alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC TO DISCUSS SAN ONOFRE UNIT 2 RESTART PROPOSAL WITH

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON IN ROCKVILLE, MD, ON DEC. 18

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Southern 

California Edison in Rockville, Md., on Dec. 18 to discuss the utility’s proposal to restart San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station’s Unit 2.

The meeting will run from 1 to 4 p.m. in the Commissioners’ Hearing Room on the first 

floor of the NRC’s One White Flint building at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. The staff will 

discuss the restart plan and the agency’s requests for more information on the proposal. No 

restart decisions will be made during the meeting. The public can ask the NRC staff questions 

before the meeting concludes.

The meeting will be webcast live. A teleconference line is also available; anyone

interested in phoning in should contact Randy Hall (301-415-4032 or randy.hall@nrc.gov) or 

Brian Benney (301-415-2767 or brian.benney@nrc.gov) by Dec. 14 for call-in information.

The two San Onofre reactors have been shut down since January 2012, when a leak in a 

Unit 3 steam generator led to the discovery of unexpected wear in both reactors’ steam 

generators. The NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to Southern California Edison in 

March, requiring several actions by the utility before the agency would consider allowing the 

plant to restart. The utility’s reply from early October 2012 will be the focus of the meeting.

Note to Editors: DC-area media interested in attending the meeting should contact the Office of 

Public Affairs at 301-415-8200, by close of business Dec. 17.

###

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. 12-126 December 10, 2012
#### In the Matter of Manuel R. Fernandez, Petitioner, against State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, petitioner seeks to have annulled a determination of respondent State Liquor Authority, which cancelled his restaurant liquor license on the ground that he had ceased to conduct a bona fide restaurant at the licensed premises, and to compel the Authority to grant his application for a renewal of license. Determination annulled, without costs, and matter of the application for renewal of the license remitted to the respondent for reconsideration. The record contains no substantial evidence that the petitioner was not keeping and using regularly a bona fide restaurant in compliance with law. However, whether a renewal of the license should issue at this time is a matter calling for the lawful exercise of respondent’s discretion after consideration of all the factors which could properly be considered in issuing a new license and also the prior conduct of the premises. Adel, Acting P. J., MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Wenzel, J., concurs in result.
### §1905. Renewal

All level premium term policies, except as otherwise provided in this section, shall cease and terminate at the expiration of the term period. At the expiration of any term period any five-year level premium term policy which has not been exchanged or converted to a permanent plan of insurance and which is not lapsed shall be renewed as level premium term insurance without application for a successive five-year period at the premium rate for the attained age without medical examination. However, renewal will be effected in cases where the policy is lapsed only if the insured makes application for reinstatement and renewal of the term policy within five years after the date of lapse, and reinstatement in such cases shall be under the terms and conditions prescribed by the Secretary. In any case in which the insured is shown by evidence satisfactory to the Secretary to be totally disabled at the expiration of the level premium term period of the insurance under conditions which would entitle the insured to continued insurance protection but for such expiration, the insurance, if subject to renewal under this section, shall be automatically renewed for an additional period of five years at the premium rate for the then attained age, unless the insured has elected insurance on some other available plan.

(Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1148, §705; Pub. L. 91–291, §8, June 25, 1970, 84 Stat. 331; Pub. L. 99–576, title VII, §701(22), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3292; renumbered §1905 and amended Pub. L. 102–83, §§4(b)(1), (2)(E), 5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 404–406.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior section 1905, Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1216; Pub. L. 90–77, title II, §204(b), Aug. 31, 1967, 81 Stat. 184, related to applications, prior to the general revision of chapter 39 of this title by Pub. L. 91–666, §2(a), Jan. 11, 1971, 84 Stat. 1998.

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–83 renumbered section 705 of this title as this section and substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator" in two places.

1986—Pub. L. 99–576 substituted "the" for "his" in three places and "the insured" for "him".

1970—Pub. L. 91–291 made it a requirement for renewal of lapsed policies that the insured make application for reinstatement and renewal of his term policy within five years after the date of lapse and struck out provision that the lapse occur within two months before the expiration of the term period.

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

#### Effective Date of 1970 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 91–291 effective June 25, 1970, see section 14(a) of Pub. L. 91–291, set out as a note under section 1317 of this title.
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-04-036 September 14, 2004

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC ASSIGNS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR

TO CALLAWAY NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has assigned David Dumbacher as a resident

inspector at the Callaway plant near Fulton, Mo. The previous resident inspector, John Hanna, was

assigned to the Fort Calhoun Station in Neb. as senior resident inspector following a five year tour at

Callaway.

"Dave Dumbacher’s extensive experience and commitment to safety will help the NRC ensure

that the Callaway plant conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect the public health

and safety," said NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. 

Since 2003, Dumbacher has served as reactor engineer and project engineer in the NRC’s Region

IV office in Arlington, Texas. He assumed the duties and responsibilities of the resident inspector

position earlier this month. Prior to joining the NRC, he was employed by Exelon Corp. in Chicago as a

senior reactor operator, fuel handling supervisor and staff engineer at the Zion and Braidwood nuclear

plants in Ill.

Dumbacher is a graduate of Miami University where he received a Bachelor’s degree in

mathematics. He joined the U.S. Navy in 1980 and served as an officer aboard the USS Texas CGN-39,

a nuclear powered cruiser, until 1985 when he went to work for Exelon.

Each of the country’s commercial nuclear power plants has resident inspectors who serve as the

agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring significant work

projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. The resident inspectors at Callaway plant can

be reached at 573-676-3181.

Dumbacher and his wife have three children and will live in Columbia, Mo.

###
#### § 273.2 Definition.

*Metric system* means the International System of Units (SI) established by the General Conference of Weights and Measures in 1960, as interpreted or modified from time to time for the United States by the Secretary of Commerce under the authority of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and the Metric Education Act of 1978.

*Other business-related activities* means measurement sensitive commercial or business directed transactions or programs, *i.e.*, standard or specification development, publications, or agency statements of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency. “Measurement sensitive” means the choice of measurement unit is a critical component of the activity, *i.e.*, an agency rule/regulation to collect samples or measure something at specific distances or to specific depths, specifications requiring intake or discharge of a product to certain volumes or flow rates, guidelines for clearances between objects for safety, security or environmental purposes, etc.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Michael P. Yastrzemski, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 490]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 2, 2005, which, inter alia, denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

Claimant, a gardener for a landscaping company, complained to the employer that two coworkers were making comments about him to each other. The employer directed the coworkers not to speak to claimant and although they initially complied, claimant testified that the offensive conduct resumed within a few weeks. Without making further complaints to the employer, claimant quit despite the fact that continuing work was available. In a decision dated and filed June 8, 2005, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disquali*1124tied from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Upon granting claimant’s subsequent application to reopen and reconsider its decision, the Board, by decision dated and filed July 20, 2005, adhered to its prior decision. Thereafter, by decision dated and filed November 2, 2005, the Board denied claimant’s additional application to reopen and reconsider its decision. This appeal challenging the merits of the underlying determination denying his request for benefits ensued.

Initially, we note that because the record establishes that claimant’s applications for reopening and reconsideration were made in a timely manner, his appeal brings up for review the merits of the original determination *(see Matter of Wood [Commissioner of Labor],*24 AD3d 854, 855 [2005]). Turning to the merits of the Board’s decision, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause inasmuch as the failure to get along with a coworker does not constitute good cause for leaving one’s employment *(see Matter of Vazquez [Utopia Home Care, Inc.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*27 AD3d 814 [2006]; *Matter of Jenkins [Commissioner of Labor],*10 AD3d 745, 746 [2004]). Although claimant contends that the harassment from his coworkers exacerbated his health problems by creating more stress and anxiety, he did not receive any medical advice to leave his job.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS




                                                        Years Ended December 31,
                                                          2001           2000
                                                          ----           ----

Weighted average shares of common stock
  outstanding during the year                           1,901,027      1,900,000

Shares of common stock issuable in connection
  with assumed exercise of options under the
  treasury stock method                                      --            6,607
                                                       ----------     ----------

Total                                                   1,901,027      1,906,607
                                                       ==========     ==========

Net income (loss)                                         (93,687)       549,960
                                                       ==========     ==========

Per share amount - basic                               $    (0.05)    $     0.29

Per share amount - diluted                             $    (0.05)    $     0.29
#### Mary Spaulding, Respondent, v. William E. Spaulding, Appellant.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present*—Townley, Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25688]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (04-128)]


NASA Advisory Council; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).

DATES: Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, 
SW., Room MIC-6H46, Overflow Room, MIC-3H46 Washington, DC 20546.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Dakon, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-0732.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as 
follows:

--Transforming the NASA Advisory Council Structure.

    Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with 
NASA security requirements, including the presentation of a valid 
picture ID, before receiving an access badge. Foreign nationals 
attending this meeting will be required to provide the following 
information: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; visa/
green card information (number, type, expiration date); employer/
affiliation information (name of institution, address, county, phone); 
and title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees can 
provide identifying information in advance by contacting Ms. Marla K. 
King via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ce1edfee0eda2e7a2e7e5e2ebcce2edffeda2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533e32213f327d387d383a3d34133d3220327d343c25">[email protected]</span></a> or by telephone at (202) 358-
1148. Persons with disabilities who require assistance should indicate 
this. It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Michael F. O'Brien,
Assistant Administrator for External Relations, National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-25688 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Miles F. Bixler, trading as Miles F. Bixler Company, Plaintiff in error, v. T. A. Henson, Defendant in Error.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the County Court of Franklin county; the Hon. Thomas J. Layman, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed December 1, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Suit by Miles F. Bixler, trading as Miles F. Bixler Company, plaintiff, against T. A. Henson, defendant, to recover the purchase price of goods sold. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

The contract of sale was evidenced by a written order signed by the defendant containing a provision, which was brought to his attention, that the" seller’s agent had no authority to change or add to the writ*102ten terms of the sale except by writing on the original order which was subject to the acceptance of the seller.( At the defendant’s request the plaintiff’s agent verbally guaranteed delivery by a certain date and assured the defendant that such agreement would be as binding on the seller as though incorporated in the written order, j The goods not having been delivered at the time agreed upon, the defendant refused payment.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Principal and agent, § *108*
      ***
      *—when parol agreement by agent varying contract not binding on principal.*Where a written order for goods signed by the purchaser provides that no alteration or extension of the terms of sale therein set out shall he binding on the seller unless incorporated in writing in the order and accepted by him, a parol agreement by the seller’s agent guarantying delivery by a certain date is not binding on the seller.

2. Principal and agent, § *169*
      ***
      *—when agent liable on unauthorized contracts.*In so far as agreements and guaranties of an agent are beyond the implied scope of his authority, they are his personal obligations and not those of his principal.

3. Fraud, § *19*
      ***
      *—when verbal promise by agent varying contract does not constitute fraud.*An assurance by the agent of the seller to the purchaser that an oral agreement varying the terms of sale contained in a written order for goods will be binding on the seller, notwithstanding a provision in such order that no alteration or extension of the terms thereof will be binding unless incorporated therein in writing and accepted by the seller, does not constitute such fraud as will invalidate the contract.

Thomas I. Galloway, for plaintiff in error.

R. E. Smith and Nealy I. Glenn, for defendant in error.

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

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court.
### SUBCHAPTER II—ACQUIRING LAND
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-13-0024 Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurences; Fiscal Year 2012 (NUREG-0090 Vol. 35)

Accession Number: ML12311A437

Date Released: Tuesday, August 27, 2013

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.
    - ML12311A442 - SECY-13-0024 - Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurences: Fiscal Year 2012 (NUREG-0090 Vol.35) (30 page(s), 2/28/2013)
    - ML12311A454 - SECY-13-0024 - Enclosure 1 - Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurences: Fiscal Year 2012 (NUREG-0090 Vol. 35) (30 page(s), 2/28/2013)
    - ML12311A445 - SECY-13-0024 - Enclosure 2 - Congressional Letter for FY-2012 Abnormal Occurence Report (NUREG-0090 Vol. 35) (3 page(s), 2/28/2013)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Rebecca Richardson-Blanchard, the Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 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/ Rebecca Richardson-BlanchardRebecca Richardson-Blanchard
Interim Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 29, 2006
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Mid Atlantic Railroad Co., Inc.

Carolina Southern Railroad Company

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board

concerning the status of Mid Atlantic Railroad Co., Inc. (MAR) (BA

No. 2593) 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 sea. ) (RUIA) , as well as the status of

Carolina Southern Railroad Company (CSRR) as an employer under the

Acts .

Information regarding these companies was provided in a letter

dated April 10, 1995, from Jim Monroe, General Manager of the

Baltimore & Annapolis Railroad (B & A) .1 Mr. Monroe stated that

on February 7, 1995, the B & A purchased the assets of MAR. See.

Interstate Commerce Commission Finance Docket No. 32636, service

date February 9, 1995, permitting B & A to acquire and operate the

property. B & A has created a new division called the Carolina 

Southern Railroad Company (CSRR) to operate the line. According to

Mr. Monroe, all of the former employees of MAR are now employees of

CSRR. The CSRR began operations on February 7, 1995, and

interchanges with the CSX in Mullins, South Carolina, and with the

Waccamaw Coastline Railroad in'Conway, South Carolina. The annual

traffic of SCRR is about 15,000 carloads; stone, coal and lumber

products are its major commodities. According to Mr. Monroe, MAR

ceased to be an operating entity as of February 7, 1995.

Based upon the information summarized above, it is determined that

Mid Atlantic Railroad Co., Inc. ceased to be a rail carrier

employer under the RRA and RUIA effective February 7, 1995. In his

letter, Mr. Monroe stated that CSRR is not a separate corporation 

or a subsidiary of the B & A, but is a division of B & A, and that

CSRR employees will deposit their taxes under the B & A's EIN

number. Accordingly, no determination needs to be made as to its

status under the Acts.

Glen L. Bower

1 B & A has been found to be an employer covered by the Acts.

B.A. No. 5402.

BCD 1995-86.1
EX-10.4.2



 




EXHIBIT
10.4.2





AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

SYNACOR, INC.

2006 STOCK PLAN




     Synacor, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), adopted the 2006 Stock Plan on
December 5, 2006 (the “Plan”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms
shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.



     Section 4(a) of the Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:



     “(a) Basic Limitation. Not more than 966,915 Shares may be issued under the Plan (subject to
Subsection (b) below and Section 8). All of these Shares may be issued upon the exercise of ISOs.
The number of Shares that are subject to Options or other rights outstanding at any time under the
Plan shall not exceed the number of Shares that then remain available for issuance under the Plan.
The Company, during the term of the Plan, shall at all times reserve and keep available sufficient
Shares to satisfy the requirements of the Plan. Shares offered under the Plan may be authorized
but unissued Shares or treasury Shares.”



     Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.



Adopted by the Company’s Board of Directors: July 31, 2007