alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 15-023 April 10, 2015

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC APPROVES INDIRECT TRANSFER OF OPERATING LICENSES

FOR SUSQUEHANNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the proposed indirect transfer of the 

operating licenses for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. The reactors are in Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania, about 70 miles northeast of Harrisburg.

PPL Susquehanna LLC applied for the indirect transfer on July 11, 2014, and updated the 

application several times through March 2015. The transfer involves transactions where PPL 

Corporation, PPL Susquehanna's current parent, will spin off PPL Energy Supply, which will include

the Susquehanna reactors. Energy Supply will become a wholly owned subsidiary of a new company, 

Talen Energy Holdings, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a new parent company, Talen Energy 

Corporation. Following the transactions, PPL Susquehanna will be renamed Susquehanna Nuclear 

LLC, which will hold the reactors’ licenses and operating authority.

The NRC’s review of the transfer application concludes the transfer will maintain public health 

and safety and will meet the relevant agency regulations. The indirect transfer will maintain PPL 

Susquehanna/Susquehanna Nuclear as the licensed operator. The transfer will also maintain the 

reactors’ licensing bases, principal officers, managers, staff and day-to-day management and 

operations. 

On Oct. 24, 2014, Mr. Douglas Ritter of Berwick, Pa., submitted a petition for leave to 

intervene and requested a hearing on the transfer application. The Commission continues to consider 

the hearing request.
### SUBCHAPTER III—TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Category 2 Public Meeting With AP-1000 Owners Group On New Reactor Operator Licensing.

Accession Number: ML15083A422

Date Released: Wednesday, April 1, 2015

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.
    - ML15083A433 - Category 2 Public Meeting With AP1000 Owners Group On New Reactor Operator Licensing. (4 page(s), 3/25/2015)
    - ML15083A441 - Agenda For The April 22, 2015 Category 2 Public Meeting With AP1000 Owners Group On New Reactor Operator Licensing. (1 page(s), 3/25/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 Tuesday, November 30, 2004, 2 p.m.

# LOCATION:

 Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# STATUS:

                         Closed to the Public—Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(f)(1) and 16 CFR 1013.4(b)(3)(7)(9) and (10) and submitted to the                         **Federal Register**                         pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3).                    

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:

*Compliance Status Report—*                        The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various compliance matters.                    

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-7923.

Dated: November 15, 2004.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04-25692  Filed 11-16-04; 11:42 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
#### § 700.36 Changes or cancellations of allocation orders.

An allocation order may be changed or cancelled by an official action from the Department of Commerce. Notice of such changes or cancellations may be provided directly to persons to whom the order being cancelled or modified applies or constructive notice may be provided by publication in the Federal Register.

[79 FR 47567, Aug. 14, 2014]
### §390. Publication of international design application

The publication under the treaty of an international design application designating the United States shall be deemed a publication under section 122(b).

(Added Pub. L. 112–211, title I, §101(a), Dec. 18, 2012, 126 Stat. 1531.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the later of the date that is 1 year after Dec. 18, 2012, or the date that the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs enters into force with respect to the United States (May 13, 2015), and applicable only to certain applications filed on and after that effective date and patents issuing thereon, see section 103 of Pub. L. 112–211, set out as an Effective Date of 2012 Amendment note under section 100 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Cathleen Strand-O’Shea, Appellant, v John C. O’Shea, Respondent.

[819 NYS2d 109]

In a custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.H.O.), entered March 15, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s motion to modify the visitation provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce and denied her motion for a change in custody.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Modification of an existing custody arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that modification is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child. The court must consider the totality of the circumstances *(see Scheuering v Scheuering,*27 AD3d 446 [2006]; *Matter of Abranko v Vargas,*26 AD3d 490 [2006]). Because the hearing court is in the best position to evaluate the testimony, character, and sincerity of the witnesses, its findings are entitled to great deference on appeal, and will not be overturned unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Rho v Rho,*19 AD3d 605 [2005]; *Matter of Picot v Barrett,*8 AD3d 288 [2004]). Here, the Family Court properly determined that, under all of the circumstances, a change in custody was not in the child’s best interest *(see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56*NY2d 167 [1982]).

Furthermore, the court was not obligated to accept the recommendations of the forensic expert regarding the father’s motion to modify the parties’ visitation schedule. The court explained *399its reasons for rejecting her recommendation and its reasoning is supported by the record *(see Matter of Sienkwicz v Sienkwicz,*298 AD2d 396 [2002]; *Matter of Maysonet v Contreras,*290 AD2d 510 [2002]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

GLEN ALLEN PARKER, II, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1985

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 11, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; Frank Quesada, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Lara E. Breslow,

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350**

 

Melvin L. Flaniganhereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.    He is the Chief Financial Officer ofDTS, Inc.

 

2.    The Form 10-Q report of DTS, Inc.for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

3.    The information contained in theForm 10-Q report of DTS, Inc. for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of DTS, Inc.

 
| Dated:  May 10, 2006 |   |                     |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                      | By:    | /s/  MELVIN L. FLANIGAN  |
|                      |   | Melvin  L. Flanigan      |
|                      |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 has been provided to DTS, Inc. and will be retained by DTS, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350
by Chief Executive Officer

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Raffaele
M. Branca, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

|                        |                         
|----------------------- | ------------------------
|Date: August
  12, 2008 |                         
|                        |                         
|                        | /s/ Raffaele
  M. Branca
|                        |                         
|                        | Raffaele M.
  Branca    
|                        | President
  and CEO     

A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

28

---
### §12004. Energy efficiency authorizations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for the following energy efficiency research, development, and demonstration programs: transportation, industrial, buildings and community systems, multi-sector, and policy and management—

(1) not to exceed $201,100,000 for fiscal year 1991, of which—

(A) not to exceed $68,300,000 shall be available for the transportation program; and

(B) not to exceed $53,500,000 shall be available for the industrial program; and

(2) not to exceed $210,600,000 for fiscal year 1992, of which—

(A) not to exceed $71,000,000 shall be available for the transportation program; and

(B) not to exceed $54,700,000 shall be available for the industrial program.

(Pub. L. 101–218, §5, Dec. 11, 1989, 103 Stat. 1862; Pub. L. 102–486, title XXI, §2125(4)–(6), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3085.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Par. (3). Pub. L. 102–486 struck out par. (3) which read as follows: "not to exceed $225,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, of which—

"(A) not to exceed $73,900,000 shall be available for the transportation program; and

"(B) not to exceed $56,900,000 shall be available for the industrial program."
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph O'Connell, Respondent, for Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, v. Modern Machine Tool Company, Employer, and Ætna Life Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier, Appellants.

Award unanimously affirmed on the opinion in *Marhoffer*v. *Marhoffer (ante,*p. 52), decided herewith.
| 1. | Such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2011 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: September 13, 2011                                        |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                 |   |   |   |
| /s/ Michael Toups                                                    |   |   |   |
| Michael Toups                                                        |   |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |   |   |
### NUMBER 13

- 13

- 00 361

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MARYNELL MALONEY

, DEBBIE SUAREZ, AND

MARYNELL MALONEY

LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., A ppellants

,

v.

ALEXANDER M. BEGUM AND

BEGUM LAW GROUP, L.L.C., Appellees

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 444th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

On February 10, 2014

, we abated this appeal on the joint motion of the parties to

effectuate a settlement agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(C). This case is now2

before the court on the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the

parties have reached an agreement that fully settles their differences. Accordingly, this

case is hereby REINSTATED.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the parties’ joint motion

to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a)

. T he joint motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs will be taxed

against the party incurring the same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( d ). Having dismissed

the appeal at the parties’ request , no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our

mandate will issue forthwit h.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the

20th day of March , 20 14

.
§ 1014.9 Disclosure of record to person other than the individual to whom it pertains. ( a ) Any person or agency (other than an officer or employee of the Commission who has a need for individual records in the performance of his or her duty) seeking disclosure of personal records of another individual which are contained in a system of records shall submit a request in accordance with the Commission's Procedures for Disclosure of Production of Information under the Freedom of Information Act (16 CFR part 1015, subpart A).
( b ) The determination of whether or not the requested disclosure is proper will be made in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's policies and procedures issued thereunder (16 CFR part 1015).
[41 FR 30324, July 23, 1976]
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 25 19

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Mar c Gib bo ns , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Sio ux Cit y

__

__ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 21 , 20 19 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 26 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, and KOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.Mar c Gib bo ns di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th e di st ric t co ur t 1 im po se d aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to a fir earm of fen se , pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ni ng an ap pe al waiv er. His co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And er s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U

. S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , cha ll en gi ng th e se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

W e wil l en fo rce th e ap pe al waiv er in th is cas e be cau se ou r rev ie w of th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at Gib bo ns en te red in to th e p l ea ag reem en t an d th e ap pe al waiv er kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly, hi s ch al le ng e to th e se nt en ce fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er, an d no m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce wou ld res ul t fro m en fo rci ng th e waiv er. Se e U n i t e d S ta te s v. Sc ot t , 62 7 F.3 d 70 2, 70 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (d e no vo rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). Fu rth er, we ha ve in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , an d ha ve fo un d no no n- fri vo lo us is su es f o r ap pe al ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er.

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t hi s ap pe al

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

1 The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d Stat es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. -2

-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William M. Nichols, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 534]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered April 22, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of murder in the *1317second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1], [2]). The facts and circumstances surrounding defendant’s plea colloquy establish that the waiver of the right to appeal is valid *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Jennings,*8 AD3d 1067 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 676 [2004]; *People v Brown,*281 AD2d 962 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 899 [2001]), and thus we reject the contention of defendant that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive the right to appeal. The valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255-256) and, in any event, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Insofar as the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives the plea and the waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Fifield,*24 AD3d 1221, 1222 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 775 [2006]), we conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his challenge to the first and second counts of the indictment as multiplicitous *(see generally People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 230-232 [2000]; *People v Bower,*27 AD3d 1122 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 892 [2006]; *People v Bracewell,*26 AD3d 812 [2006]) and, in any event, the valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses that nonjurisdictional challenge *(see generally People v Verrone,*266 AD2d 16, 18 [1999]).

We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that they are without merit. Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
```

POWER OF ATTORNEY

    Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each
of Jonathan D. Kantor and Stathy Darcy, signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful
attorney-in-fact to:

(1)    execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity as an
officer and/or director of CNA Financial Corporation (the "Company"), Forms 3, 4,
and 5 in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the rules thereunder; and

(2)    do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which may be
necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 3, 4, or 5,
complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file
such form with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any
stock exchange or similar authority; and

(3)   take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing
which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in the best
interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood that the
documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned
pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such
terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such attorney-in-
fact's discretion.

       The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and authority to
do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary, or proper to be
done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and
purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such
attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this
power of attorney and the rights and powers herein granted. The undersigned acknowledges
that the forgoing attorney-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the undersigned,
are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the undersigned's responsibilities to
comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

       This Power of Attorney shall supersede any existing power of attorney and shall remain
in full force and effect until a successor power of attorney is executed or the undersigned is no
longer required to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the undersigned's holdings of and
transactions in securities issued by the Company, unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in
a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be
executed as of this 3rd day of January, 2013.

                          /s/ Mark Herman
                        _________________________
                        Name: Mark Herman
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Frank Krayser, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from a judgment of the County Court, Kings County, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of grand larceny, second degree, and sentencing him as a first offender, and from an order of said court dismissing a prior felony information. Judgment unanimously *1189affirmed. No opinion. No separate appeal lies from the order, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present— Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ.