitions on March 20th setting up their, claim for a mechanic’s lien, and subsequently on June 28th filed amended petitions, it appearing that their notice to the owner of their lien was served on March 25th, *held*that the proceeding to enforce the lien was not premature under section 28 of the Mechanics’ Act (J. *&*A. V 7166) providing suit may be brought ten days after service of notice where issue was taken on the amended petitions.

2. Mechanics’ liens, § *212*
      ***
      *—matters which cannot he complained of hy appellants on appeal from decree allowing lien in foreclosure proceeding.*On appeal from a decree in a foreclosure proceeding allowing a mechanic’s lien to subcontractors who were made parties defendant, *held*that appellants, who where complainants to the bill to foreclose, could not complain that the subcontractors’ intervening petitions for a lien were filed before notice of lien was served on the owner, nor complain that such notice was served on only one of the owners, it appearing that the owners assigned no cross-errors as to the time of filing the petitions, and it was not questioned but that the decree for lien was good as against the interest of the owner who was served with the notice.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
405 P.2d 938

#### STATE of New Mexico ex rel. S. E. REYNOLDS, State Engineer, Relator, v. The Honorable Matias ZAMORA, District Judge, Fourth Judicial District, sitting within and for the County of Guadalupe, Respondent.

No. 7978.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Sept. 20, 1965.

CARMODY, Chief Justice, and CHAVEZ, NOBLE, MOISE and COMPTON, Justices, concurring.

Ordered that the application for alternative writ of prohibition be and the same is hereby denied.