alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. II-12-050 August 2, 2012

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING AUG. 9 TO DISCUSS 

STATUS OF INSPECTIONS AT BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting near the Browns 

Ferry nuclear power plant to continue discussions of the status of NRC supplemental inspections being 

performed as a result of a “red” inspection finding at the Tennessee Valley Authority facility. 

The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 9, at 1 p.m. CDT at the Calhoun Community 

College Aerospace Training Center, 6250 Highway 31 North in Tanner, Ala.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the status of TVA’s preparations for the third phase of 

the NRC’s supplemental inspections of the plant associated with the red finding. 

The meeting will include NRC inspectors as well as managers from the NRC’s Region II office 

in Atlanta. After the business portion of the agenda, NRC staff will be available to answer questions 

from the public.

Members of the public interested in participating by telephone should contact the NRC's 

Eugene Guthrie before the meeting at 404-997-4662 or eugene.guthrie@nrc.gov. 

The “red” finding was issued in May 2011 because of the failure of a low pressure coolant 

injection valve at the plant the previous fall. That valve is part of a system that would be used for core 

cooling during certain accident scenarios and its inoperable state could have led to core damage had a 

series of unlikely events occurred. The valve was promptly repaired. Under the NRC’s oversight 

process, a “red” finding has “high safety significance” and results in increased NRC inspection and 

oversight of the facility.

The increased NRC oversight at Browns Ferry includes a broad set of supplemental inspections 

to evaluate safety, organizational and programmatic issues at the plant. The inspections represent a far

more extensive review of programs and processes than those conducted as part of the NRC’s baseline 

inspection program. The facility’s safety culture is also being assessed.

The three-unit Browns Ferry plant is near Athens, about 32 miles west of Huntsville. 

###

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, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
### SUBCHAPTER II—RESTATEMENT OF BILL OF RIGHTS FOR MENTAL HEALTH PATIENTS
Exhibit 32.2

             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, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
Gerry Jardine, President of the Company, hereby certify 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.


/s/Gerry Jardine
------------------
Gerry Jardine
President/Director
March 15, 2004
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50298 c/w No. 01-50306 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TEOFILIO BARCENAS-ANGELINA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-583-1

- - - - - - - - - - December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Teofilio Barcenas-Angelina appeals from his sentence following his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. He argues that the district court failed to verify that he had reviewed the PSR and discussed the PSR with defense counsel, as required by F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(c)(3)(A). The record supports his argument. Barcenas-Angelina also argues that an F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(c)(3)(A) error requires an automatic remand for resentencing. An identical argument was recently rejected by this court. SeeNo. 01-50298 c/w No. 01-50306 -2- United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez , 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2001). Because Barcenas-Angelina did not object to the F ED . R. C RIM . P. 32(c)(3)(A) error during sentencing and has failed to allege that he was prejudiced by such error, he has not demonstrated plain error. Id. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### §608. Scrip, tokens, tickets

The Administrator of General Services, in the operation of motor vehicle pools or systems under this subchapter, may provide for the sale and use of scrip, tokens, tickets, and similar devices to collect payment.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1124.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 608 | 40:491(i). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, §211(i), as added Sept. 5, 1950, ch. 849, §5(c), 64 Stat. 583; Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1211, §2, 68 Stat. 1128. |

Section
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIESOF AVOCENT CORPORATION**

 

**Asof December 31, 2007**

 

1.     Avct Pty Ltd., an Australia corporation

 

2.     Avocent AsiaPacific Pte. Ltd., a Singapore company

 

3.     Avocent AustraliaPty Ltd., an Australia corporation

 

4.     Avocent BelgiumLimited SPRL, a Belgium company

 

5.     Avocent California Corp., a California corporation

 

6.     Avocent Canada Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation

 

7.     Avocent China Limited, a China corporation

 

8.     Avocent China Technology Limited, a China corporation

 

9.     Avocent Deutschland GmbH, a German corporation

 

10.   Avocent do BrasilInformática S.A., a Brazil corporation

 

11.   Avocent France SARL, a France corporation

 

12.   Avocent Fremont, LLC, a California limited liabilitycompany

 

13.   Avocent Huntsville Corp., an Alabamacorporation

 

14.   Avocent International Holdings Ltd., an Irelandcorporation

 

15.   Avocent International Limited, an Ireland corporation

 

16.   Avocent Ireland Holdings Limited, an Irelandcorporation

 

17.   Avocent Italia SRL, an Italy corporation

 

18.   Avocent Japan KK, a Japan corporation

 

19.   Avocent Netherlands B.V. a Netherlands corporation

 

20.   Avocent Nevada LLC, a Nevada limited liability company

 

21.   Avocent Redmond Corp., a Washington corporation

 

22.   Avocent Services Corporation, a Texas corporation

 

23.   Avocent Spain SL, a Spain corporation

 

24.   Avocent Sweden AB, a Sweden corporation

 

25.   Avocent Texas, LLC, a Texas limited liability company

 

26.   Avocent UK Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation

 

27.   Crimson Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation

 

28.   Crimson Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation

 

1

----

 

29.   Cyclades England Limited, a UnitedKingdom corporation

 

30.   LANDesk (Beijing) Software Co. Ltd., a Chinacorporation

 

31.   LANDesk Development, Inc, a Delaware corporation

 

32.   LANDesk Holdings, Inc., a DelawareCorporation

 

33.   LANDesk Group Limited, an IrelandCorporation

 

34.   LANDesk Software B.V., a Netherlands corporation

 

35.   LANDesk Software DeMexico S. de R.L. de C.V., a Mexico corporation

 

36.   LANDesk Software GmbH, a German corporation

 

37.   LANDesk Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation

 

38.   LANDesk Software KK, a Japan corporation

 

39.   LANDesk Software Limited, an Irelandcorporation

 

40.   LANDesk Software Ltda, a Brazil corporation

 

41.   LANDesk Software SARL, a France corporation

 

42.   LANDesk Software UK Ltd, a United Kingdom corporation

 

43.   OSA Technologies, Inc., a Delawarecorporation

 

44.   OSA Technologies Info. Co., Ltd., a China corporation

 

45.   Sonic Mobility Corp., a Nova Scotia company

 

2

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10542

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL WILLIAM GORDON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-93-5

Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Michael William Gordon has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Gordon has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10542 Document: 00512597809 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
No. 13-10542

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-10542 Document: 00512597809 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1254

JERRY L. GENT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE DEPARTMENT FOR RIGHTS OF VIRGINIANS WITH

DISABILITIES,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-96-155-A)

Submitted: May 1, 1997 Decided: May 8, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Gent, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Renardo Ferguson, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his complaint alleging that he was denied services based on his

disability. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Gent v. Department for Rights of

Virginians with Disabilities, No. CA-96-155-A (W.D. Va. Feb. 12,

1997). Further, we deny Appellant's request for appointed counsel.

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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 630.406 Use of sick leave during annual leave.

Subject to § 630.401(b) through (e), an agency may grant sick leave to an employee during a period of annual leave for any of the purposes described in § 630.401(a).

[71 FR 47695, Aug. 17, 2006. Redesignated at 75 FR 75373, Dec. 3, 2010]
### SUBCHAPTER VI—MISCELLANEOUS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROVISIONS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LE ’ ELDRED PALM, I,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. GO DADDY.COM, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 15919
D.C. No. 2:14

- cv - 01656

- SRB

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2016 **

Before: LE AVY, SILVERMAN , and BERZON , Circuit Judges.
Le’Eldred Palm, I, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
motions for reconsideration in his action alleging violations of the Sherman Act

. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e affirm.
The filing of the second and third motion s to reconsider did not toll the time to
appeal the underlying dismissal or the first motion to reconsider

. See Swimmer v. IRS ,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 15919

811 F.2d 1343, 1344

- 45 (9th Cir. 1987) , abrogated on other grounds by Briones v.

Riviera Hotel & Casino , 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, w e d o not consider Palm’ s
contentions regarding t he merits of the district court’ s or der dismissing his action, or the

district court’s order denying his first motion for reconsideration, because Palm failed to
timely file a notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A ) (notice of appeal must be

filed within 3 0 days of judgment) ; Stephanie

- Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug

Ctrs., Inc. , 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non

waivable jurisdictional requirement.”) ; Swimmer , 811 F2.d at 1344

- 45.
In his opening brief, Palm fails to challenge the district court’s orders denying his
second and third motions to reconsider the dismissal of his underlying action, and he has
therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.
1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed
waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not
manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . . ”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Palm’s contentions that the district court
demonstrated prejudice against him or denied him due process.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, Salomon Sredni, Chief
Executive Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of TradeStation Group,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|March 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Salomon Sredni     
|Date           |  | Salomon Sredni         
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer
NEW  MOSCOW  OFFICE SUPPORTS  U.S.  FOOD  EXPORTS

----

**April 1998**
by Joan Morgan & Robert Walker
Agricultural products worth $1.3 billion mostly processed foods led U.S. exports to Russia in1997, accounting for 40 percent of total U.S. exports.  To promote continued and expandedagricultural exports to Russia, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established anew "Agricultural Trade Office" (ATO) at the American Embassy in Moscow.  The officeprovides services both to American and Russian companies seeking to sell U.S. food products inRussia.
Russia has been one of the fastest growing markets for U.S. agricultural exports, which ledUSDA to establish the new office.  Of the $1.3 billion in U.S. agricultural exports to Russia lastyear, more than 90 percent were processed or consumer-oriented food products.  Meat, primarilypoultry, was the largest single category of U.S. exports to Russia in 1997, and Russia is U.S.poultry producers' largest export market.  U.S. agricultural exports declined in 1997 by about 9percent, following two years of very strong growth.  Despite a modest fall in chicken sales, U.S.shipments of fish and seafood, processed fruits and vegetables, and finished forestry products allshowed significant growth.
The pattern of U.S. agricultural exports to Russia has changed dramatically since 1992. Processed, consumer-oriented agricultural products worth $1.1 billion nearly 10 times their1992 amount now account for 40 percent of U.S. exports to Russia.  Bulk agriculturalcommodities (primarily cereals), which accounted for 35 percent of U.S. exports in 1992, wereless than 1 percent of exports in 1997.  The Russian Government's 1992 decision to abandonSoviet-era grain import subsidies led to steep, permanent declines in U.S. exports of cereal grainsin 1993 and 1994.
To support the growth of this dynamic market, the ATO provides a variety of market reports toU.S. food exporters and their Russian customers.  These reports can be obtained from the AgExport Services office of the USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) in Washington, DC(see contact information below).  As an additional service, the ATO is developing an Internethome page to provide timely information on its programs and services, as well as to give usefulinformation on trade issues and current market opportunities.  
**Services for U.S. Exporters**
### **CHAPTER 95—WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT AND OTHER PUBLIC WORKS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**

Sec.
9501.
Chief of Engineers.
9502.
Authority of Chief of Engineers.
9503.
Record of property.
9504.
Reports.
9505.
Paying for main pipes.
9506.
Civil penalty.
9507.
Control of expenditures.
#### § 1500.0 Order.

*Order* means this subpart A, Concrete Masonry Products Research, Education, and Promotion Order.
### §2010. Restrictions on agreements

The Postal Service shall promote modern and efficient operations and should refrain from expending any funds, engaging in any practice, or entering into any agreement or contract, other than an agreement or contract under chapter 12 of this title, which restricts the use of new equipment or devices which may reduce the cost or improve the quality of postal services, except where such restriction is necessary to insure safe and healthful employment conditions.

(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 742.)

#### **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.
NRC TO DISCUSS GUIDANCE FOR FUKUSHIMA-RELATED ORDER AND

INFORMATION REQUEST MAY 15, 16 IN ROCKVILLE, MD

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with interested groups and members of 

the public on May 15 and 16, in Rockville, Md., to continue discussions on developing guidance 

for U.S. nuclear power plants to comply with a recent Order and information request related to 

lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident. 

The meeting on guidance for the Order will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. EDT on May 15 in 

Room T2B1 of NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. Members of the public 

can also participate in the meeting via teleconference and webinar. For information on calling in 

or participating in the webinar, please contact Steven Bloom at 301-415-2431 or

steven.bloom@nrc.gov.

This meeting will discuss the staff’s draft guidance on acceptable methods for complying 

with an Order the NRC issued March 12. The Order requires U.S. nuclear power plants to better 

protect safety equipment installed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to obtain sufficient 

equipment to support all reactors at a given site simultaneously. 

The meeting on guidance for the information request will run May 15 from 1 p.m. to 

5 p.m. EDT and on May 16 from 8 a.m. to noon EDT in the Commission Hearing Room at NRC 

Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. This meeting will discuss the staff’s draft 

guidance on acceptable methods for performing seismic re-evaluations at all U.S. nuclear power 

plants, part of an information request the NRC issued March 12. Members of the public can 

participate in the meeting via teleconference and webinar. For information on calling in or 

participating in the webinar, please contact Christopher Gratton at 301-415-1055 or 

christopher.gratton@nrc.gov; or Ed Miller at 301-415-2481 or ed.miller@nrc.gov. 

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

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. 12-052 May 10, 2012
### Part C—Broadening Participation
No. IV-11-031

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 860-8128

 Lara Uselding (817) 917-0321

 

 June 26, 2011 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC ACTIVATES INCIDENT RESPONSE CENTER FOR TRACKING EVENTS

AT THE FORT CALHOUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is monitoring events at the Fort Calhoun 

nuclear power plant after a protective berm holding back floodwaters from the Missouri River 

collapsed early today. 

The plant, located about 19 miles north of Omaha, Neb., remains in a safe mode under an 

Unusual Event declared on June 6 because of flooding along the river. It is operated by Omaha 

Public Power District.

The 2,000 foot long water-filled berm provided supplemental flood protection to the 

plant, but was not required under NRC regulations.

It collapsed about 1:25 a.m. today as a result of onsite activities. This allowed 

floodwaters to surround the auxiliary and containment buildings, which are protected by design 

to a floodwater level of 1014 mean sea level. The Missouri River is currently at 1006.3 feet. 

River levels are not expected to exceed 1008 feet.

The collapse of the berm also allowed floodwaters to surround the main electrical 

transformers. Operators transferred power from offsite sources to the emergency diesel 

generators as a precautionary measure due to water leakage around the concrete berm 

surrounding the main transformers. Efforts are underway to reconnect to offsite power once all 

safety checks have been completed.

NRC inspectors were onsite at the time and responded to the event. They have verified 

that reactor shutdown cooling and spent fuel pool cooling remain unaffected. NRC augmented its 

resident inspection staff on June 6, to provide around the clock coverage of site activities. The 

plant has been shutdown since April 7 for a refueling outage. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 612 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4125

Telephone: (817) 860-8128

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
In response to the event, the NRC has activated its Incident Response Center from which 

it is monitoring events. NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko plans to visit the site tomorrow. 

###

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.