alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC ANNOUNCES OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN HEARING ON 

EARLY SITE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PSEG SITE 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced the opportunity for public 

participation in a hearing on an Early Site Permit (ESP) application for a site near Salem, N.J. 

PSEG submitted its ESP application on May 25, seeking the NRC’s determination on 

whether the site is suitable for a nuclear power facility, contingent on the approval of 

an additional application for a construction permit or combined license. An ESP is valid 

for 10 to 20 years and can potentially be renewed for an additional 10 to 20 years. The PSEG 

application, minus proprietary and security-related details, is available on the NRC website at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/pseg.html . 

 The NRC staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information for the 

agency to formally “docket,” or file, the application and begin its technical review. Docketing 

the application does not preclude requests for additional information as the review proceeds; nor 

does it indicate whether the Commission will issue the permit. The docket number established 

for this application is 52-043. 

 The NRC has issued in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to intervene in the 

proceeding on the application (URL), and the deadline for requesting a hearing is Jan. 7, 2011. 

Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the proposed license, who 

wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding, and who meets criteria set out in the NRC’s 

regulations. Background information regarding the hearing process was provided by NRC staff 

to members of the public during a May 6 public information session in Carneys Point, N.J. 

 A petition to intervene must be electronically submitted in a timely manner to the NRC's 

Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) system. The petition to intervene must be filed in 

accordance with the NRC's E-Filing Rule that appeared in the Federal Register on Aug. 28, 2007 

( http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/E7-16898.pdf ). Additional guidance and instructions 

regarding electronic submissions to the NRC EIE system is available on the NRC web pages at 

http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html . 

 

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. 10-204 November 8, 2010
Detailed information about the new reactor licensing process can be found on the NRC 

Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.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.
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 Annual Report of Bidgive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), I, Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  April 15, 2009 /s/ Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard Chief Financial Officer
### §133. Executive agency

In division B, the term "executive agency" means—

(1) an executive department specified in section 101 of title 5;

(2) a military department specified in section 102 of title 5;

(3) an independent establishment as defined in section 104(1) of title 5; and

(4) a wholly owned Government corporation fully subject to chapter 91 of title 31.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3682.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 133 | 41:403(1). | Pub. L. 93–400, §4(1), Aug. 30, 1974, 88 Stat. 797; Pub. L. 96–83, §3, Oct. 10, 1979, 93 Stat. 649; Pub. L. 98–191, §4, Dec. 1, 1983, 97 Stat. 1326; Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8001(b)(1)–(3), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3386. |

Section
### §1008. Temporary employees or carriers

(a) A person temporarily employed to deliver mail is deemed an employee of the Postal Service and is subject to the provisions of chapter 83 of title 18 to the same extent as other employees of the Postal Service.

(b) Any person, when engaged in carrying mail under contract with the Postal Service, or employed by the Postal Service, is deemed a carrier or person entrusted with the mail and having custody thereof, within the meaning of sections 1701, 1708, and 2114 of title 18.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 732.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) of Pub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
### §2804. Program performance reports

(a) The Postal Service shall prepare a report on program performance for each fiscal year, which shall be included in the annual comprehensive statement presented under section 2401(e) of this title.

(b)(1) The program performance report shall set forth the performance indicators established in the Postal Service performance plan, along with the actual program performance achieved compared with the performance goals expressed in the plan for that fiscal year.

(2) If performance goals are specified by descriptive statements of a minimally effective program activity and a successful program activity, the results of such program shall be described in relationship to those categories, including whether the performance failed to meet the criteria of either category.

(c) The report for fiscal year 2000 shall include actual results for the preceding fiscal year, the report for fiscal year 2001 shall include actual results for the two preceding fiscal years, and the report for fiscal year 2002 and all subsequent reports shall include actual results for the three preceding fiscal years.

(d) Each report shall—

(1) review the success of achieving the performance goals of the fiscal year;

(2) evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year relative to the performance achieved towards the performance goals in the fiscal year covered by the report;

(3) explain and describe, where a performance goal has not been met (including when a program activity's performance is determined not to have met the criteria of a successful program activity under section 2803(b)(2))—

(A) why the goal was not met;

(B) those plans and schedules for achieving the established performance goal; and

(C) if the performance goal is impractical or infeasible, why that is the case and what action is recommended; and

(4) include the summary findings of those program evaluations completed during the fiscal year covered by the report.

(Added Pub. L. 103–62, §7, Aug. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 294; amended Pub. L. 109–435, title X, §1010(d)(2), Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3261.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–435 substituted "section 2401(e)" for "section 2401(g)".
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID MARMOLEJO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 11

- 00108

- CR

Appeal from the

210 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#20090D04868)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Samuel Swislocki, Appellant, and Ephraim Spiewak, Respondent.

The power of attorney to plaintiff and the submission to arbitration do not make clear the subject matter of the arbitration, but if, as is otherwise indicated, the subject matter is the distribution -of a decedent’s estate, it would not constitute an arbitrable controversy. That does not mean that plaintiff’s wife might not have .a good and collectible claim through estate administration, or otherwise against defendant for funds originating in an estate but presently in a status beyond any stage of estate administration, which claim might be arbitrable, but on the present submission that does not appear to be the case. Order appealed from unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 80S.]
### §103. Traveling expenses

There may be expended for or on account of the traveling expenses of the President of the United States such sum as Congress may from time to time appropriate, not exceeding $100,000 per annum, such sum when appropriated to be expended in the discretion of the President and accounted for on his certificate solely.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95–570, §4, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2450.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Pub. L. 95–570 substituted "$100,000" for "$40,000".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–570 applicable to any fiscal year beginning on or after Oct. 1, 1978, see section 6(a) of Pub. L. 95–570, set out as a note under section 102 of this title.
### §903. Acquisition and use

(a) Notice to Local Government.—To the extent practicable, before making a commitment to acquire real property situated in an urban area, the Administrator of General Services shall give notice of the intended acquisition and the proposed use of the property to the unit of general local government exercising zoning and land use jurisdiction. If the Administrator determines that providing advance notice would adversely impact the acquisition, the Administrator shall give notice of the acquisition and the proposed use of the property immediately after the property is acquired.

(b) Objections to Acquisition or Change of Use.—In the acquisition or change of use of real property situated in an urban area as a site for public building, if the unit of general local government exercising zoning and land use jurisdiction objects on grounds that the proposed acquisition or change of use conflicts with zoning regulations or planning objectives, the Administrator shall, to the extent the Administrator determines is practicable, consider all the objections and comply with the zoning regulations and planning objectives.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1128.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 903 | 40:533. | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title VIII, §804, as added Pub. L. 90–577, title V, §501, Oct. 16, 1968, 82 Stat. 1105. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "and conform to" are omitted as included in "comply with".
```

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

I, Charles Bitters, the Chief Financial Officer of American Energy Production
Inc (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
         December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: April 30, 2003

                                                 /s/    Charles Bitters
                                                 -----------------
                                                 Name:  Charles Bitters
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
```
### §1308. Disposition of unfit horses and mules

Subject to applicable regulations under this subtitle and division C (except sections 3302, 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41, horses and mules belonging to the Federal Government that have become unfit for service may be destroyed or put out to pasture, either on pastures belonging to the Government or those belonging to financially sound and reputable humane organizations whose facilities permit them to care for the horses and mules during the remainder of their natural lives, at no cost to the Government.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1137; Pub. L. 111–350, §5(l)(13), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3852.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1308 | 40:311b. | June 15, 1938, ch. 400, 52 Stat. 693; June 3, 1939, ch. 176, 53 Stat. 808; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §2(24), 65 Stat. 707. |

Section

The words "and title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.)" are added to provide an accurate literal translation of the word "this Act", meaning the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. See the revision note under section 111 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Pub. L. 111–350 substituted "division C (except sections 3302, 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41" for "title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.)".
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Pacific Ventures, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I Gerry Jardine, President of the Company, hereby certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1)  the Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

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

 

/s/Gerry JardineGerry JardinePresident/DirectorMarch 15, 2005
#### Emma B. Murtagh, as Committee of the Person and Estate of Elizabeth E. Murtagh, an Incompetent Person, Appellant, v. Burt F. White et al., Respondents.

Memorandum: Upon reargument and reconsideration we feel that the evidence upon the close questions as to the location of the easterly line of Geddes Street and the occupation lines should be further developed. Evidence as to the location of the occupation lines may be material in determining the easterly line of Geddes Street. In the interests of justice, we think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment adjudging defendants to have title to certain premises and entitled *625to possession and the right to erect a fence thereon, but giving plaintiff right to use the premises for maintenance and repair of her buildings.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 891, 1021.]
#### Marena Rodriguez, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Miguel Alfonso, Deceased, Respondent, v Devan O. Gominiak, Respondent, and Alice Hennebohl, Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[821 NYS2d 544]

Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered May 16, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant Alice Hennebohl for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her and denied that part of the motion of defendants Peter Hirschbine, Margaret Hirschbine and Daniel Hoben for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Daniel Hoben.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
### §8104. Regulation of private and semipublic buildings adjacent to public buildings and grounds

(a) Factors for Development.—In view of the provisions of the Constitution respecting the establishment of the seat of the National Government, the duties it imposed on Congress in connection with establishing the seat of the National Government, and the solicitude shown and the efforts exerted by President Washington in the planning and development of the Capital City, the development should proceed along the lines of good order, good taste, and with due regard to the public interests involved, and a reasonable degree of control should be exercised over the architecture of private or semipublic buildings adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance.

(b) Submission of Application to Commission of Fine Arts.—The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Commission of Fine Arts an application for a permit to erect or alter any building, a part of which fronts or abuts on the grounds of the Capitol, the grounds of the White House, the part of Pennsylvania Avenue extending from the Capitol to the White House, Lafayette Park, Rock Creek Park, the Zoological Park, the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway, Potomac Park, or The Mall Park System and public buildings adjacent to the System, or abuts on any street bordering any of those grounds or parks, so far as the plans relate to height and appearance, color, and texture of the materials of exterior construction.

(c) Report to Mayor.—The Commission shall report promptly its recommendations to the Mayor, including any changes the Commission decides are necessary to prevent reasonably avoidable impairment of the public values belonging to the public building or park. If the Commission fails to report its approval or disapproval of a plan within 30 days, the report is deemed approved and a permit may be issued.

(d) Action by the Mayor.—The Mayor shall take action the Mayor decides is necessary to effect reasonable compliance with the recommendation under subsection (c).

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1205; Pub. L. 109–284, §6(22), Sept. 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 1213.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8104 | 40:121. | May 16, 1930, ch. 291, §1, 46 Stat. 366; July 31, 1939, ch. 400, 53 Stat. 1144. |

Section

In this chapter, the word "Mayor" is substituted for "Commissioners" [meaning the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia] [subsequently changed to "Commissioner" (meaning the Commissioner of the District of Columbia) because of section 401 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967 (eff. Nov. 3, 1967, 81 Stat. 951)] because of section 421 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93–198, 87 Stat. 789).

In subsection (a), the words "it is hereby declared that" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (b), the words "To this end, hereafter" are omitted as unnecessary.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–284 substituted "Commission of Fine Arts" for "Commission on Fine Arts".
### §517. Quarterly reports to Congress on conferences sponsored by the Department

(a) Quarterly Reports Required.—Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on covered conferences.

(b) Matters Included.—Each report under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) An accounting of the final costs to the Department of each covered conference occurring during the fiscal quarter preceding the date on which the report is submitted, including the costs related to—

(A) transportation and parking;

(B) per diem payments;

(C) lodging;

(D) rental of halls, auditoriums, or other spaces;

(E) rental of equipment;

(F) refreshments;

(G) entertainment;

(H) contractors; and

(I) brochures or other printed media.

(2) The total estimated costs to the Department for covered conferences occurring during the fiscal quarter in which the report is submitted.

(c) Covered Conference Defined.—In this section, the term "covered conference" means a conference, meeting, or other similar forum that is sponsored or co-sponsored by the Department and is—

(1) attended by 50 or more individuals, including one or more employees of the Department; or

(2) estimated to cost the Department at least $20,000.

(Added Pub. L. 112–154, title VII, §707(a), Aug. 6, 2012, 126 Stat.1206.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 112–154, title VII, §707(c), Aug. 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 1207, provided that: "Section 517 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply with respect to the first quarter of fiscal year 2013 and each quarter thereafter."
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6254

In Re: DEMETRIC GRAY PEARSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-03-564-PJM)

Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: April 2, 2004

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demetric Gray Pearson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Demetric Gray Pearson petitions for a writ of mandamus,

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court

directing the district court to act. Our review of the docket

sheet reveals that the district court denied his petition on

February 27, 2004. Accordingly, because the district court has

recently decided Pearson’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as

moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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. 

PETITION DENIED