alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC APPROVES EXELON-CONSTELLATION MERGER, 

INDIRECT TRANSFER OF FIVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the proposed merger between Exelon 

Corp. and Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG), including the indirect transfer of operating 

licenses for five commercial nuclear power plants and two spent fuel storage installations.

The merger would result in Exelon indirectly owning 50.01 percent of Constellation

Energy Nuclear Group (CENG), which is jointly owned by CEG and EDF, Inc., a subsidiary of 

Electricité de France SA. CENG currently holds operating licenses for five nuclear power plants 

– Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2, and R.E. Ginna – as well as independent spent 

fuel storage installations at Calvert Cliffs and Ginna. EDF will continue to own the remaining 

49.99 percent of the facilities. Existing Exelon licenses will not be affected.

Exelon and CENG requested NRC consent to the merger in May 2011. Approvals have 

been granted by the New York Public Service Commission, the Public Utility Commission of 

Texas, and the U.S. Department of Justice. It must still be approved by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission and the Maryland Public Service Commission.

The indirect transfer of the licenses will not result in any physical changes to the facilities 

or any changes to the conduct of operations. The on-site organizations and plant staffs, including 

senior managers, will remain essentially unchanged by the license transfers. The NRC staff 

determined that Exelon Corp. meets the agency’s financial and technical qualifications 

requirements and concluded that public health and safety will not be adversely affected by the 

license transfers.

###

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. 12-016 February 16, 2012
exv10w1



 





Exhibit 10.1




Valeant Pharmaceuticals International

Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice

(2006 Equity Incentive Plan)



Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (the “Company”), pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Company’s 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), hereby awards to Participant a Restricted Stock
Unit Award covering the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock set forth below (the
“Award”). This Award will be evidenced by a Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (the “Award
Agreement”). This Award is subject to all of the terms and conditions as set forth herein and in
the applicable Award Agreement and the Plan, both of which are incorporated herein in their
entirety. The Award Agreement is attached hereto and the Plan may be found on the Human Resources
page of the Company’s corporate intranet at http://valeantvision.com/departments/GA/public/HR/HRHome.jspf. Capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan or the Award Agreement. In
the event of any conflict between the terms in the Award and the Plan, the terms of the Plan shall
control.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Participant:

	 	 

	 	 
	Date of Grant:

	 	 
	 	 
	Vesting Commencement Date:

	 	 
	 	 
	Number of Shares Subject to Award:

	 	 
	 	 
	Consideration:

	 	 
	 	 
	Fair Market Value per Share:

	 	 
	 	 







			
	Vesting Schedule: The shares of Common Stock subject to this Award will vest in accordance with the
following schedule:






			
	100% on the earlier of one year or the next annual meeting.




Additional Terms/Acknowledgements: The undersigned acknowledges receipt of, and understands and
agrees to, this Restricted Stock Unit Award Grant Notice, the Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
and the Plan. Participant further acknowledges that as of the Date of Grant, this Restricted Stock
Unit Award Grant Notice, the Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement and the Plan set forth the
entire understanding between Participant and the Company regarding the acquisition of shares of
Common Stock of the Company and supersede all prior oral and written agreements on that subject
with the exception of (i) Awards previously granted and delivered to Participant under the Plan,
and (ii) the following agreements only:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Other Agreements:

	 	 

	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Valeant Pharmaceuticals International	 	 	 	Participant:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

Signature
	 	 
	 	 

Signature
	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	 	 	 	 	  Date:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 







			
	Attachment: Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
§ 9800.107 Administrative appeals. ( a ) *Appeals of adverse determinations.* A requester may appeal a determination denying a FOIA request in any respect to the CIGIE Chairperson c/o Office of General Counsel, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, 1717 H Street NW, Suite 825, Washington, DC 20006. The appeal must be in writing, and must be submitted either by: ( 1 ) Regular mail sent to the address listed in this subsection, above; or
( 2 ) By fax sent to the FOIA Officer at (202) 254-0162; or
( 3 ) By email to *FOIAAPPEAL@cigie.gov .*
( b ) *Submission and content.* The Office of General Counsel must receive the appeal within 90 calendar days of the date of the letter denying the request. For the quickest possible handling, the appeal letter and envelope or any fax cover sheet or email subject line should be clearly marked “FOIA Appeal.” The appeal letter must clearly identify the CIGIE determination (including the assigned FOIA request number, if known) being appealed.
( c ) *Adjudication of appeals.* ( 1 ) The CIGIE Chairperson or designee will act on all appeals under this section.
( 2 ) An appeal ordinarily will not be adjudicated if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
( 3 ) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, CIGIE will take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
( d ) *Decisions on appeals.* Ordinarily, CIGIE will have 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) from receipt of the appeal to issue an appeal decision. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). CIGIE will provide its decision on an appeal in writing. A decision that upholds CIGIE's determination in whole or in part will contain a statement that identifies the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemptions applied. The decision will provide the requester with notification of the statutory right to file a lawsuit and will inform the requester of the dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services of the National Archives and Records Administration as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. If CIGIE's decision is remanded or modified on appeal, CIGIE will notify the requester of that determination in writing. CIGIE will then further process the request in accordance with that appeal determination and will respond directly to the requester.
( e ) *Engaging in dispute resolution services provided by the Office of Government Information Services.* Mediation is a voluntary process. If CIGIE agrees to participate in the mediation services provided by the Office of Government Information Services, it will actively engage as a partner to the process in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
( f ) *When appeal is required.* Before seeking review by a court of CIGIE's adverse determination, a requester generally must first submit a timely administrative appeal.
# Overcoming Barriers to Medical Equipment

Liz Persaud Georgia Te ch / To ols for Life May 8, 2012

# Medical Diagnosis

• Muscular Dystrophy, Spinal Muscular Atrophy Ty pe 2
• Progressive neuromuscular/neurodegenerative disease
• Curvature of the spine (spinal fusion at 9 years old)
• Long - term Progressive muscle weakness
• Everyday ef

fects: o Muscle and joint pain o Muscle fatigue o Rely on physical assistance for transferring, bathing, dressing, eating, and transportation

# Defining the Barriers There are 2 main barriers that I encounter during doctors visits and medical procedures: 1. Accessibility 2. Attitudinal

# Accessibility Barriers 1. Check- in at reception area 2. Scale 3. Exam room table 4. Procedures
• Mammography and X- ray machine 5. Check out

# Accessibility Barriers

• Transferring in and out of wheelchair • Cannot be transferred without transfer lift – too painful and dangerous • Bring my own transfer sheet whenever I go to doctor ’s visits, ER visits or to medical procedures.

# Attitudinal Barriers

• Equal treatment
• Strong focus on my “Life Expectancy” Attitudes are the Real Disability

. I do not think about my Disability until I “Life Expectancy”
• Often denied tests in a casual manner my Disability until I encounter somewhere I can not access or someone who focuses on my weaknesses.

# Recommendations  Check- in/check- out counters should be crenulated to accommodate wheelchair height and various other needs 

###  More space in exam room (not enough room for power wheelchair, attendant, doctor, nurse, exam table, chairs, etc.) 

###  Accessible exam table and diagnostic machines (easily accessed with a transfer lift and be used while lying down) 

###  Disability Aw areness training

# Suggested Next Steps **Accessible W orkout**  **Equipment!**

• If workout equipment was accessible and easy to access by individuals with various abilities (from a wheelchair) more people with disabilities would be inclined to exercise.
• Assisting in preventative measures could decrease the amount of doctors visits and medical procedures. **Thank Y o**  **u for Listening!**
### [§3735. Renumbered §2041]
### **CHAPTER 146—ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IMPROVEMENT**

Sec.
15301 to 15545. Transferred.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0061 - Direct Final Rule: Adding SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.'s Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Operating Assembly to the Definition of Utilization Facility

Accession Number: ML14052A149

Date Released: Thursday, April 21, 2022

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.
    - ML14052A123 - SECY-14-0061 - Direct Final Rule: Adding SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.'s Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Operating Assembly to the Definition of Utilization Facility (13 page(s), 6/16/2014)
    - ML14052A105 - SECY-14-0061 - Enclosure 1 - Direct Final Rule: Definition of a Utilization Facility (13 page(s), 6/16/2014)
    - ML14052A114 - SECY-14-0061 - Enclosure 2 - Proposed Rule: Definition of a Utilization Facility (8 page(s), 6/16/2014)
    - ML14052A097 - SECY-14-0061 - Enclosure 5 - Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact (3 page(s), 6/16/2014)
    - ML14052A115 - SECY-14-0061 - Enclosure 6 - Regulatory Analysis for Adding SHINE Medical Technologies, Inc.'s Accelerator-Driven Subcritical Operating Assembly to the Definition of Utilization Facility (15 page(s), 6/16/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00 472

- CR
IN RE Stephen RICHARDSON Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 27, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On July 7, 2011, relator Stephen Richardson filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on various pro se motions. However, counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in t he trial court for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See
Robinson v. State , 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial co urt has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by
counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20 10

- CR

- 10629 , styled State of Te xas v. Stephen Richardson , pending in the 399 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez

- Gardner presiding.04

- 1 1

- 00 472

- CR

- 2

- discretion by decli ning to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 52.8( a).
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
### SUBCHAPTER IV—NOISE POLLUTION
#### Leona T. Seward, Respondent-Appellant, v. Frederick W. Seward et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION





In connection with the periodic report of The Clorox Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2016 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), we, Benno Dorer, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Stephen M. Robb, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to our knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                      
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.




This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: February 3, 2017





/s/ Benno DorerBenno DorerChairman and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Stephen M. RobbStephen M. RobbExecutive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer
#### Renfield Importers, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Foremost Sales Promotions, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 57238;

First District (3rd Division)

July 18, 1974.

*578Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE DEMPSEY.

*579Allen H. Schultz, of Chicago, for appellant.

Neal D. Rosenfeld, of Biro, Karmel and Rosenfeld, of Chicago, for appellee.
#### Kate Weissberger, Respondent, v. Harry Weissberger, Appellant.

*974Cióse, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Order entered January 20 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 01189 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01190 - CR MICHAEL DOWDEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F88 - 86404 - M, F88 - 89370 - M



### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendation s and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may b e necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of t he date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTIC E
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3628] 

In accordance with a notice received from the Department of Homeland Security—Federal Emergency Management Agency—effective November 3, 2004, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to December 17, 2004. 

                    All other information remains the same,                     *i.e.*, the deadline for filing applications for economic injury is June 20, 2005.                 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)   

Dated: November 10, 2004. 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 04-25939 Filed 11-22-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
OFFICE OF ‘THEATTORNEY GENERAL OF ‘I'RXAR AUSTIN

Railroad CommIsalon o? Taxao AllatIn, Taxes opinion No. O-3611b, Ointlaman, Ra’:Intarpratlng B.B. 351, 47th Leg.

In our opinion No. 0-36lla, In answering your aevantaanth question, we axpresaad tha opinion that “if the authority erpreaaad in the psrmlt (spaoial oommodlty) ha8 been amended elnoa Jenuew 1, 1941, the replacing oertlrlceta (epaolalized motor.oerrIar) should carry tha authority given in the amendedpermit whether the amendment Inorresad or decreesad the authority tharatorora oonfarrad.~ It has barn called to our attention that comasuch amendmenta inorsassd the authority so ee to authorize operation In areas not theratorore served, and that somaamdndments authorized the transportation or oommodltlar not theretot&re quthorlzad to behauled.

Uponrurther aremlnetlon into the question wa heva oonoludad that WIwara In error aa oonoarne pasmite
. whloh had bean emended einoa January 1, 1941, authorizing euoh lnoraeesd oprretlona.

Aperson reoalvlng a spaoiel oommodlty permit einoa’ January 1, 194l, is danlad a rsplaolng eprolelIzed motor oarrlar oartirioeta without hr plaade end-prorar pub-

-110 oon7anIrnoa andnsoaselty. Thara is no real differsnor batWarn that parson=& one whohes.obkalnad ldantloal naw oparating rights alnoa- January 1,’ 1941, through araandmant

or en old parrnit. Thaintantion ehould not ba aeorlbad to tha lagialatura to raqulra tha ona to dlscharga anonuroue burdan end not to place tha same raqulrament on tha other unleae the language of tha stetuta nil1 not edmlt reasona- :Plg or a dirrerant oonetruotlon. Viadonot baliara the ,applloebla. language of the Act neossserlly raquiraz tha 6onst_ruot$on which we have heretorora &van. Section Se(b), lest oleus~, AcoordInglg, wa m0airy our enewar to your said aeientaenth question end say thet the eproiallzad cerrlar csrtlrioixts dhould not embodyany operating rights not oonteinad In the:permit as’ot January 1, 194l, end this daepita tha taot that thera mayheva bean an amendment granted slnoa that data’lnoieeslng suoh rights.Rollroad Commission or Taxes, Paga 2

Weadhere to the opinion’ to the arreot that Ii a on axprasead In that aolel oommodltp parmlt her been emended rlnce **JanUaryl,** 1941, 80‘68to deoreasa It.8 aut&orIty, tha repleoing oartlfloetr should emb$yh;;t;y the authority contained In the permit 08 emended. otherwise would be to grant hlm newopareting right8 wlthI out proor or pub110 convenlenoe and neceeslty, simply on sooount of the ract that et a prior time he hadheld suoh righta, while a naw appllO0nt ror the mm quthorlty would ’ ba required to show public oonvrnlenoe end neoaseity. Yours very truly ATTORNEY

GEN-ERAL

OFTEXAS

APPROVED

AVG1, 1941 /I/ Grover Sellare FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEYGENERAL GRL;ob APPROVED

OPINIONCOMMITTEE BYBWB CHAIR!

. ’
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



                                   PENGE CORP.
                            PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION

                                                Date: November 1, 2006


To whom it may concern;

      o     Penge Corp has a $50,000, $20,000, and a $30,000 promissory note
            with Rocky Fischer that are all due in late October through November
            of 2006, and a $50,000 promissory note extension of the Marc Reis
            note that was extended on August 15th, 2006 and assumed by Rocky
            Fischer.

      o     The parties agree to extend the promissory notes on a month to month
            basis. The promissory notes can be called due with 30 days notice.
            The notes are extended with all terms remaining the same.


PENGE CORPORATION

By: /s/ KC Holmes
    ------------------------------
Name:  KC Holmes
Title: President, Penge Corp
3327 West Wadley, Suite 3-366, Midland, Texas 79707
432-967-1284

Date: 11/1/06


LENDER:

Signature: /s/ Rocky Fischer
           ------------------------------
Name: Rocky Fischer

Address: 16414 Lakestone, Tomball, TX 77375
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01647**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 01647\01647_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01647\01647_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01647\01647_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 01647\01647_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01647\01647_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01647\01647_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01647\01647_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01647\01647_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01647\Certification Statement Plant ID 01647.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 01647\Supplemental Documents\01647_Flow Chart.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01647\Supplemental Documents\01647_Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 01647\Supplemental Documents\01647_Map-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.