alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 13-056 July 1, 2013 

CONTACT: Ivonne Couret, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Final Licensing, Inspection and Annual Fees Rule for Fiscal Year 2013  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations to reflect the licensing, 

inspection and annual fees it will charge its applicants and licensees for fiscal year (FY) 2013. 

The FY 2013 final fee rule, published in the Federal Register, includes fees required by law to 

recover approximately 90 percent of the agency’s budget authority. The President signed the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 on March 26, 2013, giving the NRC a 

total appropriation of $985.6 million for FY 2013. The NRC’s required fee recovery amount for the FY 

2013 budget is approximately $864.0 million. After accounting for billing adjustments, the total amount 

to be billed as fees is approximately $859.6 million. 

The agency is required by Congress to recover for the U.S. Treasury most of its annual 

appropriated budget through two types of fees. One is for specific NRC services, such as licensing and 

inspection activities, that apply to a specific license; the other is an annual fee for generic and other 

regulatory costs not otherwise recovered through fees for specific services. These fees are paid to the 

U.S. Treasury and go into the general fund. Of the 90 percent of the NRC’s budget that is recovered, 

approximately 40 percent of the fees (10 CFR Part 170) will be billed for specific services to cover the 

cost of special benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees, and the remaining 60 percent will be 

billed as annual fees (10 CFR Part 171). 

“The NRC is continuing its efforts to keep its fees as low as possible by ensuring its programs 

are conducted efficiently and effectively, and requesting from Congress only the resources necessary to 

perform its mission of protecting people and the environment,” said NRC Chief Financial Officer Jim 

Dyer. 

The final fee rule includes several changes from the NRC’s FY 2012 final fee rule. First, the 

NRC decreased the current hourly rate of $274 to $272, a decrease of 0.7 percent. This decrease in the 

hourly rate is a result of a smaller agency budget in FY 2013. Second, as a result of our biennial review, 

the NRC revised the flat license application fees in 10 CFR 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect the new hourly 

rate. Finally, the FY 2013 annual fees increased for spent fuel storage facilities, research and test 

reactors, fuel facilities, most material users, and uranium recovery facilities, while annual fees 

decreased for operating reactors and U.S. Department of Energy transportation activities. 

 The NRC estimates that the FY 2013 annual fees will be paid by licensees of 102 operating 

reactors, 4 research and test reactors, 21 spent nuclear fuel storage/reactor-in-decommissioning 

facilities, 10 fuel cycle facilities, 11 uranium recovery facilities and approximately 3,002 nuclear 

material users.
### Part A—National Aeronautics and Space Administration
#### Walter H. Depker, Respondent, v. Dorothy Dwyer, Appellant.

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract claimed to have been made by defendant to sell to plaintiff a parcel of real property, order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency or for judgment on the pleadings, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
#### The People *ex rel.*Robert Cook, Relator-Appellant, *v.*John J. Twomey, Warden, Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet, Respondent-Appellee.

(No. 59655;

First District (3rd Division)

August 1, 1974.

Paul Bradley and Howard B. Augustus, both of State Appellate Defenders Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

MEJDA, J., took no part.

*789Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Linda West Conley, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2484

___________

Capital Promotions, L.L.C., *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Don King, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 14, 2009

Filed: January 26, 2009

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Capital Promotions, L.L.C., commenced this diversity action in the United

States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging that boxing promoter

Don King tortiously interfered with Capital’s exclusive contractual relationship with

boxer Tyeson Fields. King moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Conceding that King is a Florida resident without assets, agents, property, or physical

presence in Iowa, Capital argued that personal jurisdiction is proper because King

made phone calls to Capital’s officials in Iowa, and because Capital, an Iowa

corporation, bore the brunt of the harm caused by King’s tortious conduct. 
1

The HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT, Chief Judge of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

-2-

The district court1

 granted the motion to dismiss, concluding in a thorough

opinion that King lacked minimum contacts with Iowa sufficient under Iowa law and

the Due Process Clause to subject him to the personal jurisdiction of an Iowa court.

Capital appeals. After careful review of the record, we affirm for the reasons stated

in the district court’s order dated June 6, 2008. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No.333-122055 and Form S-3 No. 333-63918) of ArdenRealty Limited Partnership and in the related Prospectuses of ourreports dated March 12, 2005 withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of Arden Realty Limited Partnership, Arden RealtyLimited Partnership’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of ArdenRealty Limited Partnership included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December31, 2004.    /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP   Los Angeles, California  March 12, 2005
Exhibit 32


Certification of Financial Reports Pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350

The undersigned hereby certify that the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004, 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 that information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



/s/ J. Nicholas Bayne
----------------------
J. Nicholas Bayne
President and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Kurt A. Tornquist
---------------------
Kurt A. Tornquist
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer

Dated:  August 16, 2004

This certification is made solely for purposes of 18 USC Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. AP-75,883 & AP-75,884 & AP-75,885

EX PARTE GEORGE DANIEL GRANT Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 93-41138, 93-41533 & 98-01839 

IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3

FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts

of aggravated sexual assault of a child and one count of indecency with a child. He was sentenced

to imprisonment for two terms of forty years and one term of twenty years. The Fifth Court of

Appeals dismissed his appeals. Grant v. State, Nos. 05-05-00920-CR, 05-05-00921-CR, 05-05-

00922-CR (Tex. App.–Dallas, delivered July 21, 2005, pet. ref’d).
Applicant contends, among other things, that he was denied his right to appeal because his

waivers of appeal at his adjudication of guilt proceeding were involuntary. We remanded these

applications to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. On remand, the trial court

recommended that we grant. We agree. Accordingly, the trial court shall certify Applicant’s right to

appeal his sentences in cause numbers 93-41138, 93-41533 and 98-01839 in Criminal District Court

No. 3 from Dallas County. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d

469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: April 2, 2008

Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7328
TYRONE LAMAR ROBERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus A.J. PADULA, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (8:06-cv-01247-CMC) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 20, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tyrone Lamar Roberson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
RUSSIA ADDS CURRENCY CONTROLS

----
**GAO-02-1113R**                      Published: Sep 20, 2002. Publicly Released: Sep 20, 2002.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

GAO reviewed the audit report covering the financial statements of the National Federation of Music Clubs, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. GAO found no reportable instances of noncompliance. The audit report included the auditors' opinions that the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

## Full Report

Full Report (2 pages)

Accessible Text 

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Auditing and Financial Management

Accounting standardsAudit reportsFederal corporationsFinancial statement auditsReporting requirementsFinancial statementsFederally chartered corporationFinancial managementRegulatory noncomplianceAuditors
#### Murray Landy, Appellant, v. Isabelle J. Landy, Respondent.

In an action for a divorce, wherein the defendant counterclaims for a divorce, the jury answered all questions in the negative, and judgment was entered dismissing the complaint and the counterclaim. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment insofar as it dismisses the complaint. Judgment insofar as appeal is taken reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The verdict, insofar as it answers questions numbered 1 and 2 in the negative, is against the weight of the evidence, and the motion to set it aside should have been granted. It was not error to exclude plaintiff’s exhibit 13 for identification from evidence, no sufficient foundation having been laid for its admission. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and Beldock, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER V—AVLIS AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR URANIUM ENRICHMENT
§ 990.20 Relationship to the CERCLA natural resource damage assessment regulations. ( a ) *General.* Regulations for assessing natural resource damages resulting from hazardous substance releases under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601 *et seq.,* and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. 1321 *et seq.,* are codified at 43 CFR part 11. The CERCLA regulations originally applied to natural resource damages resulting from oil discharges as well as hazardous substance releases. This part supersedes 43 CFR part 11 with regard to oil discharges covered by OPA.
( b ) *Assessments commenced before February 5, 1996.* If trustees commenced a natural resource damage assessment for an oil discharge under 43 CFR part 11 prior to February 5, 1996 they may complete the assessment in compliance with 43 CFR part 11, or they may elect to use this part, and obtain a rebuttable presumption.
( c ) *Oil and hazardous substance mixtures.* For natural resource damages resulting from a discharge or release of a mixture of oil and hazardous substances, trustees must use 43 CFR part 11 in order to obtain a rebuttable presumption.
§ 990.41 Determination of jurisdiction. ( a ) *Determination of jurisdiction.* Upon learning of an incident, trustees must determine whether there is jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA. To make this determination, trustees must decide if: ( 1 ) An incident has occurred, as defined in § 990.30 of this part;
( 2 ) The incident is not: ( i ) Permitted under a permit issued under federal, state, or local law; or
( ii ) From a public vessel; or
( iii ) From an onshore facility subject to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authority Act, 43 U.S.C. 1651, *et seq.;* and
( 3 ) Natural resources under the trusteeship of the trustee may have been, or may be, injured as a result of the incident.
( b ) *Proceeding with preassessment.* If the conditions listed in paragraph (a) of this section are met, trustees may proceed under this part. If one of the conditions is not met, trustees may not take additional action under this part, except action to finalize this determination. Trustees may recover all reasonable assessment costs incurred up to this point provided that conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section were met and actions were taken with the reasonable belief that natural resources or services under their trusteeship might have been injured as a result of the incident.
NRC TO DISCUSS EARLY IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

NEAR-TERM JAPAN TASK FORCE SEPT. 14 IN ROCKVILLE, MD

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a meeting to discuss the staff’s proposal 

to implement those recommendations from the NRC’s Near-Term Japan Task Force that can and 

should be implemented without unnecessary delay. The Task Force examined issues raised by 

the Fukushima reactor accident in March.

The commission meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. in the Commissioner’s 

Conference Room at NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. Discussion will 

include external stakeholders’ input on the recommendations and a presentation by NRC staff. 

The meeting will be open to public observation and will be webcast. 

A detailed agenda and meeting slides will be available in advance on the webcast page. 

The NRC staff paper that will form the basis of the meeting will be available in advance on the 

Commission’s Recently Released Documents page. 

Media Notes: At this time, this event will be open for television; the agency reserves the 

right to seek a mandatory pool if demand exceeds available space. Seats on one side of the 

commission hearing room will be reserved for accredited members of the news media. 

Photographers will have limited space at the meeting in which to take photos. Movement must 

be kept to a minimum so as not to be distracting and entry into the inner well closest to the 

Commission briefing table is prohibited. 

Plan to arrive in advance of the meeting at the NRC’s One White Flint North entrance, at 

the corner of Rockville Pike and Marinelli Road, with proper media credentials. The NRC is 

located across the street from the White Flint Metro station. Parking is available at the White 

Flint metro parking garage on Marinelli Road. Members of the media are asked to call the NRC 

Office of Public Affairs (301-415-8200) in advance to provide the names of those attending the 

meeting to assure sufficient seating.

###

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.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No. 11-170 September 9, 2011
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.
KYRGYZSTAN ADOPTS NEW FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW

----

**February 1998**
by Irina Mukhambaeva
On September 24, 1997 the Government of Kyrgyzstan adopted a new "Law on ForeignInvestments in the Kyrgyz Republic."  The law draws heavily on international models in areassuch as investment protection and taxation and represents an important step forward forcommercial law in Kyrgyzstan.  Kyrgyz Government officials contend that the law establishesequal conditions for both domestic and foreign companies, although some current investors havebeen less than enthusiastic since it also abolishes the former system of tax holidays for jointventures and foreign enterprises.
Almas Chukin, Deputy Chairman of the Kyrgyzstan State Property Fund and one of theauthors of the new law, said that the law's adoption brings Kyrgyzstan into conformity withinternational standards, since it was modeled on the multilateral agreement on investments of theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
**Investment Protection and Tax Benefits**
### §529. Annual executive agency reports on excess personal property

(a) In General.—During the calendar quarter following the close of each fiscal year, each executive agency shall submit to the Administrator of General Services a report on personal property—

(1) obtained as—

(A) excess property; or

(B) personal property determined to be no longer required for the purpose of the appropriation used to make the purchase; and

(2) furnished within the United States to a recipient other than a federal agency.

(b) Required Information.—The report must set out the categories of equipment and show—

(1) the acquisition cost of the property;

(2) the recipient of the property; and

(3) other information the Administrator may require.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1086.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 529 | 40:483(e). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, §202(e), as added Pub. L. 94–519, §3, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat. 2454. |

Section

In subsection (a)(2), the words "in any manner whatsoever" are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (b), the words "set out the categories of equipment" are substituted for "showing . . . categories of equipment" to clarify the required form and content of the report. The words "The Administrator shall submit a report to the Senate (or to the Secretary of the Senate if the Senate is not in session) and to the House of Representatives (or to the Clerk of the House if the House is not in session) summarizing and analyzing the reports of the executive agencies" are omitted pursuant to section 3003 of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note). See, also, page 173 of House Document No. 103–7.