alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING JUNE 10 IN PIKETON, OHIO, 

TO DISCUSS RECERTIFICATION OF USEC ENRICHMENT PLANT 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting June 10 in Piketon, 

Ohio, to receive public comment on an application by USEC, Inc., for recertification of its 

Portsmouth gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant. 

 The meeting will be held at the OSU South Centers/Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Rd., 

in Piketon, from 6:30 to 8:45 p.m. NRC staff will hold an open house an hour before the meeting 

to give members of the public an opportunity to speak informally with staff members. 

 USEC submitted applications April 10 for recertification of its gaseous diffusion 

enrichment plants in both Paducah, Ky., and Portsmouth, Ohio. Certification of the plants is 

required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 

which created USEC. A certification is issued only if the plant is in compliance with safety, 

safeguards and security regulations established by the NRC for these facilities. Certifications are 

valid for five years; the current certification for each plant expires Dec. 31, 2008. A public 

meeting on recertification of the Paducah plant was held May 12. 

 Individuals wishing to present comments during the June 10 meeting are asked to register 

in advance by contacting Michael Raddatz at (800) 368-5642, ext. 492-3108, or by e-mail at 

Michael.Raddatz@nrc.gov. 

 Comments will also be accepted in writing for 30 days following publication of a notice 

in the Federal Register, expected shortly. Comments should be mailed to the Chief, Rules 

Review and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-109 June 4, 2008
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-50619

No. 95-50659

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT JESSE SMALLWOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(SA-95-CA-0167 & SA-89-CR-301)

 

September 25,1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Robert Jesse Smallwood appeals from the district court’s

denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Smallwood argues that the district

court followed improper procedure in denying his motion by shifting

to him the burden of proof on the prejudice prong of his
2

ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that he was entitled

to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. The district court properly

analyzed Smallwood’s claim. Accordingly, we affirm essentially for

the reasons adopted by the district court. See United States v.

Smallwood, No. SA-95-CA-0167 (W.D. Tex. July 27, 1995); see also

United States v. Smallwood, No. SA-95-CV-0166 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 7,

1995). Smallwood was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See

United States v. Acklen, 47 F.3d 739, 743 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478, 480 (5th Cir. 1980). Smallwood

abandons on appeal, by failing to brief the issue, his substantive

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Brinkmann v. Abner,

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); see Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(6).

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


WOIZE
INTERNATIONAL LTD.


FORM
10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






I am the
Chief Financial Officer of Woize International Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB
of the Company for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-QSB").




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.




February
      19, 2008
              By:
              /s/ Martin
      ThorpMartin
      ThorpChief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Green Dolphin Systems Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the Annual Report December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Annual Report"), I, William Kefalas, Principal Executive Officer and the Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934;
and

(2) The information contained in the Annual Report fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|*By: /s/ William Kefalas*

*--------------------**William Kefalas**President and Chief Executive Officer**and Chief Financial Officer*
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 18, 2006
Exhibit
14.4




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements:




1.
            Registration
      Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-104426 and 333-59058) pertaining to Global
      Sources Equity Compensation Plans Numbers I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII of
      Global Sources Ltd.,




2.
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138474) pertaining to Global Sources Equity
      Compensation (2007) Master Plan and Global Sources Ltd. Directors Purchase
      Plan (as of November 5, 2005) and




3.
            Registration
      Statement (Form F-3/A No. 333-114411) pertaining to the prospectus of
      Global Sources Ltd.




of our
reports dated April 17, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of
Global Sources Ltd. and its subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.




/s/  ERNST
& YOUNG


Singapore


June 25,
2008
### subpart 3a—research on effective interventions to address violence against women

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subpart was, in the original, chapter 11 of subtitle B of title IV of Pub. L. 103–322, and has been designated as subpart 3a of this part for purposes of codification. Another chapter 11 of subtitle B of title IV of Pub. L. 103–322 is classified to subpart 4 (§12351) of part B of subchapter III of chapter 121 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Exhibit 32.1

                        GOOD BUDDY'S COFFEE EXPRESS, INC.
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of Good Buddy's Coffee Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"),
I, Scott Massey, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
May 13, 2008
EXHIBIT 21.1
                                                                    ------------

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                         ------------------------------
<TABLE><CAPTION>
<S>                                                 <C>
Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions, Inc.
State of Incorporation:                              Delaware
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions, Inc.


Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions UK  Ltd.
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        United Kingdom
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions UK  Ltd.


Name of Subsidiary:                                  W. Quinn, Inc.
State of Incorporation:                              Delaware
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           W. Quinn, Inc.


Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions Benelux B.V.
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        The Netherlands
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions Benelux B.V.


Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions SAS
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        France
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions SAS


Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions Australia Pty. Limited
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        Australia
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions Australia Pty. Limited


Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions Germany GmbH.
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        Germany
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions Germany GmbH


Name of Subsidiary:                                  Precise Software Solutions Europe B.V.
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        The Netherlands
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           Precise Software Solutions Europe B.V.

Name of Subsidiary:                                  W. Quinn Associates B.V.
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        The Netherlands
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           W. Quinn Associates B.V.

Name of Subsidiary:                                  W. Quinn Associates Asia Pacific Sdn. Bhd.
Jurisdiction of Organization:                        Malaysia
Name under which Subsidiary does Business:           W. Quinn Associates Asia Pacific Sdn. Bhd.
</TABLE>
#### § 630.307 Time limit for use of restored annual leave—former missing employees.

Annual leave restored under section 5562 of title 5, United States Code, shall be used within a time limit to be prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management in each case taking into consideration the amount of the restored leave and other relevant factors.

[39 FR 1575, Jan. 11, 1974]
No: 13-080 September 17, 2013

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC and Chicago Bridge & Iron Agree on Measures to Improve 

Safety-Conscious Work Environment

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Chicago Bridge & Iron have agreed on several 

measures the company will implement to improve its safety-conscious work environment as part of a 

settlement of two employee protection violations.

The settlement, spelled out in a Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC’s Office of 

Enforcement, was reached through the agency’s alternative dispute resolution process. It resolved two 

violations issued by the NRC in April regarding employment discrimination at Shaw Nuclear Services, 

a vendor purchased by Chicago Bridge & Iron in February. 

The first violation involved a quality assurance supervisor who was fired after raising concerns 

about potentially faulty rebar that may have been shipped to the National Enrichment Facility in New 

Mexico by a third-party vendor. The second involved language in Shaw’s Corporate Code of Conduct 

that could prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage employees from participating in protected 

activities, including providing information to the NRC.

Through mediation, Chicago Bridge & Iron agreed to take several measures to improve safety 

culture for all company employees, including contractors and subcontractors, involved in NRCregulated activities. These measures include a written communication from the chief executive officer 

on the company’s strategy to improve its safety culture to be consistent with the NRC’s 2011 Safety 

Culture Policy Statement; updating its nuclear safety culture and safety-conscious work environment 

policies; improving safety culture and employee-protection training for supervisors and staff; 

establishing a nuclear safety culture oversight program; establishing a uniform process to ensure 

independent management review of all proposed significant adverse actions against employees; 

developing a single company-wide Employee Concerns Program; and performing independent safety 

culture assessments, including site surveys at all Chicago Bridge & Iron nuclear businesses.

The settlement also incorporates many of the items Chicago Bridge & Iron committed to in its 

response to the NRC’s “chilling effects letter” of April 18.

As part of the agreement, the NRC will exercise enforcement discretion and withdraw its Notice 

of Violation and the proposed $36,400 civil penalty.

“We believe the broad, comprehensive corrective actions Chicago Bridge & Iron has agreed to 

in the mediation process will result in greater improvements in public safety than we could have 

achieved through our traditional enforcement process,” said Roy Zimmerman, director of NRC’s Office 

of Enforcement. 
Page | 2

NRC inspectors will ensure that the company properly implements its employee protection and 

safety culture improvements.
#### Gurmeet Dhillon, M.D., Respondent, v HealthNow New York, Inc., Doing Business as BlueCross BlueShield of WNY and Community Blue, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 703]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Eugene M. Fahey, J.), entered October 28, 2005. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted a temporary restraining order enjoining defendant from not renewing the participating physician agreement during the pendency of the dispute resolution process.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the second ordering paragraph is vacated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff was a participating physician with *1198defendant health care plan and operated an MRI scanner in the Western New York area. The parties executed a standard form contract referred to as the participating physician agreement (PPA). In 2004, defendant notified plaintiff of its intent to terminate the PPA. Plaintiff demanded a hearing with respect to the proposed termination and, following a hearing, defendant rescinded the notice of termination.

Several months later, defendant advised plaintiff that it would not renew the PPA upon its anticipated expiration on June 30, 2005. In August 2005, plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking damages for the allegedly wrongful nonrenewal of the PPA. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that the reasons for non-renewal were retaliation for his complaints about defendant to various governmental agencies, his advocacy on behalf of enrollees, and his request for a termination hearing.

Defendant moved for a stay of the action pursuant to CPLR 2201, asserting that section 9.14 of the PPA required the parties to resolve any disputes arising under the PPA through negotiation and mediation and ultimately arbitration. Plaintiff opposed the motion for a stay and, in the event Supreme Court granted the motion, cross-moved for, inter alia, an order preliminarily enjoining defendant from not renewing the PPA pending completion of the dispute resolution process. The court granted the motion for a stay and concluded that the parties should proceed with the dispute resolution process outlined in the PPA. The court also granted a temporary restraining order enjoining defendant from not renewing the PPA during the pendency of the dispute resolution process.

The court abused its discretion in granting a temporary restraining order in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to establish any irreparable injury that could not be adequately compensated by money damages *(see Abramo v HealthNow N.Y.,*305 AD2d 1009, 1010 [2003]; *Betesh v Jemal,*209 AD2d 568, 569 [1994]; *Haulage Enters. Corp. v Hempstead Resources Recovery Corp.,*74 AD2d 863, 864 [1980]). Loss of employment does not constitute irreparable damage *(see Abramo,*305 AD2d at 1010; *Matter of Armitage v Carey,*49 AD2d 496, 498 [1975]). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J, Hurlbutt, Martoche and Green, JJ.
#### § 908.18 Matters not specifically provided for in rules.

All matters not specifically provided for or situations not specifically addressed in these rules will be decided in accordance with the merits of each case by or under the authority of the Administrator, and such decision will be communicated in writing to all parties involved in the case.
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-11-027

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil (630) 829-9663

July, 21 2011

E-Mail: OPA3.RegionIII@nrc.gov 

NRC TO HOLD REGULATORY CONFERENCE ON JULY 28 TO DISCUSS 

PRELIMINARY WHITE INSPECTION FINDING

AT PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a Regulatory Conference with

Northern States Power Company-Minnesota on Thursday, July 28, to discuss a preliminary 

inspection finding issued to the plant. The two-unit plant is located in Welch, Minn., 

approximately 45 miles southeast of Minneapolis.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m. at the NRC’s Region III office, 2443 

Warrenville Rd. Suite 210 in Lisle, Ill. The public is invited to observe and will have an 

opportunity to talk with NRC officials after the business portion of the meeting.

The NRC identified preliminary finding is related to the Unit 1 safety-related battery 

chargers. The chargers were found to have the potential of not performing their safety functions 

under certain event scenarios such as if the voltage to the charger was lower than normal. Safetyrelated battery chargers are used to charge safety-related batteries which would provide power to 

remotely operate equipment. Each unit has two chargers. If both were lost, the chargers could be

reset manually in order to continue to operate. The NRC’s preliminary evaluation has determined 

this finding to be “White” meaning it has a low to moderate safety significance.

The utility has taken actions to address the issue. The NRC has evaluated the actions and 

considers them acceptable.

This regulatory conference is being held to discuss the preliminary finding, its safety 

significance and assist the NRC in making an enforcement decision. The utility will also be 

given an opportunity to clarify any issues raised in the report. No final decisions will be made at 

the regulatory conference. After the conference, the NRC will review the information received 

during the meeting and make a final determination on the safety significance of this issue.
The NRC inspection report detailing the finding is publically available in NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) using is ML111610249 to 

access the report. 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.
Editorial Note on Part 400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 400 appear at 78 FR 69289, Nov. 19, 2013.

§ 400.63 Appeals to the Board of decisions of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance and the Executive Secretary. ( a ) *In general.* Decisions of the Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance and the Executive Secretary made pursuant to this part may be appealed to the Board by adversely affected parties showing good cause.
( b ) *Procedures.* Parties appealing a decision under paragraph (a) of this section shall submit a request for review to the Board in writing, stating the basis for the request, and attaching a copy of the decision in question, as well as supporting information and documentation. After a review, the Board shall notify the appealing party of its decision in writing.