alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 906.11 Hearing. ( a ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) An appellate officer in his or her discretion may order a hearing taking into account the information provided by an appellant pursuant to § 906.3(b)(3) and whether an appellate officer considers that a hearing will materially advance his or her evaluation of the issues under appeal. In exercising his or her discretion, an appellate officer may consider whether oral testimony is required to resolve a material issue of fact, whether oral presentation is needed to probe a party's position on a material issue of law, and whether a hearing was held previously for the same appeal. If an appellate officer determines that a hearing is not necessary, then the appellate officer will base his or her decision on the NAO case record. In the absence of a hearing an appellate officer may, at his or her discretion, permit the parties to submit additional materials for consideration.
( 2 ) If an appellate officer convenes a hearing, the hearing will be conducted in the manner determined by NAO most likely to obtain the facts relevant to the matter or matters at issue.
( 3 ) NAO shall schedule the date, time and place for the hearing. NAO will notify the parties in writing of the hearing date, time and place at least 10 days prior to the hearing unless the Chief of NAO orders a shorter period for providing notice or conducting the hearing. A party can request one change in the scheduled hearing date. In determining whether to grant the request, NAO will consider whether the requesting party has shown good cause for the change in date.
( 4 ) At the hearing, all testimony will be under oath or affirmation administered by an appellate officer. In the event a party or a witness refuses to be sworn or refuses to answer a question, an appellate officer may state for the record any inference drawn from such refusal.
( 5 ) An appellate officer may question the parties and the witnesses.
( 6 ) An appellate officer will allow time for parties to present argument, question witnesses and other parties, and introduce evidence consistent with § 906.10.
( 7 ) Parties may not compel discovery or the testimony of any witness.
( b ) *Recording.* An appellate officer will record the hearing unless the appellant consents to proceed without a recording.
( c ) *Format.* At the discretion of NAO, hearings may be conducted by telephone, in person, or by teleconference or similar electronic means.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clifford Fugate, Appellant, against Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 14.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement, as amended (Form S-8 333-107766), pertaining to securities offered
under the 2002 Employee Stock Option Plan of Siliconware Precision Industries
Co., Ltd. of our report dated February 5, 2004 (except for the information in
note 27 for which the date is June 8, 2004), with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and its
subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Taichung, Taiwan
Republic of China

June 28, 2004
§ 1.88 Implementing procedures. ( a ) The General Counsel is designated the official responsible for coordinating the Commission's efforts to improve environmental quality. He will provide assistance to the staff in determining when an environmental impact statement is needed and in its preparation.
( b ) The Commission will determine finally whether an action complies with NEPA.
( c ) The Directors of the Bureaus of Consumer Protection and Competition will supplement these procedures for their Bureaus to assure that every proposed rule and guide is reviewed to assess the need for an environmental impact statement and that, where need exists, an environmental impact statement is developed to assure timely consideration of environmental factors.
( d ) The General Counsel will establish procedures to assure that every legislative proposal on a matter for which the Commission has primary responsibility is reviewed to assess the need for an environmental impact statement and that, where need exists, and environmental impact statement is developed to assure timely consideration of environmental factors.
( e ) Parties seeking information or status reports on environmental impact statements and other elements of the NEPA process, should contact the Assistant General Counsel for Litigation and Environmental Policy.
### **CHAPTER 88—URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL**

Sec.
7901.
Congressional findings and purposes.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM

7911.
Definitions.
7912.
Processing site designations.
7913.
State cooperative agreements.
7914.
Acquisition and disposition of lands and materials.
7915.
Indian tribe cooperative agreements.
7916.
Acquisition of land by Secretary; transfer of public lands by Secretary of the Interior to Secretary; consultations with Governor; consent of Governor; transfer from Federal agency to Secretary.
7917.
Financial assistance.
7918.
Remedial action and mineral recovery activities.
7919.
Rules.
7920.
Enforcement.
7921.
Public participation; public hearings.
7922.
Termination of authority of Secretary.
7923.
Limitation of contractual authority.
7924.
Reports to Congress.
7925.
Active operations; liability for remedial action.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—STUDY AND DESIGNATION OF TWO MILL TAILING SITES IN NEW MEXICO

7941.
Study of authority for regulation and control of residual radioactive materials at New Mexico sites for protection of public health, safety, and the environment; report to Congress and Secretary; basis for determination of inadequacy of authority; interim regulation pending completion of study.
7942.
Designation by Secretary as processing sites for subchapter I purposes.
No: 13-042 May 28, 2013

CONTACT: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200 

Online Registration Closes May 31 for Fuel Cycle Information Exchange,

June 11-12, 2013 in Rockville, Md.

Online registration remains open until May 31 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 8th

Annual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange (FCIX), to be held June 11-12 at the agency’s headquarters 

in Rockville, Md. Onsite registration will be available both days of the conference.

NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane will deliver a keynote address on June 11. Bill Borchardt, 

NRC executive director for operations (EDO), will deliver an executive address the same day. The 

program for July 12 includes a presentation on the cumulative effects of regulation from Mike Weber, 

deputy EDO for materials, waste, research, state, tribal and compliance programs. Additional topics to 

be covered at the conference include post-Fukushima activities, operating experience, security and new 

construction. 

The FCIX will run from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day in the NRC Auditorium (note the meeting 

is now scheduled to end one hour earlier than previously planned). Visitors will need to enter at the 

agency’s One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, in Rockville. More information about 

the conference, including online registration, is available at the NRC website.
#### Eulah Jones et al., Respondents, v Edward Corley et al., Appellants.

[819 NYS2d 836]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 22, 2004, which denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue a decision of the same court dated August 5, 2004, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court entered November 15, 2004, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the answer and for a permanent injunction enjoining them from selling, contracting to sell, leasing, hypothecating, pledging, otherwise disposing of, or further developing certain real property.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 22, 2004 is dismissed as no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to renew or reargue a decision *(see Zabezhanskaya v Dinhofer,*2 AD3d 521 [2003]; *Plaxall, Inc. v Obes Inti. Moving Servs.,*119 AD2d 560 [1986]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered November 15, 2004 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) to strike the answer since the defendants repeatedly failed to comply with court orders directing them to provide discovery *(see Matter of Cohn,*15 AD3d 655 [2005]; *Bates v Baez,*299 AD2d 382 [2002]; *Patterson v Greater N.Y. Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists,*284 AD2d 382 [2001]; *Town of Southampton v Salten,*186 AD2d 796 [1992]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting a permanent injunction *(see Greenberg v Board of Mgrs. of Parkridge Condominiums,*294 AD2d 467 [2002]; *see generally Matter of Gerges v Koch,*62 NY2d 84, 95 [1984]; *Kane v Walsh,*295 NY 198, 205-206 [1946]; *Icy Splash Food & Beverage, Inc. v Henckel,*14 AD3d 595 [2005]). Florio, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3475 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3475

To protect information received by the Commissioner of Social Security 
                    related to deceased individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2011

 Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Berg, Mr. Brady of Texas, 
  Mr. Herger, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Schock, and Mr. Tiberi) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To protect information received by the Commissioner of Social Security 
                    related to deceased individuals.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Keeping IDs Safe Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 
              SECURITY RELATED TO DECEASED INDIVIDUALS.

    Section 205(r) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (5) by striking ``for statistical and 
        research activities'' and all that follows and inserting ``for 
        law enforcement, tax administration, and statistical and 
        research activities conducted by Federal agencies and for 
        statistical and research activities conducted by State 
        agencies.''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(10) Information related to a deceased individual received by the 
Commissioner of Social Security other than as described in paragraph 
(1) shall be treated for purposes of paragraph (6) in the same manner 
as information received as described in paragraph (1).''.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0495. KEVIN COCKFIELD v. OLUSEUN OSHINOWO.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court.

Following an adverse ruling, defendant Kevin Cockfield appealed to the superior

court. The superior court also ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and Cockfield filed this

direct appeal from the superior court’s order. We lack jurisdiction.

Because the superior court’s order disposed of a de novo appeal from a

magistrate court decision, Cockfield was required to follow the discretionary appeal

procedure. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1); English v. Delbridge, 216 Ga. App. 366, 367

(454 SE2d 175) (1995). His failure to follow this procedure deprives us of jurisdiction

to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e ,

Atlanta,____________________

I certif y that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 09, 2017

11/09/2017
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# April 2011 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML111220348

Date Released: Tuesday, May 10, 2011

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.
    - ML111160444 - Cover Memo:  April 2011 Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (3 page(s), 5/5/2011)
    - ML111220067 - Enclosures:  April 2011 10 CFR 2.206 Monthly Status Report. (24 page(s), 5/5/2011)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 971.403 Freedom of the high seas. ( a ) Before issuing or transferring a commercial recovery permit, the Administrator must find the recovery proposed in the application will not unreasonably interfere with the exercise of the freedoms of the high seas by other nations, as recognized under general principles of international law.
( b ) In making this finding, the Administrator will recognize that commercial recovery of hard mineral resources of the deep seabed is a freedom of the high seas. In the exercise of this right, each permittee shall act with reasonable regard for the interests of other nations in their exercise of the freedoms of the high seas.
( c ) ( 1 ) In the event of a conflict between the commercial recovery program of an applicant or permittee and a competing use of the high seas by another nation or its nationals, the Administrator, in consultation and cooperation with the Department of State and other interested agencies, will enter into negotiations with that nation to resolve the conflict. To the maximum extent possible the Administrator will endeavor to resolve the conflict in a manner that will allow both uses to take place such that neither will unreasonably interfere with the other.
( 2 ) If both uses cannot be conducted harmoniously in the area subject to the recovery plan, the Administrator will decide whether to issue or transfer the permit.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01647

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

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

1

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

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
EXHIBIT
32





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 Quarterly Report of Noble Innovations, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James
A. Cole, President and Principal Accounting 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, that:





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





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











/s/James
      A. ColeJames
      A. ColePresident
      andPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerNovember
      14, 2008
§ 919.750 What does the suspending official consider in deciding whether to continue or terminate my suspension? ( a ) The suspending official bases the decision on all information contained in the official record. The record includes— ( 1 ) All information in support of the suspending official's initial decision to suspend you;
( 2 ) Any further information and argument presented in support of, or opposition to, the suspension; and
( 3 ) Any transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings.
( b ) The suspending official may refer disputed material facts to another official for findings of fact. The suspending official may reject any resulting findings, in whole or in part, only after specifically determining them to be arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous.
§ 551.213 Exemption of employees receiving availability pay. The following employees are exempt from the hours of work and overtime pay provisions of the Act: ( a ) A criminal investigator receiving availability pay under § 550.181(a) of this chapter, as provided in 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(16));
( b ) A pilot employed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection or its successor who is a law enforcement officer as defined in section 5541(3) of title 5, United States Code, and who receives availability pay under section 5545a(i) of title 5, United States Code.
§ 971.413 Revision of a permit. ( a ) During the term of a commercial recovery permit, the permittee may submit to the Administrator an application for a revision of the permit or the commercial recovery plan associated with it to accommodate changes desired by the permittee. In some cases it may be advisable to recognize at the time of filing the original permit application that, although the essential information for issuing or transferring a permit as specified in § 971.201 through § 971.209 must be included in such application, some details may have to be provided in the future in the form of a revision. In such instances, the Administrator may issue or transfer a permit which would authorize commercial recovery activities and plans only to the extent described in the application.
( b ) An application by a permittee for a revision of a permit or its associated commercial recovery plan involving a significant change, as defined in § 971.412(b), must be followed by the full application procedures in this part, including a public hearing.
( c ) An application by a permittee for a revision of a permit or its associated commercial recovery plan involving a major change, as defined in § 971.412(c) (See also § 971.425 of this part), will be acted on after notice thereof is published by the Administrator in the Federal Register with a 60-day opportunity for public comment and consultation with appropriate Federal agencies.
( d ) ( 1 ) The Administrator will approve a revision if the Administrator finds in writing that the revision will comply with the requirements of the Act and this part.
( 2 ) Notice of the Administrator's decision on the proposed revision will be provided to the permittee in writing and published in the Federal Register.
( e ) A permittee may notify the Administrator of minor changes, as defined in § 971.412(d), subsequently in the annual report (See § 971.801 of this part).
( f ) If the relative importance of the change is unclear to the permittee, the Administrator should be notified in advance so that the Administrator can decide whether a revision in accordance with § 971.412(e) is required.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hitor Group, a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10 Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)I Ken Martin, CEO and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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;  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.   /s/ken martin _______________________________ Ken Martin, CEO, CAO Dated:  October 10, 2011
#### § 1.9 Petitions to commence trade regulation rule proceedings.

Trade regulation rule proceedings may be commenced by the Commission upon its own initiative or pursuant to written petition filed with the Secretary by any interested person stating reasonable grounds therefor. Such petitions will be handled in the same manner and pursuant to the same procedures as prescribed in § 1.31 of this chapter.

[86 FR 59852, Oct. 29, 2021]
#### Amy Crawford, Individually and as Guardian of Thomas E. Crawford, II, an Incapacitated Person, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Michael M. Manaco et al., Appellants-Respondents

[820 NYS2d 826]

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered September 20, 2005 in a personal injury action. The order granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and denied defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment.

Now, upon the stipulation discontinuing action signed by the attorneys for the parties and filed in the Monroe County Clerk’s Office on August 17, 2006,

It is hereby ordered that said appeals and cross appeal be and the same hereby are unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Smith, JJ.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00286-CR

Michael Lee Arnett

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19FC-1199-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 3, 2019