alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed February 6, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00748-CV

____________

ESTATE OF HILDA M. BROOKS, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-0078656-A

ABATEMENT ORDER

This appeal is from a judgment signed August 27, 2019. The clerk’s record 

was filed October 10, 2019. On November 22, 2019, Tarris Woods filed a notice of 

appeal in this court. See In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) (holding a

court of appeals has jurisdiction over an appeal if the appellant timely files an 

instrument in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction). 

Woods alleges he did not receive notice of the judgment until November 10, 

2019. On December 19, 2019, Woods filed a motion to abate this appeal. No 

response has been filed.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a, Woods must provide a 

written order signed by the trial court finding the date when appellant first either

received notice or acquired actual knowledge the judgment was signed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 4.2(c); see also LDF Construction, Inc. v. Texas Friends of Chabad 

Lubavitch, Inc., 459 S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no 

pet.) (the date must be established by competent proof and included in a written 

order signed by the trial judge). 

Accordingly, we order the case abated and remanded to the trial court for a 

hearing and entry of an order finding the date when appellant first either received

notice or acquired actual knowledge that the order was signed. A supplemental 

clerk’s record containing the trial court’s order shall be filed with the clerk of this 

court within 30 days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this Court. The Court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the Court may 

reinstate the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking 

reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to schedule a 

hearing, if a hearing is required, in compliance with this Court’s order. If the 

parties do not request a hearing, the court coordinator of the trial court shall set a 

hearing date and notify the parties of such date.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
§ 25.24 Protective order. ( a ) A party of a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as direct by the ALJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 
  c.
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Kuhlman Company, Inc. for the quarter ended
July 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andd.
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Kuhlman Company, Inc.
 Date: August 15, 2005
    
    /s/ Jon GangelhoffBy Jon GangelhoffPrincipal Accounting Officer
NRC APPROVES WESTINGHOUSE HEMATITE’S REQUEST TO DISPOSE OF

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT U.S. ECOLOGY SITE IN IDAHO

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by Westinghouse Electric 

Co. (WEC) to dispose of low-level waste from decommissioning its former Hematite nuclear 

fuel fabrication facility in Festus, Mo., at the U.S. Ecology Idaho Inc. facility near Grand View, 

Idaho.

Westinghouse had requested authorization under 10 CFR Part 20.2002 to dispose of 

about 30,000 cubic yards of low-level radioactive waste, primarily soil and debris containing 

source, byproduct and special nuclear material, at U.S. Ecology’s site, which is regulated by 

Idaho and is not licensed by the NRC. WEC also requested an exemption from NRC regulations 

requiring disposal of the waste at an NRC-licensed facility.

In an environmental assessment published Oct. 24 in the Federal Register, the NRC 

issued a finding of no significant impact. The assessment concluded there would be no 

significant difference in environmental impacts resulting from disposal at U.S. Ecology or a 

NRC-licensed low-level waste disposal site. The assessment also analyzed the “no-action 

alternative,” which would leave the waste in place and require Westinghouse to maintain 

environmental monitoring and engineered controls to ensure the safety and security of the 

facility.

The waste covered by Westinghouse’s license amendment request will be generated as 

part of decommissioning activities under a decommissioning plan approved by the NRC Oct. 13, 

that includes digging up 40 unlined burial pits and soil underneath site buildings.

Westinghouse submitted its license amendment request on May 21, 2009. The NRC held 

a public meeting July 28, 2009, in Grand View, Idaho, and published a draft environmental 

assessment on April 25, 2011, for public comment.

More information about the Hematite facility is available on the NRC website.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

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: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 11-206 October 31, 2011
EX-10.12

CONSULTING AGREEMENT  AMENDMENT


Reference is made to that certain Consulting Agreement (the "Agreement") dated
September 1,2003, and the amendment thereto dated December 1, 2003 (the
"December Amendment") between

DATAMEG CORP., a New York Corporation duly organized under law and having an
usual place of business at XXXXX, Boston, MA 02113,
Attn: Andrew Benson, President (hereinafter referred to as the "COMPANY")

and

THOMAS STROUP of XXXXXXXXXX,XXXXX,
Virginia, (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT").

The Company wishes to utilize the services of the Consultant in an effort to
acquire or merge with other companies, and the parties hereto acknowledge that
this is a change of direction from that envisioned at the time the above
referenced agreement and amendment were signed.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, accepted and agreed to, the Company and the Consultant hereby
agree to amend the Agreement and the December Amendment as follows:

1.VESTING OF OPTIONS

(a) Upon signing of a Letter of Intent between Company or any of its
subsidiaries and any party to merge with Company, acquire Company, or to be
acquired by Company, either in whole or in part, all options granted to
Consultant in the Agreement and the December Amendment, including the options
for 1 million shares of the Company's Common Stock that were to be granted upon
Consultant becoming an employee of the company, shall vest immediately.

(b) All the options referenced above shall be registered within 10 days of said
signing of a letter of intent.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged.

DATED: February 7, 2004



DATAMEG CORP.


By:
Andrew Benson, President
Hereunto Duly Authorized


CONSULTANT:



Thomas Stroup
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40962

Summary Calendar

 

LEE DARWIN SONNIER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:97-CV-227

- - - - - - - - - -

December 23, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.`

PER CURIAM:*

Lee Darwin Sonnier, #504386, seeks a certificate of

appealability (COA) from the denial of his petition filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as untimely. Sonnier argues that

the district court erred in dismissing his claims as barred by

the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1). Because Sonnier is deemed to have filed his 
No. 97-40962

- 2 -

§ 2254 petition on April 24, 1997, within one year of the

effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act (AEDPA), his petition was timely. See United States v.

Flores, 135 F.3d 1000, 1005-06 (5th Cir. 1998); Flanagan v.

Johnson, 154 F.3d 196, 199-202 (5th Cir. 1998). COA is GRANTED,

the district court’s judgment dismissing Sonnier’s § 2254

petition as time-barred is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for

further proceedings. 

COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-11-0088 - Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Requesting Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, Regarding Decommissioning and Decommissioning Funding (PRM-50-94)

Accession Number: ML111250392

Date Released: Thursday, December 8, 2011

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.
    - ML111250177 - SECY-11-0088 - Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Requesting Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 Regarding Decommissioning and Decommissioning Funding (PRM-50-94) (6 page(s), 7/5/2011)
    - ML111250359 - SECY-11-0088 - Enclosure 1 - FRN re Sherwood Martinelli; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-50-94) (21 page(s), 7/5/2011)
    - ML111250384 - SECY-11-0088 - Enclosure 2 - Letter to Petitioner Sherman Martinelli (PRM-50-94) (3 page(s), 7/5/2011)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 270.323 Requests for permission to enter and inspect property where building components, materials, artifacts, and records with respect to a building failure are located. ( a ) After the Director establishes and deploys a Team, the Lead Investigator or their designee may request permission to enter and inspect property where building components, materials, artifacts, and records with respect to a building failure are located, and take action necessary, appropriate, and reasonable in light of the nature of the property to be inspected and to carry out the duties of the Team.
( b ) Requests for permission to enter and inspect such property will be made in writing and shall include: ( 1 ) The name and title of the building owner, operator, or agent in charge of the building;
( 2 ) If appropriate, the name of the building to be inspected;
( 3 ) The address of the building to be inspected;
( 4 ) The date and time of the inspection;
( 5 ) If appropriate, a description of particular items to be inspected; and
( 6 ) Contact information for the person to whom questions or problems regarding the request should be addressed.
§ 295.3 Eligibility of United States- and foreign-owned businesses. ( a ) A company shall be eligible to receive an award from the Program only if: ( 1 ) The Program finds that the company's participation in the Program would be in the economic interest of the United States, as evidenced by investments in the United States in research, development, and manufacturing (including, for example, the manufacture of major components or subassemblies in the United States); significant contributions to employment in the United States; and agreement with respect to any technology arising from assistance provided by the Program to promote the manufacture within the United States of products resulting from that technology (taking into account the goals of promoting the competitiveness of United States industry), and to procure parts and materials from competitive suppliers; and
( 2 ) Either the company is a United States-owned company, or the Program finds that the company is incorporated in the United States and has a parent company which is incorporated in a country which affords to United States-owned companies opportunities, comparable to those afforded to any other company, to participate in any joint venture similar to those authorized under the Program; affords the United States-owned companies local investment opportunities comparable to those afforded to any other company; and affords adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of United States-owned companies.
( b ) The Program may, within 30 days after notice to Congress, suspend a company or joint venture from continued assistance under the Program if the Program determines that the company, the country of incorporation of the company or a parent company, or the joint venture has failed to satisfy any of the criteria contained in paragraph (a) of this section, and that it is in the national interest of the United States to do so.
( c ) Companies owned by legal residents (green card holders) may apply to the Program, but before an award can be given, the owner(s) must either become a citizen or ownership must be transferred to a U.S. citizen(s).
[59 FR 667, Jan. 6, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 64685, Dec. 9, 1997]
Exhibit 32.2





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 Manchester Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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.



Date: October 15, 2004





/s/ Paul Minichiello

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

Paul Minichiello

Principal Financial Officer
NEEM I obligation to register as a sex offender for 10 months, the seriousness of

his underlying sexual-offense conviction, and his poor probation record, we are not convinced that the district court abused its discretion in declining to suspend the sentence and place appellant on probation. Therefore, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.



## /

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk ,J.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6458

GERALD B. THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GEORGE DEEDS, Warden, Red Onion State

Prison,

Respondents - Appellees,

and

JOHN DOE,

Respondent.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

(S. Ct. No. 99-6862)

Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 25, 1999

Decided on Remand: October 17, 2000

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Patrick McGeehan, George Andrew Hawkins, MCGEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Witmer,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

This case appears before this court for the second time

pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court of the United States

vacating our prior judgment and remanding for further consideration

in light of the Court’s decision in Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct.

1495 (2000). We now find that, although in denying relief under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), the district court

applied the “reasonable jurists” standard of Green v. French, 143

F.3d 865, 870 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1090 (1999),

which was subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court, see Williams,

120 S. Ct. at 1522, the denial of relief nevertheless was correct

under the standards announced in Williams. See id. at 1523. Consequently, 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
NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST HEARING ON LICENSE 

APPLICATION FOR URANIUM RECOVERY OPERATION IN WYOMING 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has announced an opportunity to request a hearing 

on the license application by Lost Creek ISR, LLC, to construct and operate an in-situ leach 

uranium recovery operation at the Lost Creek site in Sweetwater County, Wyo. 

 Lost Creek initially submitted the application Oct. 30, 2007, but withdrew it Feb. 29 in 

order to revise its radiation protection program. The company resubmitted the application March 

31. The NRC staff has completed its initial review and determined that the application is 

sufficiently complete for the staff to docket the application and begin its detailed environmental 

and safety reviews. Docketing the application does not indicate approval of the proposed 

operation, nor does it preclude NRC from requesting additional information from the applicant to 

aid in performing the review. 

 In-situ recovery of uranium involves injecting a leaching solution, typically water mixed 

with oxygen and sodium bicarbonate, through wells into an underground ore deposit to dissolve 

the uranium. The leach solution is pumped back to the surface and sent to a processing plant, 

where ion exchange is used to separate the uranium from the solution. 

A notice of opportunity to request a hearing was published July 10 in the Federal 

Register. The notice provides detailed instructions on how to file a request using the 

NRC’s new E-Filing system. The deadline to request a hearing is September 8. The notice and 

the license application are available on NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing-license-applications.html#2. 

 

### 

 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. 08-128 July 10, 2008
§ 892.206 Can I cancel my waiver and participate in premium conversion? Yes, you may cancel a waiver and participate in premium conversion if: ( a ) You have a qualifying life event; the change in FEHB coverage is consistent with the qualifying life event; and you complete an election form to participate in premium conversion within 60 days after the qualifying life event; or
( b ) You cancel your waiver during an open season, including an extended open season authorized by OPM.
### §60112. Annual report

The corporation shall submit an annual report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time as the report of the audit required by section 10101 of this title. The report may not be printed as a public document.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1347.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 60112 | 36:4811. | Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–510, title XVI, §1612, 104 Stat. 1738. |

Section

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of reporting provisions in this section, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and page 196 of House Document No. 103–7.
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: June 11, 2015 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket I d: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: EPA Region 1 SUBJECT: May

28, 2015 , Call with Northeast Energy Efficiency

Partnership s r elating to Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on May 28, 2015. The Northeast Energy

Efficiency

Partnership s presented their upcoming outreach plans on the Proposed Clean Power Plan for Exis ting Power Plants to EPA. **ATTENDEES (** **by phone)** Su san Coakley , Northeast Energy Efficiency

Partnership s Julie Michals, Northeast Energy Efficiency

Partnership s John Moskal, EPA Shutsu Wong, EPA
USEFUL CONTACTS AND ADDRESSES IN GEORGIA

----

February, 1999
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# FSME-11-024, Summary of Existing Guidance for Reviewing Large-Scale Low-Level Radioactive Waste Blending Proposals.

Accession Number: ML110480847

Date Released: Thursday, March 17, 2011

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.
    - ML110480839 - FSME-11-024, Summary of Existing Guidance for Reviewing Large-Scale Low-Level Radioactive Waste Blending Proposals. (3 page(s), 3/17/2011)
    - ML110480850 - Interim Guidance on Blending of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. (11 page(s), 3/17/2011)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
EXHIBIT
32.1


DEEP
DOWN, INC.


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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Deep Down, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned,
Ronald E. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








By: /s/ RONALD E. SMITH





Ronald E.
Smith


President
and Chief Executive Officer


April 15,
2010