alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.16 Export Administration Regulations. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, BIS, contain additional reporting requirements pertaining to EEI (see 15 CFR parts 730-774). ( a ) The EAR requires that export information be filed for shipments from U.S. Possessions to foreign countries or areas. (see 15 CFR 758.1(b) and 772.1, definition of the United States.)
( b ) Requirements to place certain export control information in the EEI are found in the EAR. (See 15 CFR 758.1(g) and 15 CFR 758.2).
( c ) Requirements to place certain export control information on export control documents for shipments exempt from AES filing requirements. (See 15 CFR 758.1(d)).
( d ) A shipment destined for a country listed in Country Group E:1 or E:2 as set forth in Supplement No. 1 to 15 CFR part 740 shall require EEI filings regardless of value unless such shipment is eligible for an exemption in § 30.37(y) and does not require a license by BIS or any other Federal Government Agency.
( e ) Goods licensed by BIS where the country of ultimate destination is the United States or goods destined to international waters where the person(s) or entity assuming control of the item(s) is a citizen or permanent resident alien of the United States or a juridical entity organized under the laws of the United States or a jurisdiction within the United States shall be excluded from EEI filing.
[73 FR 31555, June 2, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 16379, Mar. 14, 2013; 82 FR 18391, Apr. 19, 2017]
### Part C—Miscellaneous
CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)

In connection with the Annual Report
of AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION, INC., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), Charles Bitters, Principal Executive and
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to their knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Charles BittersCharles Bitters Principal Executive
OfficerApril 1, 2004

/s/ Charles BittersCharles Bitters Principal Financial
Officer April 1, 2004

[A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION, INC.
and will be retained by AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION, INC. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 8a.305 Preference in admission.

A recipient to which §§ 8a.300 through 8a.310 apply shall not give preference to applicants for admission, on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or other school or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preference has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 8a.300 through 8a.310.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1534

___________

Michael Jacobson, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of

v. * an Order of the United States

* Department of Agriculture.

Ann Veneman, Secretary, United *

States Department of Agriculture, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

 Submitted: August 30, 2001 

 Filed: September 4, 2001

___________

Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Jacobson petitions this court for review of the United States Department

of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) decision not to hold a referendum on its beef checkoff

program. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the USDA’s decision, we dismiss the

petition without prejudice.

Absent a statutory provision conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of appeals,

the district courts have exclusive jurisdiction to review those agency decisions subject

to judicial review. See Jaunich v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n,
-2-

50 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995); Noland v. United States Civil Serv. Comm’n, 544

F.2d 333, 334 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). The Beef Promotion and Research Act, 7

U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911, which governs the beef checkoff program, does not include such

a grant of jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition without prejudice.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §7473. Personnel eligible for training

(a) The Under Secretary for Health shall determine the manner in which personnel are to be selected for training in the Centers. Preference shall be given to career personnel of the Administration.

(b) To the extent that facilities are available medical and health personnel from outside the Administration may, on a reimbursable basis, be provided training in the Centers. Such reimbursement may include reciprocal training of personnel of the Administration provided under sharing arrangements entered into by the Under Secretary for Health and the heads of the entities providing such reciprocal training. Any amounts received by the United States as reimbursement under this subsection shall be credited to the applicable Department medical appropriation account.

(Added Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §401(b)(5), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 237; amended Pub. L. 102–405, title III, §302(c)(1), Oct. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 1984.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 4123 of this title prior to the repeal of that section as part of the complete revision of chapter 73 of this title by Pub. L. 102–40.

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–405 substituted "Under Secretary for Health" for "Chief Medical Director" in subsecs. (a) and (b).
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25831]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Composite Panel Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 14, 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''), Composite Panel Association 
(``CPA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. 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 name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Composite 
Panel Association, Gaithersburg, MD. The nature and scope of CPA's 
standards development activities are: Increasing acceptance and use of 
composite panel products (products made from composite wood and allied 
materials) and educating users about their benefits. CPA represents the 
composite panel industry on technical, environmental, quality assurance 
and product acceptance issues.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25831 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 720.1 Denial of export privileges for convictions under 18 U.S.C. 229. Any person in the United States or any U.S. national may be denied export privileges after notice and opportunity for hearing if that person has been convicted under Title 18, Section 229 of the United States Code of knowingly: ( a ) Developing, producing, otherwise acquiring, transferring directly or indirectly, receiving, stockpiling, retaining, owning, possessing, or using, or threatening to use, a chemical weapon; or
( b ) Assisting or inducing, in any way, any person to violate paragraph (a) of this section, or attempting or conspiring to violate paragraph (a) of this section.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 - Confirmatory Action Letter - Actions to Address Steam Generator Tube Degradation.

Accession Number: ML122850320

Date Released: Friday, October 12, 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.
    - ML12285A263 - San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2 - Confirmatory Action Letter - Actions to Address Steam Generator Tube Degradation. (134 page(s), 10/3/2012)
    - ML12285A264 - Attachment 3 - AREVA Document 51-9180143-001 - SONGS Unit 3 February 2012 Leaker Outage Steam Generator Condition Monitoring Report. (100 page(s), 10/1/2012)
    - ML12285A265 - Attachment 4 - MHI Document L5-04GA564 - Tube Wear of Unit-3 RSG, Technical Evaluation Report. (142 page(s), 10/1/2012)
    - ML12285A266 - Attachment 4: Appendix-2 Attachment-1, Tube-to-TSP wear depth diagram for Unit-2/3. (226 page(s), 10/1/2012)
    - ML12285A267 - Attachment 4: SG Tube Wear Analysis for Unit-2/3. (239 page(s), 10/1/2012)
    - ML12285A268 - Attachment 6 - Appendix B: SONGS U2C17 - Steam Generator Operational Assessment for Tube-to-Tube Wear. (105 page(s), 10/2/2012)
    - ML12285A269 - Attachment 6: Appendix A: Estimates of FEI-Induced TTW Rates. (209 page(s), 10/2/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### §4102. Authorities or responsibilities not affected

This chapter does not modify or supersede, and is not intended to impair or restrict, authorities or responsibilities under sections 1101 to 1104 of title 40.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3778.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4102 | 41:253h note. | Pub. L. 103–355, §1054(b), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3265. |

Section

The text of section 1054(b)(1) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–355, 41:253h note) is omitted as obsolete.
#### § 1110.201 Audits.

Any Person certified under this part shall, as a condition of certification, agree to be subject to audit by NTIS, or, at the request of NTIS, by an Accredited Conformity Assessment Body, to determine the compliance by such Person with the requirements of this part. NTIS may conduct, or request that an Accredited Conformity Assessment Body conduct, periodic scheduled and unscheduled audits of the systems, facilities, and procedures of any Certified Person relating to such Certified Person's access to, and use and distribution of, the Limited Access DMF. NTIS may conduct, or request that an Accredited Conformity Assessment Body conduct, field audits (during regular business hours) or desk audits of a Certified Person. Failure of a Certified Person to submit to or cooperate fully with NTIS, or with an Accredited Conformity Assessment Body acting pursuant to this section, in its conduct of an audit, or to pay an audit fee to NTIS, will be grounds for revocation of certification.

[81 FR 24893, June 1, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Issuance of Permit for Incidental Take of Threatened Species for 
the Elizabeth Cross Roads Property, Elbert County, CO

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Issuance of Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered 
Species.

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

SUMMARY: On December 16, 2003, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register (Vol. 68 No. 241 FR 70028), that an Application had been filed 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) by the Elizabeth 
Cross Roads, LLC, for a permit to incidentally take, under section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539), as 
amended, Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius preblei, 
pursuant to the terms of the ``Environmental Assessment/Habitat 
Conservation Plan for Issuance of an Endangered Species Section 
10(a)(1)(B) Permit for the Incidental Take of the Preble's Meadow 
Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) for the Elizabeth Cross Roads 
Property in Elbert County, Colorado.''
    Notice is hereby given that on September 23, 2004, as authorized by 
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the Service issued a 
permit (TE-079424-0) to the above named party subject to certain 
conditions set forth therein. The permit was granted only after the 
Service determined that it was applied for in good faith, that granting 
the permit would not be to the disadvantage of the threatened species, 
and that it would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth 
in the Endangered Species Act, as amended.
    Additional information on this permit action may be requested by 
contacting the Colorado Field Office, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, 
Lakewood, Colorado 80215, telephone (303) 275-2370, between the hours 
of 7 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays.

    Dated: September 24, 2004.
Elliott N. Sutta,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
[FR Doc. 04-25784 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
### Part B—Voluntary Guidance
#### § 0.13 Office of the Inspector General.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established within the Federal Trade Commission in 1989 as required by the Inspector General Act Amendments of 1988 (5 U.S.C. app. 3). The OIG promotes the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of FTC programs and operations. To this end, the OIG independently conducts audits and investigations to find and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse within the agency.

[65 FR 78408, Dec. 15, 2000, as amended at 86 FR 38546, July 22, 2021]
EXHIBIT 10.88
                                                                   -------------

                      PERFORMANCE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                               427 RIVERVIEW PLAZA
                                TRENTON, NJ 08611
                            TELEPHONE: (609) 656-0800
                            FACSIMILE: (609) 656-0869


Dear Holder of 2007 C Promissory Note dated May 14, 2007:

     The Company is requesting your consent to an amendment of the maturity date
of the above-referenced outstanding promissory note issued by the Company and
held by you which has a maturity date of July 13, 2007 (the "Current Maturity
Date") to a new maturity date of November 1, 2007 (the "New Maturity Date") and
waiver of any event of default relating to the non-payment of such note as of
July 13, 2007 (the "Waiver").

     Toward that end, we ask that you complete, sign and return this letter as
soon as possible.

     Please take a moment to sign and return your consent by facsimile to
609-656-0869 or by mail in the enclosed envelope.


As of July 13, 2007                           Very truly yours,

                                              /s/ Dominique Prunetti Miller

                                              Dominique Prunetti Miller
                                              Secretary


The New Maturity Date and Waiver is accepted and agreed by the undersigned
noteholder:


By:________________________________
    Name:
    Date:
#### Abraham Goldberg et al., Appellants, v. Nat Dayne et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See post, p. 745.]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Clone Kinsey v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 20

- 00088

- CR

Trial court case number: 1650087

Trial court: 228th District Court of Harris County

On April 10, 2021, Cynthia Henley, appointed counsel for appellant Clone Kinsey, filed a

motion to withdraw as appellant’s counsel, stating that she has accepted new employment and can

no longer represent appellant. On April 15, 2021, we abated th is appeal, remanded the case to the

trial court, and directed the trial court to determine whether Cynthia Henley should be allowed to

withdraw from representing appellant and new counsel should be appointed to represent appellant

on appeal. The trial cour t clerk has filed a supplemental record that contains a “Pauper’s Oath on

Appeal,” in which the trial court appoints Jerome Godinich, Jr. as counsel for appellant.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Cynthia Henley and

reinsta te the case on the Court’s active docket.

The Clerk of this Court is directed to note on the docket of this Court both (1) Jerome

Godinich, Jr.’s appearance as appointed counsel for appellant and (2) Cynthia Henley’s withdrawal

as counsel for appellant.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s Amparo Guerra

Acting individually

Date: May 25, 2021
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Paul W. Brown, Respondent, against United Services for Air, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by an employer and insurance carrier from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board made to claimant for an injury which he sustained while playing volley ball, during the employee lunch hour, on employer’s premises. There was evidence to sustain the finding that the recreation in question was afforded with the consent and encouragement of *933the employer to such an extent as to render it an incident of the employment. *{Matter of Bowen*v. *Saratoga Springs Comm.,*267 App. Div. 928; *Matter of Wilson*v. *General Motors Corp.,*272 App. Div. 845.) Decision and award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster and Foster, JJ., concur; Deyo, J., dissents.
# Air Resources Board Mary D. Nichols, Chairman Linda S. Adarns 1001 I Street P.O. Box 2815 Arnold Schwarzenegger

Secretary for Sacramento, California 9581 2 www.arb.ca.gov Governor

March 16,2009
Ms. LauraYoshii Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,

Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Ms. Yoshii: The Air Resources Board (ARB) is transmitting to the United States Environmental Protection Agency the California Regional Haze Plan (Plan)for approval. ARB determined that the Plan meets the Clean Air Act requirements and approved it on January 22, 2009 as a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The attachment contains all of the required elements including two hard copies of the following materials, with an exact electronic copy of each: 1. Public notice evidence and transcript for the ARB Public Hearingto consider approval of the Plan; 2. ARB Resolution 09-04 adopting the Plan as a revision to the SIP; and 3. Califorrria Regional Haze Plan. If you have any questions, please call Ms. Lynn Terry, Deputy Executive Officer, at (916) 322-2739, or haveyour staff contact Ms. Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, at (916) 322-7137. Sincerely,

James N. ~oldste@! Executive Officer

# ''

The energychallenge facing Californiais real. Every Californianneeds to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list ofsimple waysyou can reduce demand and cutyour energy costs, see our website: http://www.arb.ca.aov. California Environmental Protection Agency Printed on Recycled Paper

### Ms. Laura Yoshii March 16,

### 2009 Page 2 Attachments
cc: (without attachment) Lynn Terry, ARB Karen Magliano,ARB
#### Mildred R. Reeve, Appellant, v. John H. Reeve, Jr., Respondent.

(Cf. *Henning*v. *Henning,*272 App. Div. 676; *De Robertis*V. *De Robertis,*254 App. Div. 811; *Davis*v. *Davis,*195 App. Div. 430; *Botway*v. *Botway,*273 App. Div. 948.) Although we do not regard such recitals as a determination of the issues involved, nor as binding in any respect on the court which will try the issues, they are redundant and unnecessary. (Cf. *White*v. *White,*175 Misc. 66.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
#### § 970.520 Freedom of the high seas requirements.

Each license issued under this part must include such restrictions as may be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the exploration activities do not unreasonably interfere with the interests of other nations in their exercise of the freedoms of the high seas, as recognized under general principles of international law, such as fishing, navigation, submarine pipeline and cable laying, and scientific research. The Administrator will consider the provisions in § 970.503 in establishing these restrictions.
-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

JEVON MAURICE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee,

UNPUBLISHED

October 24, 2017

v No. 335922

Ingham Circuit Court

Family Division

KAY MARIE CANNON, LC No. 16-000380-DM

Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant.

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and BOONSTRA, JJ. 

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring). 

I write separately because I am disturbed by some of the trial court’s conclusions; in 

particular, the trial court’s apparent equivocation of plaintiff’s road-rage vehicular assault with 

children in his car, and the needling and vandalism behaviors perpetrated by defendant. 

However, we have not been asked to review the trial court’s determinations of the statutory bestinterests factors, and I agree with the majority that the trial court did not simply adopt the 

conciliator’s report. I am unaware of any legal prohibition against the trial court independently 

adopting an identical conclusion to the conciliator’s report, nor in making reference thereto as a 

guide to making inquiries of the parties. The propriety of any of the trial court’s specific 

findings aside, the record clearly shows that the trial court did make an independent decision, 

and defendant has not pursued any other basis for reversing the trial court’s custody 

determination. I therefore concur with the majority. 

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause