alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Olga Heusner, Appellant, against A. Holly Patterson, as Supervisor of the Town of Hempstead, et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
#### Barrow Associates, Inc., Appellant, v. South Broad Realty Corp., Respondent.

No opinion. Present — ■ Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Yoorhis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1026.]
No: 14-047 August 1, 2014

CONTACT: 301-415-8200 

NRC Receives High Marks for Small Business Contracting 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission received an “A” from the U.S. Small Business 

Administration today for its FY 2013 efforts to meet the federal contracting goal for small businesses. 

This marks the third consecutive year the NRC has earned this recognition.

“We are committed to supporting the nation's small businesses, including those owned by 

women and veterans, and those located in historically underutilized business zones,” said Chairman 

Allison Macfarlane. “Relying on small business products and services not only helps the NRC

accomplish our mission, but also supports local communities with jobs and economic development.”

In FY 2013 the NRC had $254.56 million in eligible contracting dollars. Of that amount, 

approximately 33 percent went to small businesses – exceeding the agency goal of 29 percent. A 

breakdown of individual agency scores, as well as a detailed explanation of the scorecard methodology 

used by the SBA, is available here.
### §12651i. VISTA Advance Payments Revolving Fund

Notwithstanding section 101,1 the level for "Corporation for National and Community Service, Domestic Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses" shall be $316,550,000, of which $3,500,000 shall be for establishment in the Treasury of a VISTA Advance Payments Revolving Fund (in this section referred to as the "Fund") for the Corporation for National and Community Service which, in addition to reimbursements collected from eligible public agencies and private nonprofit organizations pursuant to cost-share agreements, shall be available until expended to make advance payments in furtherance of title I of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 [42 U.S.C. 4951 et seq.]: Provided, That up to 10 percent of funds appropriated to carry out title I of such Act may be transferred to the Fund if the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service determines that the amounts in the Fund are not sufficient to cover expenses of the Fund: Provided further, That the Corporation for National and Community Service shall provide detailed information on the activities and financial status of the Fund during the preceding fiscal year in the annual congressional budget justifications to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

(Pub. L. 109–289, div. B, title II, §20638, as added Pub. L. 110–5, §2, Feb. 15, 2007, 121 Stat. 36.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 101, referred to in text, is section 101 of title I of div. B of Pub. L. 109–289, as added by Pub. L. 110–5, §2, Feb. 15, 2007, 121 Stat. 8. Subsec. (b) of section 101 is classified as a note under this section. Subsecs. (a) and (c) of section 101 are not classified to the Code.

The Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 93–113, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 394. Title I of the Act is classified generally to subchapter I (§4951 et seq.) of chapter 66 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4950 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, and not as part of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

Pub. L. 109–289, div. B, title I, §101(b), as added by Pub. L. 110–5, §2, Feb. 15, 2007, 121 Stat. 9, provided that: "For purposes of this division [see Tables for classification], the term 'level' means an amount."

1 See References in Text note below.
§ 923.125 Criteria for section 309 project selection. ( a ) *Section 309 criteria for weighted formula funding.* ( 1 ) For those projects that will be funded by weighted formula, the Assistant Administrator will determine that: ( i ) The project is consistent with the State's approved Assessment and Strategy and advances the attainment of the objectives of the Strategy;
( ii ) Costs are reasonable and necessary to achieve the objectives of both the project and the Strategy. Allowability of costs will be determined in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-87: Cost Principles for State and Local Governments
( iii ) The project is technically sound;
( iv ) The State has an effective plan to ensure proper and efficient administration of the project; and
( v ) The State has submitted the required project information as specified in § 923.126(b)(1).
( 2 ) In reviewing projects that will be considered under the weighted formula, the Assistant Administrator will take into consideration the fiscal and technical needs of proposing States and the overall merit of each proposal in terms of benefits to the public.
( b ) *Section 309 criteria for evaluation and ranking of projects of special merit.* ( 1 ) After determining those projects that will be funded under weighted formula funding, the Assistant Administrator will evaluate and rank State funding proposals of special merit which may be funded under 15 CFR 932.4(e).
( 2 ) In addition to meeting the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, proposals will be evaluated and ranked under this subsection using the following criteria: ( i ) *Merit.* (90 points) The Assistant Administrator will review each application to determine the following: ( A ) Degree to which the project significantly advances the program improvements and leads to a program change identified in the State's Strategy. In making this determination, the Assistant Administrator shall consider the weighting factor derived from the evaluation of the quality of the State's Strategy, as supported by the State's Assessment, relative to the weighting factors assigned to other eligible States;
( B ) Overall benefit of the project to the public relative to the project's cost;
( C ) Innovativeness of the proposal;
( D ) Transferability of the results to problems in other coastal States; and
( E ) The State's past performance under section 309.
( ii ) *Fiscal needs.* (5 points) The Assistant Administrator will review each application to determine the “fiscal needs” of a State as defined in § 923.123(e).
( iii ) *Technical needs.* (5 points) The Assistant Administrator will review each application to determine the “technical needs” of a State as defined in § 923.123(f).
( c ) Section 309 funds not awarded to States under § 923.125(a) will be awarded to States under § 923.125(b).
[57 FR 31116, July 14, 1992. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 33818, 33819, June 28, 1996]
#### Nathan W. Lapotin, Doing Business as Pioneer Steel & Engineering Co., Respondent, *v.*Gruen-Simplex Corporation, Appellant.

*674Peck, P. J.

(dissenting). It seems to me that the written agreement alleged and relied upon by plaintiff does not satisfy the requirements of either a bilateral or unilateral contract. Even assuming that the court might infer some obligation on the part of plaintiff, it would not be warranted in inferring in addition, as plaintiff contends, that the defendant never intended or anticipated that orders could be obtained from the firms in question through a source other than plaintiff.

In my view, plaintiff’s remedy is by way of an action in *quantum meruit,*in which he can show the services performed and the extent to which they were connected with orders received by defendant, and the writing may be referred to as evidencing the contemplated and reasonable measure of compensation as to business with which he should be credited. Accordingly, I dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the complaint, with leave to plaintiff to replead.

Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Breitel, JJ., concur in decision; Peck, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse and grant the motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to plaintiff to replead, in opinion.

Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. [See *post,*p. 837.]
§ 9901.5 Response to requests. ( a ) *Authority to grant or deny requests.* The MCRMC FOIA Officer is authorized to grant or deny any request for MCRMC records.
( b ) *Grant of request.* If the MCRMC FOIA Officer grants a request, in full or in part, the FOIA Officer shall promptly provide the requester written notice of the decision. The requester will be notified whether the request has been assigned to the Standard or Complex track, pursuant to paragraph (d) of subpart 9901.6.
( c ) *Request denial.* If the FOIA Officer denies a fee waiver request or finds there are no responsive records subject to FOIA, the FOIA Officer will notify the requester of that fact. If the FOIA Officer denies the request, in full or part, the FOIA Officer will provide the requester written notice of the denial, which will include a description of the material withheld, the FOIA exemption under which the information was withheld, and the approximate number of pages of information withheld. When a portion of a record is withheld, the amount of information redacted and the claimed exemption will be noted at the place in the record where the redaction was made. The notice will also describe the procedure for filing an appeal.
( d ) *Referral of records.* When a responsive record that originated in another agency is located, the responsive record will be referred to its originating agency for response.
( e ) *Referral of request.* The requester will be notified when all or part of a request is referred to another agency and will be given contact information for the FOIA office of the agency to which the request and responsive record were referred.
No. II-10-032 April 26, 2010 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416 

NRC SCHEDULES OPEN HOUSE TO DISCUSS 2009 PERFORMANCE 

OF NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for 

Monday, May 3, and will be available to discuss and answer questions about the agency’s 

assessment of safety performance during 2009 at the North Anna nuclear power plant. The plant, 

operated by Dominion, is on Lake Anna about 40 miles northwest of Richmond. 

The open house is informal and scheduled to run from 5-7 p.m. at Louisa County Library, 

881 Davis Highway, Mineral, Va. During the open house, NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions on the safety performance of the North Anna plant last year, as well as the NRC role in 

ensuring safe plant operation. 

“Every year, the NRC evaluates the safety performance of nuclear plants in a systematic 

and detailed way,” NRC Region II Administrator Luis Reyes said. “These reviews allow us to 

respond to ongoing issues, if needed, and to plan our future inspections. This open house gives 

local officials and citizens near the North Anna plant an opportunity to learn more about our 

oversight and is consistent with our commitment to openness and transparency.” 

A letter sent from the NRC Region II office to plant officials addresses the performance 

of the plant during 2009 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on 

the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/na_2009q4.pdf. 

The NRC found that the North Anna plant’s 2009 performance met all of the agency’s 

safety objectives and was at a level that resulted in no additional NRC oversight. This year, the 

NRC plans to continue to conduct the very detailed inspections required at those plants that are 

operating well. In addition, the agency will complete some generic inspections related to 

operator licensing examinations and reactor coolant system welds at North Anna in 2009. 

 The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess plant 

performance. The colors start with “green,” which has very low safety significance, to “white,” 

“yellow” or “red,” based on the significance of the issues. Inspection findings and performance 

indicators are updated on the NRC’s web site (www.nrc.gov) each quarter. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200 

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
 Current performance information for North Anna Unit 1 is available on the NRC web 

site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NA1/na1_chart.html. Current performance 

information for Unit 2 is at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/NA2/na2_chart.html. 

### 

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.
#### Frances Beerman, as Executrix of Anne Poris, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. Daitch & Dubin Dairy Stores, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendants. Daitch & Dubin Dairy Stores, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Frank Kopfl, Third-Party Defendant. Ottilie Kashamer, Plaintiff, v. Daitch & Dubin Dairy Stores, Inc., et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Brett White, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Corio, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Corio, Inc.



Dated: March 28, 2003



/s/    BRETT
WHITEBrett White Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00032

- CR

Sebastian GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR4903

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The original due date for appellant’s brief was March 1, 2018. On February 26, 2018,

appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief, requesting a sixty da y extension.

In his motion, appellant states he has been unable to confer with the State regarding this case and

needs more time to prepare the brief.

After consideration, we GRANT appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his

brief and ORDE R appellant to file his brief in this court on or before April 30, 2018

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of March, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6678

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GARY E. WEST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-96-269-A, CA-97-381-AM)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Cecil Brown, Jr., BRODNAX & JENKINS, Alexandria, Virginia,

for Appellant. Richard Christian Pilger, IV, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. West, Nos. CR-96-269-A; CA-97-381-AM (E.D.

Va. Apr. 14, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,

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

I, Michael A. Arends, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Marchex, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Marchex, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: August 6, 2010 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    MICHAEL A.
ARENDS
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Michael A. Arends       
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
No. IV-12-047

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128 

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

 Nov. 6, 2012 

E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. OFFICIALS 

TO DISCUSS SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR PLANT STEAM GENERATOR ISSUES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with representatives of Southern 

California Edison Co. (SCE) on Nov. 16 to address the company’s response to the NRC’s 

Confirmatory Action Letter, which concerned actions required to address steam generator tube 

degradation at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The plant, operated by SCE, is 

located in San Clemente, Calif.

The meeting will be held between 6 and 9 p.m. PST at the Doubletree Guest Suites 

Doheny Beach, 34402 Pacific Coast Hwy., in Dana Point, Calif.

NRC staff will meet with SCE officials to discuss the company’s response to the letter, 

dated March 27, 2012. The company’s response to the letter is available here.

A leak in a Unit 3 steam generator tube on Jan. 31 led to the shutdown of that unit. The 

other reactor, Unit 2, was off-line for maintenance and refueling at the time. Subsequent 

inspections of the nearly new steam generators in both units found unexpected wear. Both units 

remain safely shut down and will not be permitted to restart until NRC has reasonable assurance 

they can be operated safely.

The meeting will include a technical presentation by SCE on the basis, methodology, and 

conclusions of their efforts to identify the causes of the unexpected steam generator tube wear, 

the corrective actions taken to address those causes, and the basis for continued safe operation of 

Unit 2. The presentation and NRC dialogue is expected to require the majority of the meeting 

time. The public is invited to observe the meeting and will have an opportunity to talk to the 

NRC staff after the business portion of the meeting, before it is adjourned.

The meeting will be webcast live at: http://video.nrc.gov . Given the seating capacity of 

the meeting facility is limited to approximately 350 persons, participation via webcast is 

encouraged. The video stream will begin about 5 p.m. PST, but the audio stream will not start 

until the meeting begins.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011 - 4125

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
A phone bridge is also available by calling 1-888-913-9973 and entering passcode 

9941895 when prompted.

The webcast and phone bridge will be one-way only. Questions or comments can be 

submitted to the NRC staff after the meeting at: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov .

Parking at the Doubletree Hotel is available for $3 for self-parking or $22 for valet 

parking.

###

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.
No: 13-070 August 30, 2013

CONTACT: Eliot Brenner, 301-415-8200 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seeks Input

on Resumption of Yucca Licensing Review

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked participants in the adjudicatory proceeding to 

offer views to the Commission by Sept. 30, 2013, on how to restart the Yucca Mountain licensing 

process.

The request, contained in an Order, will help the Commission ensure the most efficient and 

productive use of the approximately $11 million the agency has left to resume the licensing process, 

which was suspended in September 2011.

The Commission has directed its staff to gather pertinent budgeting information during the 30-

day comment period. The Commission will review the comments submitted by the parties as well as the 

information it receives from the NRC staff and decide the path forward in the licensing process.

The Commission action responds to an order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia on Aug. 13, 2013, granting a writ of mandamus directing the agency to “promptly continue 

the legally mandated licensing process.” The Court’s order becomes effective on Sept. 3, 2013.