alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 5, 2015 

 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

REFER TO: M150129 

 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – BRIEFING ON FOREIGN 

OWNERSHIP, CONTROL, AND DOMINATION, 9:00 A.M., 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 2015, COMMISSIONERS’ 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission was briefed on processes and methods through which issues of foreign 

ownership, control, and domination are addressed in non-nuclear sectors of the U.S. critical 

infrastructure and the U.S. defense establishment by John Hamre, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Stanley Sims, Director, 

Defense Security Service and former Director for Security for Department of Defense; William 

Lynn, III, Chief Executive Officer, Finmeccanica—North America and former Deputy Secretary 

of Defense; Paul Murphy, Special Counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy and U.S. 

representative to NEA working group on Financing of Nuclear Power Plants; Stewart Baker, 

Partner, Steptoe & Johnson and former Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland 

Security; and Sean O’Keefe, former Chief Executive Officer, Airbus Group—North America, 

former Secretary of the Navy, and former Administrator of NASA. 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
No: II-14-027 May 1, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Cites Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant for Emergency 

Plan Staffing Issues; Confirms Actions to Address Violations 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a white inspection finding to the

Tennessee Valley Authority for violations at the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant related to 

emergency plan staffing in the control room. The NRC has also issued an order confirming actions 

TVA is taking to address associated violations.

TVA’s Browns Ferry plant is located near Athens, Ala., about 32 miles west of Huntsville. 

The NRC found that TVA failed to maintain staffing levels in accordance with the plant’s 

radiological emergency plan and that the issue had low to moderate safety significance. TVA officials 

agreed with that determination. Two violations related to the staffing inspection finding involved the 

failure to provide complete and accurate information on the issue and the failure to request a license 

amendment for the staffing changes. TVA requested the NRC’s Alternative Dispute Resolution process 

for those violations.

The ADR process uses a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority to assist the NRC 

and licensees in reaching an agreement when there are differences regarding an enforcement action. An 

ADR session between the NRC and TVA was held on April 3 and the NRC order is the result of an 

agreement reached during that session. 

“While no actual events occurred, it is important that appropriate staffing is maintained and the 

NRC approves any changes to staffing levels in a plant’s license,” said NRC Region II Administrator 

Victor McCree. “We believe the steps TVA has agreed to take appropriately address the issues and 

minimize the likelihood that similar issues will arise in the future.” 

The order documents a number of corrective actions taken or planned by TVA. Those actions at 

the Browns Ferry site and TVA’s other two nuclear plants include new procedures for submitting 

license information to the NRC and for verifying changes and compliance, reviews of the processes 

involved and a sharing of the information with other nuclear plant operators.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

March 14, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00086

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.G.B ., A Child

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 00166 Honorable Charles E. Monte mayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In this accelerated appeal of the January 21, 2014 order terminating Appellant’s parental rights, Appellant’s brief is due to be filed with this court on March 17, 2014. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). On March 13, 2014, Appe llant filed a first motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief and requested an additional ten days for the reporter to file a corrected record and an additional ten days for Appellant to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. The repo rter’s record must be filed within TEN
DAYS of the date of this order. See id. R. 35.3(c). Appellant’s brief will be due TEN DAYS after the reporter’s record is filed. See id. ; see also T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2, available at http://www.supreme.courts.sta te.tx.us/MiscDocket/11/11925100.pdf (directing courts of appeals to dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 14th day of March, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### § 306.3 Stayed or invalid parts.

If any part of this rule is stayed or held invalid, the rest of it will stay in force.

[44 FR 19169, Mar. 30, 1979. Redesignated at 58 FR 41372, Aug. 3, 1993]
#### § 971.303 Notice of certification.

Upon making a final determination to certify an application for a commercial recovery permit, the Administrator will promptly send written notice of the determination to the applicant.
#### Michelle Scartozzi, Appellant, v Gino Scartozzi, Appellant. Janis Parazelli, Nonparty Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 461]

In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, and the defendant separately appeals, as limited by their respective briefs, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated April 4, 2005, which, inter alia, awarded, without a hearing, certain Law Guardian fees and directed a hearing as to the award of further fees.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding a Law Guardian fee in the sum of $42,390; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a hearing and new determination on the issue of an award of a Law Guardian’s fee.

A court has the authority to award reasonable counsel fees to a Law Guardian *(see Matter of Bungay v Morin,*256 AD2d 462 [1998]; *Matter of Department of Social Servs. v Wolfson,*228 AD2d 594 [1996]). However, the court erred in making such an award without first conducting a full hearing to give the parties the opportunity to test the reasonableness of the Law Guardian fee *(see Petek v Petek,*239 AD2d 327 [1997]; *Patterson v*
      *1011
      *Patterson,*302 AD2d 507 [2003]; *Kiprilova v Kiprilov,*255 AD2d 362 [1998]). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a hearing and new determination on the issue of an award of a Law Guardian’s fee. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
§ 23.13 Misuse of the words “flawless,” “perfect,” etc. ( a ) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “flawless” to describe any diamond that discloses flaws, cracks, inclusions, carbon spots, clouds, internal lasering, or other blemishes or imperfections of any sort when examined under a corrected magnifier at 10-power, with adequate illumination, by a person skilled in diamond grading.
( b ) It is unfair or deceptive to use the word “perfect,” or any representation of similar meaning, to describe any diamond unless the diamond meets the definition of “flawless” and is not of inferior color or make.
( c ) It is unfair or deceptive to use the words “flawless” or “perfect” to describe a ring or other article of jewelry having a “flawless” or “perfect” principal diamond or diamonds, and supplementary stones that are not of such quality, unless there is a disclosure that the description applies only to the principal diamond or diamonds.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of
Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark H. Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

(a) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



|    |  |                                       |  |  |  |                   
|--- |  | ------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III              |  |  |  | Date: May 14, 2009
|    |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.                 |  |  |  |                   
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  |                   
|    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)         |  |  |  |                   
|    |  |                                       | 
|By: |  | /s/ Mark H. Towe                      |  |  |  | Date: May 14, 2009
|    |  | Mark H. Towe                          |  |  |  |                   
|    |  | Sr. Vice-President and                |  |  |  |                   
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer               |  |  |  |                   
|    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)         |  |  |  |
EXHIBIT 11


STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

                                                 Years Ended December 31,
                                                 ------------------------
                                                     2003          2002
                                                     ----          ----

Weighted average shares of common stock
  outstanding during the year                     3,062,055      2,669,385

Shares of common stock issuable in connection
  with assumed exercise of options under the
  treasury stock method                              51,414         52,456
                                                     ------         ------

Total                                             3,113,469      2,721,841
                                                  =========      =========

Net income (loss)                               $  (623,690)   $   530,124
                                                ===========    ===========

Per share amount - basic                        $     (0.20)   $      0.20

Per share amount - diluted                      $     (0.20)   $      0.19
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - 43 CFR Part 2530 
          - [WO-350-1430-PF-24 1A] 
          - RIN 1004-AB10 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is withdrawing the proposed rule that would have revised the regulations for Indian allotments to reduce the regulatory burden imposed on the public, to streamline and clarify the existing regulations and to remove redundant and unnecessary requirements. The proposal was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 16, 1996. We reopened the comment period in the                         **Federal Register**                         on July 15, 1999 for 60 days.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

You may contact Jeff Holdren, Lands and Realty Group, on (202) 452-7779 (Commercial or FTS). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, except holidays, to contact Mr. Holdren. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The BLM published the proposed rule in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 16, 1996 (61 FR 53887). We reopened the comment period in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 15, 1999 (64 FR 38172) for 60-days because we inadvertently omitted the information collection requirements. We received three comments. The BLM decided to withdraw the proposed rule and will take no further action on this proposal regarding Indian allotments.                 

Dated: September 24, 2004. 

Chad Calvert, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management. 

[FR Doc. 04-25766 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
§ 1204.3 Requirements. All omnidirectional CB base station antennas are required to comply with the following requirements. ( a ) *Field joints.* Parts or accessories intended to protect a field joint so that it will meet any other requirement of this standard, and that must be put into place by the person assembling the antenna system, shall be integral with, or not readily removable from, at least one of the antenna sections or parts involved in the joint or shall be necessary in order to complete the joint.
( b ) *Feed cable.* When compliance with the requirements of this standard depends on the insulating or other properties of the feed cable, at least 50 feet of the cable shall be supplied by the manufacturer with the antenna system.
( c ) *Electrical protection.* Antenna systems shall be manufactured so that if all points within the protection zone of an antenna system were tested by the Insulating Material Effectiveness Test of § 1204.4(d) of this subpart, and the Antenna-Mast System Test of § 1204.4(e) of this subpart, the current measured by the current monitoring device connected to the mast would be no greater than 5.0 milliamperes rms and no electrical breakdown of the antenna system's insulating material would occur.
#### Robert Grafton, Appellant, v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred; Thomas, J., not voting.
Table of Contents

Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P. (the‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

/s/    DavidJ. Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

Date:    August 14, 2006

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELICA MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71015

Agency No. A077-839-539

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010**

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Angelica Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and de

FILED

JUL 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71015

novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Mohammed v.

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion to

reopen on the ground that she failed to establish prejudice. See id. at 793

(requiring prejudice to state valid claim of ineffective assistance of counsel). It 

follows that the denial of Martinez’s motion to reopen did not violate due process. 

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due

process violation). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 1.85 Final environmental impact statements. ( a ) After the close of the comment period, the Bureau responsible for the matter will consider the comments received on the draft environmental impact statement and will put the draft statement into final form in accordance with the requirements of CEQ Regulation (40 CFR 1502.9(b)), attaching the comments received (or summaries if response was exceptionally voluminous).
( b ) Upon Bureau approval of the final environmental impact statement the final statement will be ( 1 ) Filed with the EPA;
( 2 ) Forwarded to all parties which commented on the draft environmental impact statement and to other interested parties, if practicable;
( 3 ) Placed in the public record of the proposed rule or guide proceeding or legislative matter to which it pertains;
( 4 ) Distributed in any other way which the Bureau in consultation with CEQ deems appropriate.
( c ) In rule and guide proceedings, at least thirty (30) days will be allowed for comment on the final environmental impact statement, calculated from the date of publication in the EPA's weekly Federal Register list of final environmental impact statements. In no event will a final rule or guide be promulgated prior to ninety (90) days after notice of the draft environmental impact statement, except where emergency action makes such time period impossible.
#### Chase National Bank of the City of New York, Plaintiff, v. Directorate General of Postal Remittances & Savings Bank et al., Appellants; T. Y. Ho et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 820, 935.]
US Army Corps of Engineers

BUILDING STRONG®

Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment

Panel 8 – Observations, Insights, and Opportunities

Rockville, MD

31 January 2013
BUILDING STRONG®

 Respect the past while looking forward 

toward the future

 Hang ups to address – Some are not 

technical

 Don’t miss or double count the 

important uncertainties even if they 

cannot be quantified

Panel 8

2
BUILDING STRONG®

 Large contribution from combinations of 

less than extreme events

 Scalable and flexible methods –

Challenge the existing guidance and 

methods

 In hindsight we often realize what we 

could have known

Panel 8

3
BUILDING STRONG®

 Gather

► Evidence using 

multiple sources and 

methods

 Apply

► Art, science, critical 

thinking, judgment

 Improve

► Knowledge, 

understanding

Risk Informed is a Process,

Not A Calculation

4

 Inform

► Credible decisions

 Communicate
BUILDING STRONG®

 In our quest for the truth, we are very 

good at making many assumptions that 

allow us to precisely calculate things 

that are very uncertain

 In theory there is no difference between 

theory and practice. In practice there is. 

(Berra)

Truth

5
BUILDING STRONG®

Paradigm Shift

6

Meet the Standard Make the Case

Follow the Guideline Imagine

Estimate Things 

Right

Estimate The Right 

Things
BUILDING STRONG®

Data + Imagination

7

Frequentist Bayesian
8 BUILDING STRONG®
### SUBCHAPTER III—OIL AND GAS
19–006 

1The italicized portion shows the language that was corrected.

108TH CONGRESS REPT. 108–125 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 2 

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION 

ADVANCEMENT ACT OF 2003

JUNE 4, 2003.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

[To accompany H.R. 1086] 

On May 22, 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary filed House 

Report 108–125, Part 1, relating to H.R. 1086, the ‘‘Standards Development Organization Advancement Act of 2003.’’ In the report, 

one paragraph of explanatory language was erroneously printed. 

This supplemental report contains the corrected language for that 

paragraph. 

The fourth paragraph of the matter under the heading ‘‘Section 

3. Definitions’’ in the Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion 

portion (p. 10) of the report should read as follows: 

‘‘The Act seeks to encourage disclosure by intellectual property 

rights owners of relevant intellectual property rights and proposed 

licensing terms. It further encourages discussion among intellectual 

property rights owners and other interested standards participants 

regarding the terms under which relevant intellectual property 

rights would be made available for use in conjunction with the 

standard or proposed standard.’’ 1

Æ