alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 25.21 Discovery. ( a ) The following types of discovery are authorized: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admissions of the authenticity of any relevant document or of the truth of any relevant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purpose of this section and §§ 25.22 and 25.23, the term “documents” includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless mutually agreed to by the parties, discovery is available only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) *Motions for discovery.* ( 1 ) A party seeking discovery may file a motion with the ALJ. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
( 2 ) Within two days of service, a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 25.34.
( 3 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for discovery only if he or she finds that the discovery sought— ( i ) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
( ii ) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
( iii ) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
( iv ) Does not seek privileged information.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
( 5 ) The ALJ may grant discovery subject to a protective order under § 25.24.
( e ) *Depositions.* ( 1 ) If a motion for deposition is granted, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will be held.
( 2 ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed in § 25.8.
( 3 ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( 4 ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition, which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
( f ) Each party shall bear its own costs of discovery.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25345]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee D--Clinical Studies.
    Date: December 8-10, 2004.
    Time: 7 p.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Marriott Bethesda North Hotel and Conference Ctr., 5701 
Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: William D. Merritt, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Research Programs Review Branch, National Cancer 
Institute, Division of Extramural Activities, 6116 Executive Blvd., 
8th Floor, Bethesda, MD 20892-8328, (301) 496-9767, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e7963383d684e60676620696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfc8d2898cd9ffd1d6d791d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 8, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-25345 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**STELLAR RESOURCES LTD.**OFFICER’S 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 Stellar Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending **January 31, 2008**as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, **Kathy Whyte**, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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.				Dated March 14, 2008/s/ Kathy Whyte                   				Kathy Whyte				Chief Executive Officer and				Chief Financial Officer

----
#### Lewis FLOYD, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 13, 1948.

Sandusky & Krueger and Fritz Krueger for movant.

Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, and H. K. Spear, Assistant Attorney General, opposed.

■PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Pulaski Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for selling intoxicating liquor in local option territory and imposing fine of $100 and 30 days in jail.

Appeal denied; Judgment affirmed.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LAYS OUT FRAMEWORK

FOR CONDUCTING MANDATORY HEARINGS ON NEW REACTOR LICENSES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has finalized how it will conduct mandatory 

hearings on the first applications for Combined Licenses (COLs) for nuclear power reactors. 

“These hearings will allow the Commission to ensure the agency has met its safety and 

security responsibilities. It was important for the Commission to take this last step to finalize the 

process for making decisions on licenses for new nuclear power plants,” said NRC Chairman 

Gregory B. Jaczko. 

The mandatory hearing process will begin after the staff issues its final Safety Evaluation 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement for a COL application. Using information gathered 

during the hearing process, the Commission will decide the findings necessary for the NRC to

determine whether to issue a license to build and operate a nuclear power plant. 

The Commission intends to issue a decision on the uncontested issues within four months 

of the issuance of those reports, unless the reactor design referenced in the application is the 

subject of an ongoing design certification rulemaking. In this case, the Commission would issue 

its hearing decision if and when the Commission affirms the related design certification rule. 

The Atomic Energy Act requires hearings on COL applications. While the NRC’s 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducts “contested” hearings when members of the public 

challenge a license application or the staff’s environmental review, the Commission previously 

decided it will conduct the mandatory hearings, which are separate from contested hearings. 

###

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 website.

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. 11-026 February 16, 2011
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 28, 2015

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2825

Lower Tribunal No. 10-43274

________________

Aqua Life Corp.,

Petitioner,

vs.

Humberto Reyes,

Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition.

Peter T. Mavrick and Victor M. Velarde (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Sina Negahbani, for respondent.

Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS and WELLS, JJ.

EMAS, J.

Petitioner, Aqua Life Corp. (“Petitioner”), petitions this court for issuance of

a writ of prohibition to prohibit the trial court from continuing to exercise
jurisdiction over this matter, which was dismissed by order of the trial court

rendered February 1, 2013, pursuant to a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. 

The record reflects that the February 1, 2013 order of dismissal was never

appealed.1

More than eighteen months later, on October 10, 2014, the plaintiff below,

Humberto Reyes (“Respondent”) filed a motion for status conference. There

appears to be some dispute over whether Petitioner was served with this motion or

the notice of hearing. However, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not appear at

the hearing on the motion for status conference held October 27, 2014. It is also

undisputed that, following the hearing, the trial court entered orders setting the

case for trial and referring the parties to mediation. 

Notwithstanding Respondent’s assertion that the trial court vacated the

earlier dismissal order based on an ore tenus motion made by Respondent at the

October 27th hearing (at which neither Petitioner nor its counsel was present),2the

trial court did not enter an order vacating the dismissal or reinstating the action. 

Thus, because the earlier dismissal order had already become final, the trial court

1 An order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution is final for purposes of

appeal. Bay Park Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc., v. Triple M. Roofing Corp., 55 So.

3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Hunnewell v. Palm Beach County, 925 So. 2d 468

(Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Elegele v. Halbert, 890 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). 

2 No transcript of the October 27, 2014 hearing has been provided.

2
was without jurisdiction to enter any further orders. Herskowitz v. Herskowitz,

513 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).3

Thus, we grant the petition and quash the orders setting the case for trial and

referring the case to mediation, as the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter

those orders, and remand for proceedings consistent herewith. Confident that the

trial court will comply with this opinion, we withhold formal issuance of the writ.

3 We further note that, even if the court intended to vacate the February 1, 2013

dismissal, it appears it was without jurisdiction to do so. See R&A Trucking, Inc.

v. General Host. Corp., 399 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). See also Derma Lift

Salon, Inc. v. Swanko, 419 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Corvette Country,

Inc. v. Leonardo, 997 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Given our decision,

however, we find it unnecessary to reach this issue.

3
NRC ISSUES SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED RULE IMPROVING REACTOR VESSEL 

REQUIREMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a supplemental proposed rule improving 

the methods pressurized-water reactor (PWR) licensees use to account for some effects of aging 

on their reactor vessels. 

The rule increases the realism of calculations used to examine a PWR=s susceptibility to a 

phenomenon known as pressurized thermal shock (PTS). PTS can occur under some scenarios 

that rapidly cool the internal surface of a reactor vessel while the vessel is pressurized. This 

would subject the steel to large thermal stresses, which could lead to cracking and potential 

failure of the vessel. The other type of U.S. nuclear power plant design, a boiling-water reactor, is 

not susceptible to PTS. 

The proposed rule allows licensees of operating PWRs to voluntarily adopt a more 

realistic technical approach for determining the probability of vessel failure during a PTS event. 

This revised approach was derived using data from research on currently operating PWRs that 

indicate the overall risk of PTS-induced vessel failure after 60 years of reactor operation is much 

lower than previously estimated. If a licensee chooses to adopt the new approach, the rule would 

require PWR operators to perform detailed analysis of both reactor vessel surveillance data and 

the results of regular reactor vessel inspections. If the analyses’ findings exceed certain limits, the 

operator must take steps to either limit the reactor vessel’s exposure to neutron radiation or 

determine how the reactor’s systems can be modified to prevent PTS-induced vessel failure. 

The rule will be available on the NRC=s Web site by entering ML081440656 at this 

address: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm . For more information on the rule, contact 

NRC staff members Veronica Rodriguez (telephone 301-415-3703, e-mail 

veronica.rodriguez@nrc.gov ), Barry Elliot (telephone 301-415-2709, e-mail 

barry.elliot@nrc.gov ), or Mark Kirk (telephone 301-415-6015, e-mail mark.kirk@nrc.gov). 

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. 08-147 August 11, 2008
### 

 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.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Georgia & Florida Railroad Company, Inc.

JAN 2 7 2000

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

continuing status of the Georgia & Florida Railroad Company, Inc. (G&FRC) as

an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231, et sea.) (RRA)

and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351, et seq.)

(RUIA). G&FRC was determined to be an employer covered under the Acts

administered by the Board effective April 3, 1995.

Pursuant to Articles and Plan of Merger filed in Tennessee and Georgia on

February 11, 1999, G&FRC merged, along with other entities, into the Gulf &

Ohio Railways, Inc. (G&OR), an employer under the RRA and RUIA, and

continued its railroad operations the same as before the merger, except for 

describing itself as G&OR d/b/a G&FRC. All assets of G&FRC merged into

G&OR on February 11, 1999, as G&OR was the surviving corporation. See 

Surface Transportation Board (STB) Finance Docket No. 33707, decided

January 29, 1999. On April 30, 1999, operating assets of G&OR were sold to

Georgia & Florida Railnet, Inc. (GFRN). See STB Finance Docket No. 33716,

decided May 5, 1999, The former G&FRC employees last performed service

and were last compensated by G&OR on April 30, 1999.

Based on the information summarized above, it is determined that the Georgia

& Florida Railroad Company, Inc. ceased to be an employer covered under the

RRA and RUIA as of the close of business on February 11, 1999, the day on

which it merged into the Gulf & Ohio Railways, Inc.

Q>L

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

BCD 2000-04

BA# 5562
----

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | — | the                  Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended                  September 30, 2006, (the “Report”), which this certification accompanies,                  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                  of the                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | — | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Company. |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                  Thomas K. Grove                   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Thomas                  K. Grove                       |   |
| President                  and Chief Executive Officer |   |

| /s/                  Joanne Forsberg                   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Joanne                  Forsberg                       |   |
| Chief                  Financial Officer and Secretary |   |

----
WEST COASTWORKING GROUP SUPPORTS TRADE

----
#### William E. Morrissey, Appellant, v. St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Respondent.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-027 April 9, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH DUKE ENERGY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT OCONEE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Duke Energy officials on

Tuesday, April 13, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the

Oconee nuclear power plant near Seneca, South Carolina.

The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m in the Auditorium of the Complex Building at the Oconee

Nuclear Station, located at 155 East Pickens Highway (Highway 183) near Seneca. The public is

invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available before the conclusion of the

meeting to answer any questions.

The NRC said that all three Oconee reactors were operated safely during the evaluation period

from January 1 through December 31, 2003. As a result, Units 1 and 2 will undergo only routine,

scheduled inspections during 2004, but Unit 3 will undergo a supplemental inspection in addition to

those done normally. The Unit 3 supplemental inspection is due to problems of low to moderate safety

significance involving inadequate installation of electrical connectors on an emergency power supply

cable and pressurizer heat losses in excess of regulatory requirements. A letter from the NRC to Duke

Energy outlining the results of the most recent evaluation is available from Region II Public Affairs

and on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/oco_2003q4.pdf . 

 The NRC staff will also conduct inspections at Oconee (not specifically related to the plant’s

prior performance) related to planned reactor vessel head and steam generator replacements, operator

licensing examinations, the dry cask spent fuel storage installation and safety issues concerning reactor

pressure vessel lower head penetration nozzles.

 The agency will also continue to monitor plant actions in response to any new security orders

and any newly developed portions of the plant security program.

 Current performance indicators for the three units at the Oconee plant are available at 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OCO1/oco1_chart.html , 

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OCO2/oco2_chart.html and

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OCO3/oco3_chart.html .

###
### §5108. Supplemental claims

(a) In General.—If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to a supplemental claim, the Secretary shall readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record.

(b) Duty to Assist.—(1) If a claimant, in connection with a supplemental claim, reasonably identifies existing records, whether or not in the custody of a Federal department or agency, the Secretary shall assist the claimant in obtaining the records in accordance with section 5103A of this title.

(2) Assistance under paragraph (1) shall not be predicated upon a finding that new and relevant evidence has been presented or secured.

(Added Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title I, §103(a)(1), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4107, §3008; renumbered §5108, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 102–83, §4(b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404, 405; Pub. L. 115–55, §2(i)(1), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1109.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Pub. L. 115–55 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim."

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 3008 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 102–83 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator".

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

#### Effective Date of 2017 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–55 applicable to all claims for which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs provides notice of a decision under section 5104 of this title on or after the later of 540 days after Aug. 23, 2017, or 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a certification of certain capabilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out the new appeals system established by Pub. L. 115–55 and to address appeals of decisions on legacy claims, with provision for early applicability of the new appeals system to certain claims, see section 2(x) of Pub. L. 115–55, set out as a note under section 101 of this title, and bracketed note thereunder.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 1, 1989, see section 401(a) of Pub. L. 100–687, set out as a note under section 7251 of this title.

#### Construction of 2017 Amendment

Pub. L. 115–55, §2(i)(2), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1109, provided that: "Section 5108 of such title [38 U.S.C. 5108], as amended by paragraph (1), shall not be construed to impose a higher evidentiary threshold than the new and material evidence standard that was in effect pursuant to such section on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 23, 2017]."
#### Nicholas Gregorio & Company, Respondent, v. Malcke Building Corporation, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costsand disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.