alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25728]



[[Page 67777]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans will be held on Monday, 
December 13 and Tuesday, December 14, 2004. On Monday, December 13, the 
Committee will meet at 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., VA Medical Center, 
Building 500, in Room 6400, 11301 Wiltshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 
90073. On Tuesday, December 14, the Committee will meet at 8 a.m. at 
New Directions, Inc. Bldg. 116, 11303 Wiltshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 
90073. The Committee will recess at approximately 10 a.m. to tour 
various homeless programs that serve veterans and reconvene at New 
Directions, Inc. at 2:30 p.m. and will adjourn at 4:30 p.m. The meeting 
is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs with an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the 
policies, organizational structures, and services of the Department in 
assisting homeless veterans. The Committee shall assemble and review 
information relating to the needs of homeless veterans and provide 
ongoing advice on the most appropriate means of providing assistance to 
homeless veterans. The Committee will make recommendations to the 
Secretary regarding such activities.
    On December 13, 2004 the Committee will receive reports from 
program experts, assess the availability of health care services, 
review the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) 
project and other initiatives designed to assist veterans who are 
homeless. On December 14, 2004 the Committee will continue to receive 
reports from VA staff and local homeless service providers. The 
Committee will also visit one or more homeless veterans programs funded 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Those wishing to attend the meeting should contact Mr. Pete 
Dougherty, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 273-5764. No time will 
be allocated for receiving oral presentations during the public 
meeting. However, the Committee will accept written comments from 
interested parties on issues affecting homeless veterans. Such comments 
should be referred to the Committee at the following address: Advisory 
Committee on Homeless Veterans, Homeless Veterans Programs Office 
(075D), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20420.

    Dated: November 8, 2004.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-25728 Filed 11-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
No: 14-039 June 30, 2014

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Names William (Bill) Dean Director of Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane announced Monday, on 

behalf of the Commission, the selection of William (Bill) Dean as director of the Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation (NRR). In his new position, Dean will be responsible for the regulatory oversight of 

the nation’s 100 operating commercial nuclear power reactors as well as research and test reactors. He

replaces Eric J. Leeds, who retires today. Leeds served as director of NRR since May 2008.

“Bill Dean has a long record of accomplishment during his career with 

the NRC, and he is ably qualified to oversee our important work protecting 

public health and the environment by ensuring the nation’s nuclear power 

plants operate safely,” Macfarlane said. “Eric Leeds has been an outstanding 

public servant. His leadership on the agency’s response to Fukushima and 

other important issues has helped improve the safety of the U.S. reactor fleet.”

Dean has served as the NRC’s regional administrator in the Region I 

office in King of Prussia, Pa., since October 2010. He oversees regulation of 

commercial nuclear power plants in the Mid-Atlantic and New England states, 

as well as radioactive materials throughout the eastern United States. He began 

his NRC career in Region II as an operator licensing examiner in 1985, after 

serving eight years as an officer in the U.S. Navy’s Nuclear Power Program. He has held a number of 

positions of increasing responsibility within the NRC, including assistant for operations in the Office of 

the Executive Director for Operations, several management positions in NRR, and deputy director of 

the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response.

He received the NRC’s Meritorious Service Award in 2001 and a Presidential Rank Award in 

2003.

Daniel H. Dorman, currently NRR’s deputy director for engineering and corporate support, will 

serve as acting director until Dean assumes his new duties at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., in 

the next few months.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Alfred J. Segal, Appellant, against Lillian Margo, Doing Business as Bryant Ship & Forwarding Co. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which denied an award for total and permanent disability allegedly due to a causally connected heart attack. Coneededly claimant was suffering from a coronary thrombus with infarct, which might occur as a result of exertion and might occur regardless of any exertion. Although the board has found differently on very similar facts, in this case the board has rejected claimant’s contention that his physical condition was the result of his work. The medical testimony as to causal connection differs, presenting only a question of fact. We may not say as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the board. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See *post,*p. 968.]
### Part C—Authority To Contract for Petroleum Product Not Owned by United States

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part C, consisting of section 6251 of this title, was redesignated part E of this subchapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–58.
No. II-13-029 April 30, 2013

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

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS COMMERCIAL GRADE 

DEDICATION ISSUES AT WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a pre-decisional enforcement 

conference with Tennessee Valley Authority officials for May 7 to discuss three apparent 

violations related to the commercial grade dedication program during construction at TVA’s 

Watts Bar Unit 2. The Watts Bar plant, where one unit has been in operation since 1996, is 

located near Spring City, Tenn., about 60 miles southwest of Knoxville.

The enforcement conference is scheduled for 1 p.m. in the NRC’s Region II office at

245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE in Atlanta. The conference will be open to the public and the 

news media, and the NRC staff will be available to answer questions after the business portion of the 

meeting.

The NRC requires certain components in a nuclear plant to meet strict nuclear quality 

assurance standards. Commercial grade dedication is a process that provides reasonable 

assurance that components purchased from a commercial supplier are equivalent to nuclear grade 

items. This assurance is achieved through documented inspections, tests or analyses.

An NRC inspection conducted in late 2012 and early this year identified three apparent 

violations related to the Watts Bar Unit 2 commercial grade dedication program. NRC inspectors

found an apparent breakdown in the program resulting in construction of unknown quality, an 

apparent failure to report that breakdown and an apparent failure to identify that issue as a 

condition affecting quality.

No decision on any final violations or enforcement action will be made at the conference. 

NRC officials will review information presented by TVA at the conference and reach a decision 

on appropriate regulatory action at a later date.

The NRC inspection report with details on the Watts Bar 2 commercial grade dedication 

issue is available on the NRC website.

###

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, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
Section 1350 Certification

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1
                                                                   ------------

      In connection with the quarterly report of Pioneer Financial Services,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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, as amended; and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

      Date: February 13, 2004


                               By:  /s/ William D. Sullivan
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  William D. Sullivan
                                  Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.



|                                        |  |                               |  |                                             |  
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | -
|                                        | 
|Company                                 |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |  | Percentage OwnershipAs of December 31, 2009 |  
|                                        |  |                              
|SPIL (B.V.I.) Holding Limited           |  | British Virgin Islands        |  | 100                                         | %
|Siliconware U.S.A. Inc.                 |  | United States of America      |  | 100                                         | %
|SPIL (Cayman) Holding Limited           |  | Cayman Islands                |  | 100                                         | %
|Siliconware Technology (Suzhou) Limited |  | Peoples Republic of China    |  | 100                                         | %
#### H. L. Thompson, Appellant, v. John Sprague, Appellee.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Saline county; the Hon. A. W. Lewis, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 1, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action of forcible detainer by H. L. Thompson, plaintiff, against John Sprague, defendant. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff’s grantor having leased a farm to the defendant for a term of one year, which later became a tenancy from year to year by defendant’s holding over, transferred his interest to the plaintiff who, in turn, leased the premises back to him, the defendant still treating the grantor as his landlord and being ignorant of the conveyance and lease. After the expiration of the lease the plaintiff brought this action for the possession of the property.

James B. Lewis and Johh L. Thompson, for appellant.

W. F. Scott, for appellee.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

*198Abstract of the Decision.

1. Landlord and tenant, § *4*
      ***
      *—when subtenancy not created.*A tenancy cannot be changed into a subtenancy by the execution by the landlord’s grantee to the landlord of a lease of which the tenant has no knowledge.

2. Forcible entry and detainer, § *71*
      ***
      *—what purchaser of interest of landlord must, prove to maintain action against tenant.*In an action of forcible detainer against a tenant lawfully in possession at the time of the plaintiff’s acquisition of the landlord’s' interest in the premises, the plaintiff must show affirmatively not only his acquisition of title but, further, that the tenant’s rights under and by virtue of the tenancy have terminated.

3. Forcible entry and detainer, § *32*
      ***
      *—what notice must be given tenant from year to year.*A tenant from year to year is en-. titled to sixty days’ notice to terminate his tenancy before an action of forcible detainer can be maintained against him.

4. Instructions, § *10*—when giving large number improper.*The practice of submitting large numbers of instructions upon simple issues is to be condemned as tending to confuse rather than to aid the jury in their deliberations.

5. Judgment, § 270*—when *court may amend record of nunc pro tunc.*The court may on motion made after the expiration of' the term at which a judgment is rendered correct the record thereof *nunc pro tunc.*

6. Forcible entry and detainer, § *11*
      ***
      *—when owner executing lease may not maintain action.*An owner of property, having executed a lease thereof under which the lessee is entitled to possession, may not maintain an action of forcible detainer against one in possession.
### subpart 11—national institute of general medical sciences
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Orrin J. Shafer, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,249.

(Not to be reported in full.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the March term, 1915.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed January 11, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois against Orrin J. Shafer for violation of section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act (J. & A. (f 10,010). Having been convicted on trial before the court without a jury, the defendant brings error.

The principal issue of fact raised at the hearing was as to the speed at which the defendant was driving an automobile in a locality where speed in excess of fifteen miles an hour was by statute made prima facie' evidence of its violation. After the single witness produced by the State had testified that the car was going at twenty-five miles per hour, and the defendant had testified that he was not driving faster than twelve miles an hour, that his car went about fifteen feet after he started to stop, and that he could stop it within that distance when running twelve miles an hour, the trial judge announced that it was unnecessary for him to hear any more evidence, that from his own experience *421in driving a car he could not accept the defendant’s testimony as to speed, and refused the request of the defendant’s counsel, to call other witnesses.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Trial, § *34*
      ***
      *—when refusal to allow production of witnesses denial of justice.*To deny a defendant in a trial before the court his manifest right to produce witnesses to support his plea of not guilty is a palpable denial of justice.

2. Trial, § *286*
      ***
      *—when disregard of evidence by trial judge denial of justice.*For a judge to decide the issues before him on his private experience instead of on the evidence is a palpable denial of justice.

Jonas *&*Hess, for plaintiff in error.

Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.
##### 



RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD CERTIFICATE June 12, 2003 Exhibit 10.61 Kevin M. Webb
8901 Iron Gate Court
Potomac, MD 20854 USA Dear Kevin: Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
Amended & Restated 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan), you have been
granted a Restricted Stock Award (the Award) for the number of shares (each
an Award Share, and collectively, the Award Shares) of the Class A common
stock, par value $0.01 per share (the Common Stock) of TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc. (the Company) as outlined below. This Certificate constitutes
part of and is subject to the terms and provisions of the attached Restricted
Stock Grant Agreement (the Agreement) which is incorporated herein by
reference. Granted To: Kevin M. Webb     
(the Employee)
Grant Date: June 12, 2003
Award Shares Granted: 35,000
Vesting Schedule: 3-year Vesting 11,666 on 06/12/2004
11,667 on 06/12/2005
11,667 on 06/12/2006 By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Award granted on
the Grant Date shown above, which has been issued to me under the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and the Plan. I understand that I will forfeit all
unvested Award Shares at the close of business on my last day of employment at
TCS. I further acknowledge receipt of the Plan Prospectus and the latest annual
report or other SEC filing, and agree to be bound by all of the terms and
conditions of the Award, as evidenced in the Agreement, and the Plan. Signature: /s/ Kevin M. Webb
    
    Date: ________________Kevin M. Webb
 Note: If there are any discrepancies in the name or address shown above, please
make the appropriate corrections on this form.
### §8706. Civil actions

(a) Amount.—The Federal Government in a civil action may recover from a person—

(1) that knowingly engages in conduct prohibited by section 8702 of this title a civil penalty equal to—

(A) twice the amount of each kickback involved in the violation; and

(B) not more than $10,000 for each occurrence of prohibited conduct; and

(2) whose employee, subcontractor, or subcontractor employee violates section 8702 of this title by providing, accepting, or charging a kickback a civil penalty equal to the amount of that kickback.

(b) Statute of Limitations.—A civil action under this section must be brought within 6 years after the later of the date on which—

(1) the prohibited conduct establishing the cause of action occurred; or

(2) the Federal Government first knew or should reasonably have known that the prohibited conduct had occurred.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3840.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8706 | 41:55. | Mar. 8, 1946, ch. 80, §5, 60 Stat. 37; Pub. L. 86–695, Sept. 2, 1960, 74 Stat. 740; Pub. L. 99–634, §2(a), Nov. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 3524. |

Section
H. R. 3501 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 125 Kerr 

Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, as the ‘‘SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPC NICHOLAS SCOTT HARTGE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 125 Kerr Avenue in Rome City, Indiana, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘SPC Nicholas Scott Hartge Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 295.21 Qualifications of proposers.

Subject to the limitations set out in § 295.3, assistance under this subpart is available only to industry-led joint research and development ventures. These ventures may include universities, independent research organizations, and governmental entities. Proposals for funding under this Subpart may be submitted on behalf of a joint venture by a for-profit company or an independent research organization that is a member of the joint venture. Proposals should include letters of commitment or excerpts of such letters from all proposed members of the joint venture, verifying the availability of cost-sharing funds, and authorizing the party submitting the proposal to act on behalf of the venture with the Program on all matters pertaining to the proposal. No costs shall be incurred under an ATP project by the joint venture members until such time as a joint venture agreement has been executed by all of the joint venture members and approved by NIST. NIST will withhold approval until it determines that a sufficient number of members have signed the joint venture agreement. Costs will only be allowed after the execution of the joint venture agreement and approval by NIST.

[63 FR 64415, Nov. 20, 1998]