alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-136 July 23, 2008

NRC TO HOLD THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS TO SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT ON 

WAYS TO INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO SECURITY INFORMATION 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is holding three public meetings as part of an 

ongoing initiative to increase its level of openness on security at nuclear power plants and certain 

other facilities while still protecting sensitive information. The first meeting is being held on July 

30, 2008, in Holly Springs, N.C. A second meeting will be held on August 6, 2008, in Morris, 

Ill., and the third meeting is scheduled for August 27, 2008 in Lynchburg, Va. 

All three meetings will run from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., with NRC staff members available the 

entire time to receive input from interested stakeholders and discuss potential options to improve 

communication with the public. 

The meetings coincide with a Federal Register notice, to be published soon, requesting 

public comments in a variety of areas, including what kind of NRC security inspection and 

licensee performance information would enhance public confidence and be useful in assessing 

the security of nuclear power facilities. 

Notices providing detailed information on the meeting locations and how those unable to 

attend may participate via phone, will be available at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/publicmeetings/index.cfm. 

 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
§ 921.80 Application information. ( a ) Only a coastal state may apply for Federal financial assistance awards for preacquisition, acquisition and development, operation and management, and special education and interpretation projects under subpart H. Any coastal state or public or private person may apply for Federal financial assistance awards for special estuarine research or monitoring projects under subpart G. The announcement of opportunities to conduct research in the System appears on an annual basis in the Federal Register. If a state is participating in the national Coastal Zone Management Program, the applicant for an award under section 315 of the Act shall notify the state coastal management agency regarding the application.
( b ) An original and two copies of the formal application must be submitted at least 120 working days prior to the proposed beginning of the project to the following address: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW., suite 714, Washington, DC 20235. Application for Federal Assistance Standard Form 424 (Non-construction Program) constitutes the formal application for site selection, post-site selection, operation and management, research, and education and interpretive awards. The Application for Federal Financial Assistance Standard Form 424 (Construction Program) constitutes the formal application for land acquisition and development awards. The application must be accompanied by the information required in subpart B (predesignation), subpart C and § 921.31 (acquisition and development), and § 921.32 (operation and management) as applicable. Applications for development awards for construction projects, or restorative activities involving construction, must include a preliminary engineering report, a detailed construction plan, a site plan, a budget and categorical exclusion check list or environmental assessment. All applications must contain back up data for budget estimates (Federal and non-Federal shares), and evidence that the application complies with the Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.” In addition, applications for acquisition and development awards must contain: ( 1 ) State Historic Preservation Office comments;
( 2 ) Written approval from NOAA of the draft management plan for initial acquisition and development award(s); and
( 3 ) A preliminary engineering report for construction activities.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00425

- CV

University of Texas at Arlington

v.

Sandra Williams and Steve Williams §

§

§

§ From t he 352nd District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 352

- 248890

- 10 )

March 28, 2013

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the order of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant University of Texas at Arlington shall pay

all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By_________________________________

Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Annual
Report  Pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned
officer of Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies that, to the undersigneds knowledge:  (1)
the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, 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.  /s/ Jimmy
Wang Name: Jimmy Wang Chief Executive
Officer Date:  August
18, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Mann, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 616]

*866Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered April 14, 2003, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the County Court properly denied his motions for the assignment of new counsel and to withdraw his guilty plea. It is well settled that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the court *(see People v McGriff,*216 AD2d 330 [1995]; *People v Jones,*214 AD2d 623 [1995]), and a guilty plea will be upheld where, as here, it was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536 [1993]; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]). The mere fact that defense counsel may have advised him as to the risks of trial, including the possible maximum sentence if he was convicted, is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel or coercion *(see People v Jones,*232 AD2d 505 [1996]; *People v Spinks,*227 AD2d 310 [1996]; *People v Samuel,*208 AD2d 776 [1994]). The defendant’s bare assertions of innocence are also insufficient to withdraw a guilty plea *(see People v Moore,*71 NY2d 1002 [1988]; *People v Lowrance,*41 NY2d 303, 304-305 [1977]; *People v Evans,*204 AD2d 346 [1994]; *People v Chestnut,*188 AD2d 480 [1992]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court failed to advise him of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Hall,*7 AD3d 812 [2004]; *People v Russell,*7 AD3d 818 [2004]; *see also People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242 [2005]). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Luciano, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
No: 14-068 October 15, 2014

CONTACT: Dave McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

Interagency Cybersecurity Forum Launched; 

NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane Chairs Inaugural Meeting

On Friday Oct. 10, 2014, senior leaders from independent and executive branch regulatory 

agencies launched the interagency Cybersecurity Forum for Independent and Executive Branch 

Agencies. The Forum’s objectives are to enhance communication, lessons learned, and to develop a 

common understanding of cybersecurity activities through the sharing of best practices and exploring 

approaches to enhance cybersecurity protections. The officials established areas of initial discussion 

that included lessons learned with regulation based and voluntary approaches to cybersecurity, 

proactive cyber risk assessment and management, and information sharing. 

The meeting was chaired by Allison Macfarlane, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, and included participation from Chairman Tom Wheeler of the Federal Communications 

Commission and Chairman Cheryl LaFleur of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as well as 

senior officials from the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration, 

Department of Treasury and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The Department of 

Commerce/National Institute of Standards and Technology serves as an advisor to the Forum. Rand 

Beers, Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, provided remarks at the meeting.
#### § 1021.11 Information regarding NEPA compliance.

Interested persons may contact the Commission's Office of the Executive Director (301-504-0550) for information regarding CPSC NEPA compliance.

[45 FR 69434, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 62 FR 46667, Sept. 4, 1997]
EXHIBIT
 32



CERTIFICATION
 OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT
 TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
 connection with thereport on Form 10-K ofProvidence
 Resources, Inc. for the annual period ended December 31, 2009,
 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,Gilbert
 Burciaga,do
 hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | Thisreportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in this report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of theregistrant at the end of the period covered by this r
eport and results of operations of theregistrant for the period covered by this report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:April
 14, 2010



/s/
 Gilbert Burciaga

Gilbert
 Burciaga

Chief
 Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Thiscertification
 accompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
 except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theregistrant
 for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
 shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act
 of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report),
 irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.   A signed original of this written
 statement required by §906 has been provided to theregistrant
 and will be retained by theregistrant
 and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



28
### §12581a. Educational awards only program

#### (a) In general

From amounts appropriated for a fiscal year to provide financial assistance under this division and consistent with the restriction in subsection (b), the Corporation may, through fixed-amount grants (in accordance with section 12581(l) of this title), provide operational support to programs that receive approved national service positions but do not receive funds under section 12571(a) of this title.

#### (b) Limit on Corporation grant funds

The Corporation may provide the operational support under this section for a program in an amount that is not more than $800 per individual enrolled in an approved national service position, or not more than $1,000 per such individual if at least 50 percent of the persons enrolled in the program are disadvantaged youth.

#### (c) Inapplicable provisions

The following provisions shall not apply to programs funded under this section:

(1) The limitation on administrative costs under section 12571(d) of this title.

(2) The matching funds requirements under section 12571(e) of this title.

(3) The living allowance and other benefits under sections 12583(e) and 12594 of this title (other than individualized support services for participants with disabilities under section 12594(f) of this title).

(Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §129A, as added Pub. L. 111–13, title I, §1307, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1505.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 6101(a) of Pub. L. 111–13, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 4950 of this title.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 No. 97-11099 c/w

 No. 97-11122 c/w 

No. 97-11125 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LEON JOSEPH STEPHENS, also known as Joe Blow,

Defendant-Appellant;

ANDRA DEMON HUBBARD, also known as Pooh,

Defendant-Appellant; 

LAMARCUS TYRONE WILLIAMS, also known as T-Dog,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CR-50-1-A

 USDC No. 4:97-CR-50-4

 USDC No. 4:97-CR-50-A-3

- - - - - - - - - -

July 2, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leon Joseph Stephens, Andra Demon Hubbard, and Lamarcus Tyrone

Williams appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to
No. 97-11099

No. 97-11122

No. 97-11125

-2-

suppress evidence. 

Appellants contend that the warrant was based on an affidavit

that contained material omissions critical to a finding of probable

cause. The appellants have not shown that any omission in the

affidavit was intentional or reckless or that intent should be

inferred because the omitted information was critical to a finding

of probable cause. See United States v. Cronan, 937 F.2d 163, 165

(5th Cir. 1991). 

Stephens also contends that warrant was issued based on a

“bare bones” affidavit. The affidavit supporting the search

warrant was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to

render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. See

United States v. McKnight, 953 F.2d 898, 905 (5th Cir.

1992)(holding that an affidavit based on the personal observations

of drug manufacturing by an informant who had furnished reliable

information in the past was not “bare bones”). Stephens has

offered no evidence to support his claim that the magistrate

abandoned his judicial role in issuing the warrant. 

Appellants have not shown that the good-faith exception to the

exclusionary rule does not apply. Thus, the evidence obtained by

Gladney in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon the

search warrant is admissible. See United States v. Satterwhite,

980 F.2d 317, 320-21 (5th Cir.1992). The district court did not

err in denying the appellants’ motions to suppress.
No. 97-11099

No. 97-11122

No. 97-11125

-3-

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Craig Joosten, Sr., Appellant, v Carol Joosten, Also Known as Carol Boothe, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 899]

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J), dated May 2, 2005, which denied his motion pursuant to CFLR 5015 (a) to vacate an order of the same court (DeMaro, J.) dated December 9, 2004, which, upon his default in appearing, dismissed the petition.

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

To vacate a judgment entered upon a default, the movant must demonstrate the existence of a reasonable excuse for the default and, a meritorious defense *(see Matter of Oliphant v Oliphant, 21*AD3d 376 [2005]; *Koslosky v Koslosky,*267 AD2d 357 [1999]; *Rolston v Rolston,*261 AD2d 377 [1999]; *Gorsky v Gorsky,*148 AD2d 674 [1989]).

On October 14, 2004 during a conference at which the father was present, the Family Court directed an unequivocal December 9, 2004 hearing date. On December 9, 2004, however, the father’s counsel announced that the father was “refusing to come to court,” and the Family Court granted the joint application of the mother and the Law Guardians to dismiss the petition.

The father’s conclusory and unsubstantiated assertion that his attorney had informed him that he was not required to appear on December 9, 2004 is unpersuasive, inadequate to constitute a reasonable excuse for the default and “wholly insufficient to override the obligation of the court to conduct the [hearing] in a timely manner” *(O’Donnell v O’Donnell,*172 AD2d 654, 655 [1991]). Accordingly, under the circumstances, the father *1031failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default. The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the father’s motion to vacate the December 9, 2004 order entered upon his default in appearing *(see Matter of Oliphant v Oliphant,*supra;*Koslosky v Koslosky, supra; Benito v Childs,*253 AD2d 474 [1998]; *O’Donnell v O’Donnell, supra*at 655). Adams, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF
PRESIDENT

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter Smith, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

(i)       
          The accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended
          March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)       
          The information in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of Tally-Ho Ventures, Inc. (the
          Company).

|Date: May 23, 2005 |  | BY: /S/  PETER SMITH
 PETER SMITHPresident
|------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Lawrence Ruden, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PR Specialists, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(C)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 17, 2008

/s/ Lawrence Ruden

Lawrence Ruden

Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)