alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC ACCEPTS APPLICATION FOR NEW REACTOR AT CALVERT CLIFFS 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for review the safety analysis portion 

of a combined license (COL) application for an Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) at the Calvert 

Cliffs nuclear power plant near Lusby, Md. The agency had accepted the application’s 

environmental report in January. 

 UniStar submitted the safety analysis and related information on March 17, and 

submitted the environmental report July 13, 2007, along with supplemental information on 

Dec. 14, 2007. The application, minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the 

NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/col.html. 

Unistar is applying for a license to build and operate an EPR at the Calvert Cliffs site, 

approximately 40 miles south of Annapolis. The EPR is a large pressurized water reactor of 

evolutionary design, with a design output of approximately 1,600 MWe. The EPR’s designer, 

Areva, filed an application Dec. 11, 2007 to certify the design, which is currently under 

construction at the Olkiluoto site in Finland and in Flammaville, France. The EPR application, 

minus proprietary or security-related details, is available on the NRC Web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/design-cert/epr.html. 

Docketing the Calvert Cliffs application does not indicate whether the Commission will 

approve or reject the request. The docket number established for this application is 52-016. The 

NRC will publish in the near future a notice of opportunity to intervene in the adjudicatory 

hearing required for this application. Petitions to intervene in a hearing may be filed within 60 

days of the notice, by anyone whose interest may be affected by the proposed license and who 

wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding. 

 In addition to Calvert Cliffs, the NRC is reviewing COL applications for the South Texas 

Project site in Texas, the North Anna site in Virginia, the Bellefonte site in Alabama, the 

Shearon Harris site in North Carolina, the Grand Gulf site in Mississippi and the Lee site in 

South Carolina. Detailed information about the new reactor licensing process can be found on 

the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.html. 

### 

 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. 08-110 June 4, 2008
# L_2017085EN.01005101.xml

| 30.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 85/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 85/51

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 227/2015

of 25 September 2015

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2017/534]

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 Regulation (EU) 2015/1088 of 3 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 as regards alleviations for maintenance procedures for general aviation aircraft (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1088 of 3 July 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 as regards alleviations for maintenance procedures for general aviation aircraft (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 66q (Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32015 R 1088: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1088 of 3 July 2015 (OJ L 176, 7.7.2015, p. 4).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32015 R 1088: Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1088 of 3 July 2015 (OJ L 176, 7.7.2015, p. 4).’

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EU) 2015/1088 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 26 September 2015, 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, 25 September 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Ingrid SCHULERUD

---

(1)  
  OJ L 176, 7.7.2015, p. 4.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
No. 13,076.

#### Heid Brothers *v.*Carver.

(27 P. [2d] 756)

Decided December 11, 1933.

. Mr. Arthur C. Gordon, Mr. Gordon Allott, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Alfred Todd, Mr. Earl T. Carroll, for defendant in error.

*In Department.*

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error company is seeking reversal of a district court judgment recovered against-it by the-defendant in error Carver for damages claimed on account of breach of contract. The contract was a written one entered into by the company and Carver for sale and delivery by bim of a specified amount of alfalfa hay, most of it in stack but some of it then being harvested. The company, having received and accepted a small amount of the hay, undertook to rescind-the contract on *55two grounds, first that Carver was not the owner of the hay because he had given a chattel mortgage thereon, and secondly that Carver insisted upon including in the hay delivered a large quantity of “mouldy, frozen, black stem, chatty and unmerchantable hay.” Carver’s reply denies that' the hay was unmerchantable or not of the contract quality. The reply also alleges that the company knew of the chattel mortgage when it signed the contract and made a substantial down payment thereunder; that during the preliminary negotiations the mortgagee expressed to the company full approval of the contract, and waived and released his lien; and that the company consented to having the mortgagee’s name appear as joint payee on all-checks issued to Carver by the company. Trial was to the court, a jury being waived.

The contract provided that the company was not required to take “any black burned, mouldy or musty alfalfa hay,” and also provided that Carver “guarantees that they are the owners of all this alfalfa hay and that same is clear and free of all mortgages, liens, or claims of whatsoever nature.”

Under the conflicting evidence herein, the lower court had the right, power and duty to resolve the questions of fact. It resolved them against the company. Having done so, the court could not consistently withhold the judgment it rendered. To do that would ignore the practical situation which was fully known and acquiesced in by both parties at the time they entered into the contract, and which formed the basis of that contract. Testimony as to the contemporaneous conduct of the parties before and at the time of signing the contract tended to prove that the chattel mortgage referred to was considered by them as waived, released and, to all intents and purposes, nonexistent within the true meaning of the contract provision above quoted. With the issues of fact disposed of in favor of Carver, any other view would stultify both parties as well as the court.

*56Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Adams and Mr. Justice Burke concur.
#### Howard N. Wagg, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hobert A. Stacy, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 19,215.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. LaBut, Judge, presiding.

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

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Howard N. Wagg against Hobert A. Stacy and Mrs. Hobert A. Stacy, Ms wife, to recover an amount claimed to be due on two promissory notes, a copy of one of which notes is as follows:

“$300. Chicago, June 8, 1896.

On or before Oct. 15, 1896, after date we promise to pay to the order of Howard N. Wagg three hundred dollars, at CMcago. Value received with interest at seven per cent, per annum.

C. P. STACY,

HOBEBT A. STACY,

FBANCES H. STACY.”

The other note was of the same date, for the same amount and similarly signed. On the back of each note appeared the following: “August 21, 1902. Beceived on the within note twenty-five dollars ($25).” The defense of Mrs. Stacy was that she was not a comaker of either of the notes and the suit was dismissed as to her. The defense of Hobert A. Stacy was that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limita*110tions. The trial court found the issues against the plaintiff and entered judgment against him for costs. To reverse the judgment, plaintiff brings error.

Charles G. Bose, for plaintiff in error.

Sims, Welch & Godman, for defendant in error; Elwood G. Godman, of counsel.

Abstract of the Decision.

Limitation of actions, § *90*
      ***
      *—when part payment on note by comalcer does not toll the statute of limitations.*In an action against one of the makers on a promisory note where the statute of limitations was interposed as a defense under section 16, ch. 83, Hurd’s R. S„ J. & A. f 7211, and plaintiff contended that a sum paid on the notes by a comaker with the defendant was subsequently acquiesced in and ratified by the defendant and that the statute started to run anew from that date, *held*that a judgment for defendant was not contrary to the evidence or to the law.

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

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
# L_2016211EN.01006501.xml

| 4.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/65

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 108/2015

of 30 April 2015

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2016/1291]

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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/10 of 6 January 2015 on criteria for applicants for rail infrastructure capacity and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/10 of 6 January 2015 on criteria for applicants for rail infrastructure capacity and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014 (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 37aa (deleted) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘37aaa. | 32015 R 0010: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/10 of 6 January 2015 on criteria for applicants for rail infrastructure capacity and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 870/2014 (OJ L 3, 7.1.2015, p. 34).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘37aaa.

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/10 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 1 May 2015, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of the Decision of the EEA Joint Committee incorporating Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) into the EEA agreement, whichever is the later.

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, 30 April 2015.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 3, 7.1.2015, p. 34.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(2)  To be published in the Official Journal.

2

---
§ 846.402 Refunds of all CSRS contributions. ( a ) An individual who elects to transfer to FERS is entitled to a refund of all CSRS contributions in accordance with the provisions of part 831, subpart T of this chapter.
( b ) An application for refund of FERS retirement contributions under § 843.202 of this chapter is deemed to also be an application for refund of CSRS retirement contributions under part 831, subpart T of this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6285

MICHAEL G. KESELICA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland

Correction Training Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 07-6350

MICHAEL G. KESELICA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden, Maryland

Correction Training Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:02-cv-00575)

Submitted: July 19, 2007 Decided: July 24, 2007
- 2 -

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge. 

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael G. Keselica seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his

motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) proceeding and the

order denying the first Rule 60(b) motion.* The orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the

district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive

procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable.

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-

84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Keselica has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 4 -

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### **CHAPTER 217—ELDER ABUSE PREVENTION AND PROSECUTION**

Sec.
21701.
Definitions.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—SUPPORTING FEDERAL CASES INVOLVING ELDER JUSTICE

21711.
Supporting Federal cases involving elder justice.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION AND FEDERAL COORDINATION

21721.
Establishment of best practices for local, State, and Federal data collection.
21722.
Effective interagency coordination and Federal data collection.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—ENHANCED VICTIM ASSISTANCE TO ELDER ABUSE SURVIVORS

21731.
Report.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—ROBERT MATAVA ELDER ABUSE PROSECUTION ACT OF 2017

21741.
Training and technical assistance for States.
21742.
Interstate initiatives.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—MISCELLANEOUS

21751.
Model power of attorney legislation.
21752.
Best practices and model legislation for guardianship proceedings.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 65467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25176]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION


Commission Meeting

AGENCY: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Tuesday, 
November 16, 2004, and Wednesday, November 17, 2004, at the Ronald 
Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 
10 a.m. on November 16, and at 9 a.m. on November 17.
    Topics for discussion include findings on congressionally mandated 
studies including: Specialty hospitals; certified registered nurse 
first assistants; physicians volume; cardiothoracic surgeons, and 
eliminating physician referrals to physical therapy. Additional 
presentations will include physician quality, findings from a study on 
employer-sponsored health benefits, and home health payment.
    Agendas will be e-mailed approximately one week prior to the 
meeting. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's Web 
site (http://www.MedPAC.gov).

ADDRESSES: MedPAC's address is: 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 9000, 
Washington, DC 20001. The telephone number is (202) 220-3700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202) 
220-3700.

Sarah S. Thomas,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 04-25176 Filed 11-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-BW-M
### §220530A. Annual report on equal treatment of athletes

(a) In General.—Not less frequently than annually, each national governing body shall submit to the corporation and Congress a report on the compliance of the national governing body with paragraphs (7) and (8) of section 220524(a).

(b) Matters To Be Included.—Each report required by subsection (a) shall include detailed information on the median, minimum, and maximum stipends and bonuses provided to athletes, disaggregated by gender, race, and, as applicable, status of participation on a professional sports team.

(Added Pub. L. 117–340, §2(b)(2)(A), Jan. 5, 2023, 136 Stat. 6177.)

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

#### Rule of Construction

For construction of Pub. L. 117–340 as it pertains to certain rights of athletes, see section 2(d) of Pub. L. 117–340, set out as a note under section 220505 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Samuel Rubino, Defendant. Giuseppe Pantoleno and Cogenta Pantoleno, Appellants.

Order of the County Court of Kings county affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
NRC ACCEPTS GE-HITACHI APPLICATION FOR 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY IN NORTH CAROLINA 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for formal review an application by 

General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment for a license to construct and operate a 

uranium enrichment plant using laser technology in Wilmington, N.C. 

 

 GE-Hitachi submitted the application in two stages: an environmental report, submitted 

on Jan. 30, and a safety report, tendered on June 26. The NRC staff has completed an initial 

acceptance review and determined that the application is sufficiently complete for the agency to 

begin its formal licensing reviews. The agency has already requested additional information from 

the applicant, and additional requests are possible throughout the licensing review. Acceptance 

of the application for review does not indicate whether the Commission will issue a license. 

 NRC’s licensing review will proceed on two tracks: an environmental impact statement, 

which will be published in draft for public comment, and the technical safety review. The agency 

anticipates these reviews and adjudicatory hearings will take approximately 30 months. In the 

coming weeks, a notice of opportunity to request a hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board will be published in the Federal Register. 

 The GE-Hitachi application, minus certain classified and sensitive portions (e.g., 

proprietary information), is available on the NRC’s Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/laser.html. The NRC’s acceptance letter and request 

for additional information are available in the agency’s ADAMS online documents database at 

this address, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html, by searching for accession 

number ML091960561. 

### 

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.resource@nrc.gov

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-136 August 17, 2009
#### Constance Noreck, an Infant, by Cecelia Noreck, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Theodore Fronczak et al., Constituting the Board of Trustees of Common School District No. 10 of the Town of Cheektowaga, Respondents.

Present— Crosby, P. J., Taylor, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.