alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: III-14-038 October 30, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng, 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil, 630-829-9663

NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Kruger Technologies

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a confirmatory order to Kruger Technologies, 

Inc., which has agreed to a series of corrective actions to address the failure to provide required controls 

for the security of a portable nuclear gauge. 

The company, headquartered in Lenexa, Kan., operates a construction consulting and testing 

service. It is licensed by the NRC to use portable gauges to measure physical properties of construction 

materials at its facilities in Knob Noster, Mo., McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kan., and at 

temporary job sites that are within the NRC’s jurisdiction. 

The order stems from a settlement that was reached under the NRC’s Alternative Dispute 

Resolution process requested by Kruger Technologies to address an incident identified during a NRC 

inspection of the Knob Noster facility on May 21, 2014. An NRC inspector found an unsecured 

portable gauge in the bed of a truck without supervision by company staff to ensure gauge security. 

The NRC determined this constituted a failure of the NRC’s requirement to provide sufficient barriers 

and controls to secure the gauge from unauthorized removal.

The NRC’s ADR process includes mediation facilitated by a neutral third party, with no 

decision-making authority, that assists the NRC and a licensee in reaching an agreement when there are 

differences regarding an enforcement action. 

A mediation session between NRC staff and Kruger Technologies was held on Sept. 3 and a 

settlement was reached. The confirmatory order outlines the steps the company has agreed to take to 

address the violation and prevent its recurrence. 

These actions include reviewing and revising the company’s policy for implementing NRC 

requirements; providing and documenting annual training on these requirements to all authorized gauge 

users; establishing a process for and conducting periodic inspections of portable gauges use to ensure 

compliance with the company’s policy and NRC requirements; ensuring that persons trained as 

Radiation Safety Officers conduct yearly unannounced inspections at storage facilities and long-term 

temporary job sites; and appointing a Radiation Safety Officer at the Knob Noster facility who has gone 

through commercially-provided training which includes an examination. 
Page | 2

“Using the ADR process allowed us to achieve not only compliance with NRC requirements, 

but a wide range of corrective actions that go beyond those the agency may get through the traditional 

enforcement process,” said NRC Region III Deputy Administrator Darrell Roberts. “The NRC will 

conduct a thorough review of the written reports describing the results of these activities which the 

company is required to provide.”

A copy of the Confirmatory Order will be available on the NRC's website.
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M151001A 

October 1, 2015 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Brooke P. Clark, Director 

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION, 8:55 A.M., 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015, COMMISSIONERS' 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

I. SECY-15-0086 – Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear 

Operations, Inc. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) – State of Vermont’s Appeal 

of LBP-15-4

The Commission approved a Memorandum and Order responding to the State of Vermont’s 

appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board’s decision in LBP-15-4 to deny the State’s 

request for hearing in this license amendment proceeding. The Memorandum and Order 

affirms the Board’s ruling in LBP-15-4. 

(Subsequently, on October 1, 2015, the Secretary signed the Memorandum and Order.) 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 EDO 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

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

 PDR
CNA General Counsel Jonathan D. Kantor To Retire


CHICAGO, April 06, 2017 - CNA today announced that the Company’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Jonathan D. Kantor, will retire, effective July 7, 2017.  Kantor’s decision to retire brings to a close a notable career with CNA of nearly 23 years.





In his role as General Counsel, Kantor has been responsible for overseeing all of the Company’s legal and governmental affairs.  He has also been a member of the Company’s executive leadership team, which is responsible for strategy, results and oversight for all business units of CNA.





“I want to thank Jon for his leadership and congratulate him on his retirement,” said Dino E. Robusto, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CNA.  “Jon has made innumerable contributions to CNA and has been a trusted strategic advisor and counselor to management and the Board.  His acumen, passion for law and his willingness to face tough challenges has led to the successful defense of the organization and a transformative approach to litigation in our industry.  We thank Jon for his leadership in the organization and wish him and his family our very best.”





The Company intends to have in place a new general counsel prior to Kantor’s retirement.





About CNA


Serving businesses and professionals since 1897, CNA is the country’s eighth largest commercial insurance writer and the 14th largest property and casualty company.  CNA’s insurance products include commercial lines, specialty lines, surety, marine and other property and casualty coverages.  CNA's services include risk management, information services, underwriting, risk control and claims administration.  For more information, please visit CNA at www.cna.com . "CNA" is a registered trademark of CNA Financial Corporation.  Certain CNA Financial Corporation subsidiaries use the "CNA" trademark in connection with insurance underwriting and claims activities.





Follow CNA (NYSE: CNA) on: Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube





# # #


CONTACT:


Brandon Davis, 312-822-5167 / 312-834-6091


Sarah Pang, 312-822-6394 / 312-607-5544
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0003520 12-JUN-2015 08:10 AM
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

N OTICE

Appellate case name: Raymond C. Clark v. Wendy Jean Morrow

A ppellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00 6 1 5

- CV

Trial court case number: 68 32 1

- D

Trial court: 300 th District Court of Brazoria County

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(c), the district clerk is directed to file

a s upplemental clerk’s record containing:

 “Order in Suit to Modify Parent

- Child Relationship,” signed on February 20,

2015

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 34. 5(c)(1).

The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed in the First Court of Appeals within 14

days of the date of this notice.

The cost of preparing this record will be assessed as part of the costs of this appeal upon

issuance of this Court’s judgment.

Clerk’s Signature :

Date: August 1 3 , 2015
Exhibit 32

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, James N. Ryan, the Chief Executive Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation, the managing general partner of PDC 2002-D Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"),  hereby certify that: 

- I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Partnership (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;
- the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
- the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

_  _/s/ James N. Ryan                                

Name: James N. Ryan

Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: ___August 7, 2003_________
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 18, 2004, 1:30 p.m. to November 18, 2004, 2:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on November 18, 2004, 69 FR 67597-67598.                

The meeting will be held December 3, 2004, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. The location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public

Dated: November 18, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-26258 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 1105.3 A more satisfactory standard. In considering whether a contribution is likely to result in a more satisfactory standard, the Commission shall consider: ( a ) The need for representation of one or more particular interests, expertise, or points of view in the development proceeding; and
( b ) The extent to which particular interests, points of view, or expertise can reasonably be expected to be represented if the Commission does not provide any financial contribution.
### §13105. Source Reduction Clearinghouse

#### (a) Authority

The Administrator shall establish a Source Reduction Clearinghouse to compile information including a computer data base which contains information on management, technical, and operational approaches to source reduction. The Administrator shall use the clearinghouse to—

(1) serve as a center for source reduction technology transfer;

(2) mount active outreach and education programs by the States to further the adoption of source reduction technologies; and

(3) collect and compile information reported by States receiving grants under section 13104 of this title on the operation and success of State source reduction programs.

#### (b) Public availability

The Administrator shall make available to the public such information on source reduction as is gathered pursuant to this chapter and such other pertinent information and analysis regarding source reduction as may be available to the Administrator. The data base shall permit entry and retrieval of information to any person.

(Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, §6606, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–324.)
#### § 303.18 Terms implying fibers not present.

Words, coined words, symbols or depictions, (a) which constitute or imply the name or designation of a fiber which is not present in the product, (b) which are phonetically similar to the name or designation of such a fiber, or (c) which are only a slight variation of spelling from the name or designation of such a fiber shall not be used in such a manner as to represent or imply that such fiber is present in the product.

[30 FR 13693, Oct. 28, 1965]
### §12146. New facilities

For purposes of section 12132 of this title and section 794 of title 29, it shall be considered discrimination for a public entity to construct a new facility to be used in the provision of designated public transportation services unless such facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title II, §226, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 343.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 18 months after July 26, 1990, see section 231(a) of Pub. L. 101–336, set out as a note under section 12141 of this title.
## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 11 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARSHALL SHANNON HETCHLER, Petitioner - Appellant, vs. MIKE ADDISON, Warden; RONALD ANDERSON, Asst. General Counsel, Respondents - Appellees. No. 02-7089 (D.C. No. 01-CV-421-P) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY , BRISCOE , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Mr. Hetchler, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon motion of respondents, the district court dismissed the action as beyond the oneyear limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and d enied appointment of counsel. For this court to have jurisdiction over his appeal , a certificate of appealability (“COA”) must be granted. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Where, as here, the district court ha s denied the petition on procedural grounds without deciding the merits, a C OA requires a showing “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether t he petition states a valid claim- 2 -

of the denial of a constitutional right and that ju rists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). With those standards in mind, we have considered th e district court’s order holding that the limitations period began to run af ter Mr. Hetchler exhausted his administrative remedies on March 2, 2001, that stat e proceedings filed after the one-year deadline did not toll the limitations peri od, that the federal petition is not timely filed and equitable tolling is not avail able. R. Doc. 30. After conducting an overview of Mr. Hetchler’s claims and conducting a general assessment of their merits as required by Miller-El , 123 S. Ct. at 1039, we come to the following conclusion. Mr. Hetchler has not demonstrated that the district court’s conclusions are debatable, let alone wrong and the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in declining to appoint counsel. The application for a COA is denied and this matteris DISMISSED. Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
§ 1015.6 Responses: Form and content. ( a ) When a requested record has been identified and is available for disclosure, the requester shall be supplied with a copy or notified as to where and when the record will be made available for public inspection in an electronic format. If the payment of fees is required the requester shall be advised by the Chief FOIA Officer in writing of any applicable fees under § 1015.9 hereof. The requester will be notified of the right to seek assistance from the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison.
( b ) A response denying or partially denying a written request for a record shall be in writing, dated, and signed by the Chief FOIA Officer or delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer and shall include: ( 1 ) The identity of each person responsible for the denial.
( 2 ) A reference to the specific exemption or exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act authorizing the withholding of the record with a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld; and
( 3 ) An estimation of the volume of requested material withheld. When only a portion or portions of a document are withheld, the amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion(s) of the record. When technically feasible, the indication of the amount of material withheld will appear at the place in the document where any deletion is made. Neither an estimation of the volume of requested material nor an indication of the amount of information deleted shall be included in a response if doing so would harm an interest protected by the exemption in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) pursuant to which the material is withheld.
( 4 ) A statement that the denial can be appealed to the General Counsel, as specified in § 1015.1(d). Any such appeal must be made within 90 calendar days after the date of the denial or partial denial from the Chief FOIA Officer, or the delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer.
( 5 ) A statement that the requester has the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Commission's FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services.
( c ) If no response is made within twenty (20) working days or any extension thereof, the requester can consider his or her administrative remedies exhausted and seek judicial relief in a United States District Court as specified in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). When it appears that no response can be made to the requester within the applicable time limit, the Chief FOIA Officer or delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer may ask the requester to forego judicial relief until a response can be made. The Chief FOIA Officer or delegate of the Chief FOIA Officer shall inform the requester of the reason for the delay, of the date on which a response may be expected and of his/her right to seek judicial review as specified in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B).
[42 FR 10490, Feb. 22, 1977, as amended at 62 FR 46197, Sept. 2, 1997; 82 FR 37008, Aug. 8, 2017; 86 FR 7504, Jan. 29, 2021]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Marco Community Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard Storm, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: August 16, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard Storm, Jr.                     
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Richard Storm, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
§ 23.5 Misrepresentation as to silver content. ( a ) It is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent that an industry product contains silver, or to misrepresent an industry product as having a silver content, plating, electroplating, or coating.
( b ) The following are examples of markings or descriptions that may be misleading: ( 1 ) Use of the unqualified word “silver” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product, including the surface layer of a coated product, unless an equally conspicuous, accurate quality fineness designation indicating the pure silver content in parts per thousand immediately precedes the term (e.g., “750 silver”).
( 2 ) Use of the words “solid silver,” “Sterling Silver,” “Sterling,” or the abbreviation “Ster.” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product unless it is at least 925/1,000ths pure silver.
( 3 ) Use of the words “coin” or “coin silver” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product unless it is at least 900/1,000ths pure silver.
( 4 ) Use of the word “silver” to mark, describe, or otherwise represent all or part of an industry product that is not composed throughout of silver, but has a surface layer or coating of silver, unless the term is adequately qualified to indicate that the product or part is only coated.
( 5 ) Marking, describing, or otherwise representing all or part of an industry product as being plated or coated with silver unless all significant surfaces of the product or part contain a plating or coating of silver that is of reasonable durability.[34]
( c ) The provisions of this section relating to markings and descriptions of industry products and parts thereof are subject to the applicable tolerances of the National Stamping Act or any amendment thereof.[35]
Note 1 to § 23.5 :
The National Stamping Act provides that silver plated articles shall not “be stamped, branded, engraved or imprinted with the word `sterling' or the word `coin,' either alone or in conjunction with other words or marks.” 15 U.S.C. 297(a).
Note 2 to § 23.5 :
Exemptions recognized in the assay of silver industry products are listed in the appendix.
Footnotes -
23.5
[34] See footnote 2.
[35] Under the National Stamping Act, sterling silver articles or parts that contain no solder have a permissible tolerance of four parts per thousand. If the part tested contains solder, the permissible tolerance is ten parts per thousand. For full text, see 15 U.S.C. 294, *et seq.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CATELLUSDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**

**CERTIFICATIONBY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

The undersigned, C. WilliamHosler, the Chief Financial Officer of Catellus Development Corporation (the “Company”),pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:

 

(i) the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date: August 5, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ C. WILLIAM HOSLER |
|--------|-----------------------|
|   | **C. William Hosler** |

 

THIS CERTIFICATION ISFURNISHED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AND IS NOT BEING FILED AS PART OF THEREPORT OR AS A SEPARATE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT.

 

A SIGNEDORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEENPROVIDED TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CATELLUSDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONOR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

 

1

----
### §114. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 645, §21, 62 Stat. 862, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section, R.S. §4800, related to removal of prisoners during an epidemic.
#### § 23.14 Disclosure of treatments to diamonds.

A diamond is a gemstone product. Treatments to diamonds should be disclosed in the manner prescribed in § 23.24 of these guides (Disclosure of treatments to gemstones).
#### § 1306.3 Banned hazardous products.

Any lawn dart is a banned hazardous product.