alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ASLB TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS DEC. 5 IN ROCKVILLE, MD.,

ON REQUEST FOR HEARING ON SAN ONOFRE LICENSE AMENDMENTS

An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will hear oral arguments Dec. 5 on a 

challenge filed by Citizens Oversight to certain license amendments that Southern California Edison 

has requested concerning the San Onofre reactors in California. The Board is a quasi-judicial panel 

of three judges who are independent of the Commissioners and of the NRC staff. If the Board finds 

that Citizens Oversight’s hearing request meets the necessary legal criteria, then it will schedule 

such a hearing at a later date.

Citizens Oversight filed a petition Oct. 17, requesting a hearing after Southern California 

Edison filed a request to amend the plant’s license. The amendment would alter some of the 

technical specifications under which San Onofre’s two reactors must operate. The oral argument 

will deal solely with Citizens Oversight’s request for hearing. A different set of ASLB judges, at a 

date yet to be determined, will deal with a separate hearing request from Friends of the Earth filed 

in June 2012. 

The oral argument on the Citizens Oversight hearing request will be held from 1-4 p.m. on 

Dec. 5, in the ASLB Hearing Room T3-B-45 in the NRC’s White Flint complex, 11555 Rockville 

Pike in Rockville. Only the designated representatives for Citizens Oversight, the NRC staff and 

Southern California Edison will be allowed to participate. The public and media are welcome to 

attend and observe the proceeding in person in the Rockville hearing room. Signs, banners, posters 

or other displays are not permitted in the hearing room. Those planning to attend should allow 

enough time for security screening before the session’s scheduled start time. 

The public may also watch the oral argument via Internet webstreaming. The webstream will 

be available for viewing for up to 90 days after the argument. The public can view copies of the 

pleadings in this proceeding, as well as the eventual transcript of the oral argument, through the 

NRC’s Electronic Hearing Docket, in the folder entitled “San Onofre 50-361&50-362-LA.” 

###

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. 12-125 November 20, 2012
###### Editorial Note on Part 922

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart H of Part 922

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart H appear at 80 FR 34048, June 15, 2015.

#### § 922.83 Permit procedures and issuance criteria.

(a) A person may conduct an activity otherwise prohibited by § 922.82(a)(2) through (9) and (11) through (16) if such activity is specifically authorized by and conducted in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a permit issued under this section and subpart D of this part.

(b) Applications for permits should be addressed to the Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; ATTN: Superintendent, Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, 991 Marine Dr., The Presidio, San Francisco, CA 94129.

[88 FR 966, Jan. 6, 2023, as amended at 88 FR 19826, Apr. 4, 2023]
U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t

M e m o r a n d u m

FORM 0-1151 (1-52)

R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t b o a r d

L-2000-21

June 9, 2000

TO Bobby V. Ferguson 

Director of Prog

FROM Steven A. Bartholowi 

General Counsel

SUBJECT : Community Property/Marital Estate-Nebraska

Partition of Employee Annuity Under Section 14(b)(2)

/

This is to advise that the law of the state of Nebraska has changed with respect to the 

finality of divorce decrees issued by Nebraska courts. Prior to September 9, 1995, a 

Nebraska divorce decree which partitioned an annuitant’s Railroad Retirement Act annuity 

in accordance with the Board’s regulations under 20 CFR 295 was not final and operative 

until six months from the date the divorce decree was entered. See Legal Opinion 89-106. 

Chapter 42-372.01 of the Revised Statutes of Nebraska has been amended to provide:

42-372.01. Decree; when final. (1) Except for purposes of appeal as 

prescribed in section 42-372, for purposes of remarriage as prescribed in 

subsection (2) of this section, and for purposes of continuation of health 

insurance coverage as prescribed in subsection (3) of this section, a decree 

dissolving a marriage becomes final and operative thirty days after the 

decree is rendered or on the date of death of one of the parties to the 

dissolution, whichever occurs first. If the decree becomes final and operative 

upon the date of death of one of the parties to the dissolution, the decree 

shall be treated as if it became final and operative the date it was rendered.

(2) For purposes of remarriage other than remarriage between the 

parties, a decree dissolving a marriage becomes final and operative six 

months after the decree is rendered or on the date of death of one of the 

parties to the dissolution, whichever occurs first. If the decree becomes final 

and operative upon the date of death of one of the parties to the dissolution, 

the decree shall be treated as if it became final and operative the date it was 

rendered.
(3) For purposes of continuation of health insurance coverage, a 

decree dissolving a marriage becomes final and operative six months after 

the decree is rendered.

Accordingly, based on the change in Nebraska law, it is my opinion that a Nebraska 

divorce decree is now final and operative 30 days from the date the decree is rendered.

This opinion does not alter the substance of my opinion in L-89-106 other than to recognize 

the Nebraska statutory change form six months to 30 days, in the time when a divorce 

decree becomes final, as it applies to the Board.

I
### [§3472. Vacant]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Prior to renumbering of sections 1651 to 1693 of this chapter as sections 3451 to 3493 by Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406, section 1672 of this chapter, added Pub. L. 89–358, §2, Mar. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 15, which related to change of program by veteran, was repealed by Pub. L. 92–540, title IV, §401(6), Oct. 24, 1972, 86 Stat. 1090.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25868]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Joint Venture Under ATP Award No. 70NANB4H3044

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 22, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Joint Venture under ATP 
Award No. 70NANB4H3044 (``ATP JV'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the 
nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
are Sarnoff Corporation, Princeton, NJ; Autoliv ASP, Inc., Auburn 
Hills, MI; and Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI. The general area of 
ATP JV's planned activity is active automotive safety through a novel 
fusion of vision and radar sensors that will identify and evaluate 
impending collisions in time to take advance action.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25868 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
## ,ATTc'N))EES NO\

## S~EAI<lN~**Lu~ a~u.Uv-n** **~'f·\)~** 

### (;)**'~11·~** 

### St li:'2:.1:A 

### Ct-u 1!. S'-PE"Z-"Z..l 

### No@ 'TAtko

### v; 

## htJ-, -:rt.. u;J;t+, 

# r (.,.**Tol~1t-J** 

## t l\ ( 6

I 1.::,

II (:

1.-j ' I !(,jo 

# ·- E V't'\Ctil 

### P V16 "e. Mi.!.

..... -@ IL!)&

.. :)..,., £-

..... 

### ,.,l**~ ~~f**  

### bJ 

## P"'IJ**rt.sr,·ve.~.:Ji** .\'\ 

### e }-**q~i** 

# ;r_n s

+c< Wlo

### ~ 

## @ w;!; 

## c.ed**~** 1og-7, z...gSf$**E1~-<6"l1e.** "'Su/\o. ( o 1"\
##### 



Exhibit 10.39
   
    Granted To:
    
    Weldon H. Latham(the Employee for Incentive Stock Options, or the Optionee for Non-Qualified Stock Options)Grant Date:
    
    August 9, 2005Granted:
    
    3,704Grant Price:
    
    $0.0000The close of business on the business day immediately preceding:Vesting Schedule:
    
    Board Restricted Stock1,852 on 02/09/20061,852 on 08/09/2006
  o
 o  Signature:
    
    /s/ Weldon H. LathamoWeldon H. Latham
 Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above,
please make the appropriate corrections on this form.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Gaming Venture Corp., U.S.A. (the 'Company"),
hereby certify, that to the best of my knowledge,
the financial statements on Form 10QSB of the
Company for the three months ended March 31, 2003
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: July 8, 2003

/s/Alan R. Woinski,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
### Re: Veolia spiking Veolia spiking Christopher Lambesis Christopher Lambesis to: David Ogulei 03/28/2012 12:52 PM Cc: Charles Hall, Todd Ramaly For the 2008 test burns, Veolia spiked lead nitrate, chromic acid, mercury nitrate and hexachloroethane (chlorine).
Christopher Lambesis Environmental Scientist U.S EPA Region 5 Land and Chemicals Division (312) 886-3583 David Ogulei 03/28/2012 09:32:59 AM Todd/Chris/Charlie: Could you help me verify...
From: David Ogulei/R5/USEPA/US To: Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles

Hall/R5/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/28/2012 09:32 AM Subject: Veolia spiking
Todd/Chris/Charlie: Could you help me verify if Veolia spiked all metals during the 2008 test burns? I figured you would have that info more readily available. Hg was definitely spiked. I think As was too (but I'm not sure since in one area Veolia reported Arsenic's spike concentration as 0.0). I'm trying to figure out if spiking with done for SVM & LVM. Thanks for your help. David
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-12-0063 - Final Rule:  Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (10 CFR Part 51; RIN 3150-AI42)

Accession Number: ML110760045

Date Released: Tuesday, May 8, 2012

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.
    - ML110760033 - SECY-12-0063 - Final Rule:  Revisions to Environemental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (10 CFR Part 51; RIN 3150-AI42) (6 page(s), 4/20/2012)
    - ML110760311 - SECY-12-0063 - Enclosure 1 - Federal Register Notice - Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (136 page(s), 4/20/2012)
    - ML110760321 - SECY-12-0063 - Enclosure 2 - Regulatory Analysis:  Final Rule Revisions to 10 CFR Part 51 Environmental Review of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (72 page(s), 4/4/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
CASH IS KING - POTENTIAL IMPACT OF RUSSIAN ECONOMIC CRISIS ONTRAVELERS TO RUSSIA

----

17 SEP 98
#### § 997.16 Final action.

NOAA's decision, whether to certify, renew or decertify an RCOS shall be considered final agency action.
#### § 971.406 Environmental effects.

Before issuing or transferring a commercial recovery permit, the Administrator must find that the commercial recovery proposed in the application cannot reasonably be expected to result in a significant adverse environmental effect, taking into account the analyses and information in any applicable EIS and any TCRs associated with the permit. This finding also will be based upon the requirements in subpart F. However, as also noted in subpart F, if a determination on this question cannot be made on the basis of available information, and it is found that irreparable harm will not occur during a period when an approved monitoring program is undertaken to further examine the significant adverse environmental effect issue, a permit may be granted, subject to modification or suspension and, if necessary and appropriate, revocation pursuant to § 971.417(a), or subject to emergency suspension pursuant to § 971.417(h).
Exhibit 32.1


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


         In connection with the Annual Report of DOBI Medical International,
Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Phillip C.
Thomas, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael R. Jorgensen, Chief Financial
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.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.

Dated February 18, 2004

                                                   /s/Phillip C. Thomas
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                      Phillip C. Thomas
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                                   /s/Michael R. Jorgensen
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                      Michael R. Jorgensen
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III

2443 Warrenville Road

Lisle IL 60532

Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No. III-13-001

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil (630) 829-9663

January 8, 2013

E-Mail: OPA3 @nrc.gov 

NRC TO DISCUSS THROUGH-WALL LEAKS AT PALISADES; 

WEBINAR TO BE HELD JANUARY 12

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a webinar on Saturday, Jan. 12, to discuss 

previous through-wall leaks at the Palisades nuclear power plant. The plant is owned by Entergy 

Nuclear Operations and located in Covert, Mich., approximately 40 miles west of Kalamazoo.

The NRC Region III office, located in Lisle, Ill., will present information about throughwall leaks, how these leaks are regulated and what actions have been taken to address these 

leaks. Through-wall leaks go all the way through the wall of a pipe or component, causing the 

fluid inside to travel outside of the pipe or component. 

“We are committed to keeping the public informed about the NRC’s oversight of the 

Palisades plant,” said NRC Region III Administrator Charles Casto. “This webinar will give us 

an opportunity to continue the conversation with the public about the leaks and how they are 

being addressed. The meeting is being held on a Saturday as a direct result of feedback we 

received from the public to try and discuss issues at a more convenient time when people may 

not be working.”

The webinar will be held from 10-11 am (CST). Participants will be able to view 

presentation slides prepared by NRC staff and submit questions in writing over the Internet. 

Interested members of the public must register at

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/202634264 or following the instructions on the meeting 

notice in order to participate.

###

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.
Exhibit 21.1     **Jurisdiction of****Entity Name** **Incorporation**   **XO Holdings, Inc.** **Delaware**   **XO Holdings, Inc. Subsidiaries:**  Nextlink Wireless, Inc. DelawareV & K Holdings. DelawareXO Communications, LLC. Delaware   **XO Communications, LLC Subsidiaries:**  LHP Equipment, Inc. DelawareXO Communications Services, Inc. DelawareXO Interactive, Inc. WashingtonXO International Holdings, Inc. DelawareXO Services, Inc. DelawareXO Nevada Merger Sub, Inc Delaware50% Interest in Telecommunications of Nevada, L.L.C. DelawareXO Management Services, Inc WashingtonXO Global Communications, Inc DelawareCoast to Coast Telecommunications, Inc. DelawareXO Long Distance Services (Virginia), LLC Delaware   **XO Communications Services, Inc. Subsidiaries:**  XO Intercity Holdings No. 1, LLC. WashingtonXO Mindshare, LLC. WashingtonXO Virginia, LLC. Washington   **XO Management Services, Inc. Subsidiary:**  XO Management Services Nevada, Inc. Washington   **XO International Holdings, Inc. Subsidiaries:**  XO International, Inc. DelawareNextlink Global ApS Denmark99% Interest in XO Asia Limited Hong Kong   **XO International, Inc. Subsidiaries:**  1% Interest in XO Asia Limited Hong Kong   **XO Intercity Holdings No. 1, LLC Subsidiaries:**  XO Data Services, LLC. DelawareXO Intercity Holdings No. 2, LLC Delaware   **XO Nevada Merger Sub., Inc. Subsidiary:**  50% Interest in Telecommunications of Nevada, L.L.C. Delaware
1

*AMENDED DLD

- 197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 3

- 1592

___________ IN RE: DELGARDO SCOTT ,

Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United S tates District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 02

- cr
- 00073 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

April 18, 2013 Before: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : July 11, 2013 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
Petitioner Delgardo Scott is a federal inmate. He has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, dated February 27, 2013 , asking us to compel the District Court to issue a ruling on the motion to di smiss that he filed in his criminal case

. Scott identified the motion to dismiss by certified mail number, and the record shows that the motion was signed and mailed on October 24, 2012, and filed on the docket on October 26, 2012. Scott already has rece ived the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition, as the District
Court denied the motion to dismiss b y order entered November 8, 2012

. Thus, the matter is2

moot. See County of Morris v. Nationalist Movement , 273 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir. 2001).
Because th e District Court has adjudicated Scott’s motion, and there is no need for our intervention, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996). 1

1 Within this mandamus action, Sco tt has also filed documents, including Petitions To Dismiss, in which he seeks, among other things, dismissal of his criminal proceedings and immediate release from incarceration . We decline to rule on these documents. To the extent that he wishes to pur sue a collateral attack on the judgment and sentence in his criminal case, he must pursue such relief in the District Court. Insofar as Scott may be objecting to the District Court’s ruling on his motion to dismiss filed in District Court, it is not appro priate for us to issue relief via mandamus in lieu of an appeal. See , e.g. , In re Baldwin , 700 F.3d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 2012) ; In re Kensington Int’l Ltd. , 35 3 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003).
### Part A—Residential Building Efficiency
### §4704. Prohibition of contractors limiting subcontractor sales directly to Federal Government

(a) Contract Restrictions.—Each contract for the purchase of property or services made by an executive agency shall provide that the contractor will not—

(1) enter into an agreement with a subcontractor under the contract that has the effect of unreasonably restricting sales by the subcontractor directly to the Federal Government of any item or process (including computer software) made or furnished by the subcontractor under the contract (or any follow-on production contract); or

(2) otherwise act to restrict unreasonably the ability of a subcontractor to make sales described in paragraph (1) to the Federal Government.

(b) Rights Under Law Preserved.—This section does not prohibit a contractor from asserting rights it otherwise has under law.

(c) Inapplicability to Certain Contracts.—This section does not apply to a contract for an amount that is not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.

(d) Inapplicability When Government Treated Similarly to Other Purchasers.—An agreement between the contractor in a contract for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services and a subcontractor under the contract that restricts sales by the subcontractor directly to persons other than the contractor may not be considered to unreasonably restrict sales by that subcontractor to the Federal Government in violation of the provision included in the contract pursuant to subsection (a) if the agreement does not result in the Federal Government being treated differently with regard to the restriction than any other prospective purchaser of the commercial products or commercial services from that subcontractor.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3795; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §836(b)(19), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1864.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4704(a) | 41:253g(a). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303G(a), (b), formerly §303H, as added Pub. L. 98–577, title II, §206(a), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3073; renumbered §303G, Pub. L. 99–145, title XIII, §1304(c)(4)(A), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 742. |
| 4704(b) | 41:253g(b). | |
| 4704(c) | 41:253g(c). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303G(c), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title IV, §4103(b), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3341. |
| 4704(d) | 41:253g(d). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §303G(d), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8204(a), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3396. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "commercial products or commercial services" for "commercial items" in two places.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Jan. 1, 2020, subject to a savings provision, see section 836(h) of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as an Effective Date of 2018 Amendment; Savings Provision note under section 453b of Title 6, Domestic Security.