alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. I-15-038 November 3, 2015 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

Licensing Board to Hold Evidentiary Hearing Beginning on Nov. 16

in Tarrytown, N.Y., on Indian Point License Renewal Contentions

A three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will conduct an evidentiary hearing 

starting Monday, Nov. 16, regarding three safety-related challenges to the Indian Point nuclear power 

plant’s license renewal application. Entergy, which owns and operates the Buchanan (Westchester 

County), N.Y., plant, is seeking 20-year extensions of the operating licenses for Indian Point Units 2 

and 3.

The hearing will take place at the DoubleTree Hotel, at 455 South Broadway in Tarrytown, 

N.Y. It will begin at noon on Nov. 16, with the start time for the subsequent days to be announced at 

the hearing.

The issues to be considered have been raised by New York State and Riverkeeper Inc. The 

subjects include:

● Whether Entergy’s license renewal application is deficient because it fails to include an 

adequate aging management program for embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessels and the 

associated internals;

● Whether the application is deficient because it fails to include an adequate aging management 

program for metal fatigue on key reactor components; and

● Whether the application is deficient because the company fails to demonstrate that it has a 

program that will manage the effects of aging of several critical components or systems.

During the evidentiary hearing, there will be testimony by expert witnesses representing the 

challengers, Entergy and the NRC staff. The ASLB will rule on the issues at a later date. This 

proceeding will differ from a typical court proceeding in that the parties have pre-filed their direct 

testimony and exhibits. Specifically, the hearing will be a forum in which the judges will ask questions 

of the parties’ witnesses in order to clarify the testimony and exhibits they have already reviewed.

All members of the public will be screened by security prior to being granted entry into the 

hearing room. In order to facilitate entry, individuals wishing to attend the hearing are urged not to 

bring unnecessary items to the proceeding.
Page | 2

The ASLB previously conducted a hearing at the same location in the fall of 2012 on safety and 

environmental contentions identified as “Track 1” issues. The hearing scheduled to begin on Nov. 16 

will involve safety contentions identified as “Track 2” issues that were not dealt with during that earlier 

proceeding.

Entergy submitted its application for a 20-year extension of the Indian Point operating license 

on April 30, 2007. The initial 40-year operating license for Indian Point Unit 2 expired on Sept. 28, 

2013, while the license for Indian Point Unit 3 is set to expire on Dec. 12, 2015. However, those initial 

licenses will remain in effect until the Commission has issued a final ruling on the renewal application.
#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 307]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered February 2, 2006 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in two misbehavior reports with harassment, making threats, creating a disturbance and refusing a direct order after he was removed for disruptive behavior from a hearing held in connection with a prior disciplinary proceeding. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing in the instant matter, petitioner was found guilty of the underlying charges. Petitioner’s subsequent administrative appeal proved unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this proceeding to challenge the finding of guilt, which Supreme Court dismissed.

Petitioner’s sole contention on appeal is that he was improperly denied the right to call certain inmate witnesses at the *1118disciplinary hearing. We are not so persuaded. The first requested inmate, inmate Smith, refused to testify and petitioner failed to challenge the legitimacy of the refusal or inquire further. Inmate Hernandez similarly refused to testify, contending that he had no knowledge of the incident, and petitioner again acknowledged such refusal without further comment. Petitioner then indicated that he wished to procure the testimony of two inmates allegedly identified in the misbehavior reports — an inmate “Tararí” and an inmate bearing D.I.N. 89-A-4907. However, a review of those misbehavior reports and the hearing transcript reveals that the authoring correction officers, respectively, incorrectly recorded petitioner’s D.I.N. as 89-A-4907 instead of 89-A-4807 and misspelled petitioner’s last name (Tafari). Both misbehavior reports indicated that no other inmates were involved in the underlying incident. That being the case, the Hearing Officer surely cannot be faulted for failing to secure the testimony of two witnesses who apparently did not exist.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
[Civil No. 289.]

#### WILLIAM ZECKENDORF, Trustee for Frank & Co., a Corporation, Appellee, v. DAVID DUNHAM et al., Appellants.

APPEAL from 'the District Court of the First Judicial .District in and for the County of Pima. William H. Barnes, Judge.

Maxwell & Satterwhite, for Appellants.

Webb *&*Heney, for Appellee.

September 3, 1890.

(Note by Reporter.—The record shows, “Opinion filed,” but none appears in the records of the office of the clerk of the supreme court.)

Affirmed.
§ 996.32 Appeals. ( a ) Any entity may appeal a final decision made by the Agency under this Quality Assurance Program. Said appeal shall be submitted in writing to the Quality Assurance Program address, and shall contain at least: ( 1 ) Identification and contact information of the appealing entity;
( 2 ) A statement that this is an appeal to a final decision of the Quality Assurance Program;
( 3 ) A description of what decision is being appealed;
( 4 ) A thorough but concise argument as to why the requestor believes the Quality Assurance Program decision being appealed should be set aside.
( 5 ) Other information as may later be determined to be relevant.
( b ) Appeals shall be arbitrated by the Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, using procedures to be established at the time of the appeal, and which shall be appropriate to the nature and circumstances of the appeal. The determination from this arbitration shall be final for purposes of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act and other statutes.
#### Tri-Bullion Smelting and Development Company, Respondent, v. Ellis P. Earle, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., Scott, Smith, Page and Davis, JJ.
### §13253. Replacement fuel demand estimates and supply information

#### (a) Estimates

Not later than October 1, 1993, and annually thereafter, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary of Transportation, and other appropriate State and Federal officials, shall estimate for the following calendar year—

(1) the number of each type of alternative fueled vehicle likely to be in use in the United States;

(2) the probable geographic distribution of such vehicles;

(3) the amount and distribution of each type of replacement fuel; and

(4) the greenhouse gas emissions likely to result from replacement fuel use.

#### (b) Information

Beginning on October 1, 1994, the Secretary shall annually require—

(1) fuel suppliers to report to the Secretary on the amount of each type of replacement fuel that such supplier—

(A) has supplied in the previous calendar year; and

(B) plans to supply for the following calendar year;

(2) suppliers of alternative fueled vehicles to report to the Secretary on the number of each type of alternative fueled vehicle that such supplier—

(A) has made available in the previous calendar year; and

(B) plans to make available for the following calendar year; and

(3) such fuel suppliers to provide the Secretary information necessary to determine the greenhouse gas emissions from the replacement fuels used, taking into account the entire fuel cycle.

#### (c) Protection of information

Information provided to the Secretary under subsection (b) shall be subject to applicable provisions of law protecting the confidentiality of trade secrets and business and financial information, including section 1905 of title 18.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title V, §503, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2889.)
<PAGE>
                                                            EXHIBIT 10(b)(xliii)

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                         ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION
                         MANAGEMENT LIFE INSURANCE PLAN


         WHEREAS, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko") has heretofore
adopted the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Management Life Insurance Plan (the
"Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, Anadarko desires to amend the Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

         1.       Effective June 30, 2003, the following definition under
                  Section 2.01 (13) shall be replaced in its entirety:

                      "(13) RETIREE: A former Employee who became a Participant
                  in the Plan on or before June 30, 2003 and who at the time of
                  his retirement from the Company is at least 55 years of age
                  with at least 10 years of service with the Company, and who is
                  eligible to participate in the Company's retiree medical and
                  dental plans upon their retirement."

         2.       Effective June 30, 2003, the following language shall be added
                  to the end of Section 3.03:

                  "This provision is only effective for Employee who became
                  Participants in the Plan on or before June 30, 2003."

         3.       Effective January 1, 2003, Section 4.04 shall be replaced in
                  its entirety with the following:

                  "4.04 BENEFIT CLAIMS PROCEDURES. Claims for benefits and
                  reviews of Plan benefit claims which have been denied or
                  modified are to be processed in accordance with the most
                  recent written Plan claims procedures established by the Plan
                  Administrator and adopted by the Company, which procedures are
                  hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Plan."

         4.       As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
                  reaffirmed.

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be
executed this 3rd day of September, 2003.


                                            ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORPORATION


                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Richard A. Lewis
                                            Vice President, Human Resources
#### In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Enoch G. Megrue, as Executor, etc., of Joseph R. Megrue, Deceased, Appellant. Anna Louise Bell, Respondent.

Decree affirmed, with costs to the respondent payable out of the estate. Ho opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Smith and Page, JJ.
### §13343. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this part $278,139,000 for fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1994 through 1997.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1313, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2976.)
# PHANTOM 3 In the Box ADVANCED Check that all of the following items are in your package. If any items are missing, please contact DJI or your local dealer.

©2015 DJI. All Rights Reserved. Intelligent Flight Battery ×1 Gimbal Clamp ×1 Aircraft Body ×1 Remote Controller ×1 Propeller Pairs ×4
16GB Micro-SD Card ×1 Manuals Vibration Absorbers ×4

Power Cable ×1 Anti-drop Kit ×2 Micro-USB Cable ×1 Landing Pads ×4 Propeller Removal Clamp ×1 Stickers ×4 (Silver, red, blue, pink) * Accessories are not covered by warranty. In the Box Phantom 3 Professional / Advanced Safety Guidelines and Disclaimer Phantom 3 Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guidelines Phantom 3 Advanced Quick Start Guide **Accessories*** **Essentials** Battery Charger ×1
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-11165

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:05-cr-00108-LSC-SRW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE HOEY MORRIS, 

a.k.a. Johnny Ray Fortune, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(June 11, 2013)

Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11165 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

George Hoey Morris appeals pro se the denial of his motions for a new trial 

as untimely. Morris sought a new trial based on newly-discovered evidence. Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). We affirm.

The government argues that we should dismiss Morris’s appeal because his 

written notice was untimely, but we disagree. Under the mailbox rule, a notice of 

appeal filed pro se is treated as filed on the date the inmate delivers his notice to 

the prison authorities. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 2382 

(1988). The district court entered its order denying Morris’s post-trial motions on 

January 5, 2012, and Morris submitted to prison officials a notice of intent to 

appeal on January 17, 2012. Because Morris’s notice states that he intends to 

appeal the denial of his post-trial motions, the notice satisfies the requirements for 

a written notice of appeal, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). See

United States v. Ward, 696 F.2d 1315, 1318 & n.2 (11th Cir. 1983). Morris’s 

notice of appeal was timely.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Morris’s motions

for a new trial as untimely. Morris acknowledges that he filed his motions more 

than three years after his convictions, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1), and his 

arguments for equitable tolling or excusable neglect fail. Morris argues that his 

incarceration in various jails and his involuntary commitment in a mental 

institution for ten months after his conviction constituted a “legal disability” that 

Case: 12-11165 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

tolled the period to move for a new trial, but Morris admitted in an affidavit that he 

filed complaints against both his counsel and the prosecutor during this period. 

Morris also argues that his appellate counsel “ignored” his allegedly newlydiscovered evidence and refused to file a timely post-trial motion, but “[c]ounsel’s

misunderstanding of the law cannot constitute excusable neglect” to extend a 

deadline under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B). United States v. 

Snipes, 611 F.3d 855, 865 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks 

omitted). And Morris argues that the prosecutor interfered with his ability to file a 

timely motion for a new trial by causing trial counsel to withdraw from the case, 

but the district court appointed new counsel the same day that it granted trial 

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

We AFFIRM the denial of Morris’s motion for a new trial as untimely.

Case: 12-11165 Date Filed: 06/11/2013 Page: 3 of 3
### SUBCHAPTER VI—CAPITALIZATION AND FINANCE
Matthew G. Waschull Compensation Letter



 Exhibit 10.2 
 The Bryn Mawr Trust Company 
 Ted Peters 
 Chairman and CEO 
 January 3, 2007 
 Matthew G. Waschull, CTFA 
 Park Plaza – Unit #1606 
 1100 Lovering Avenue 
 Wilmington, DE 19806 
 Dear Matt: 
 I’m pleased to offer you the position of Executive Vice President and Head of the Wealth
Management Division at The Bryn Mawr Trust Company. In this position, you will be responsible for managing our entire trust and investment management group. As I’ve mentioned, you will be a critical factor in the continued success of Bryn Mawr
Trust and an important part of our Executive Management team. 
 Your initial compensation package will be as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	 A base salary of $200,000 to be reviewed annually. 


  

	 	•	 	 An annual bonus opportunity of $150,000 based on the performance of your division and of Bryn Mawr Trust as a whole. Please note that your minimum bonus for the
fiscal years 2007 and 2008 will be $50,000. 


  

	 	•	 	 Long Term Incentives (stock options and/or restricted stock) in an amount comparable to other executives of your level. 


  

	 	•	 	 All normal employee benefits including short term and long term disability, life insurance, medical and dental benefits, and other employee assistance programs.
Also, as an Executive Vice President, you will be covered by our change-in-control policy. 


 In addition, you will receive
on a one-time basis: 
  

	 	•	 	 A $10,000 payment to assist you with relocation expenses. 


  

	 	•	 	 An immediate 4,000 stock option award in shares of BMTC common stock. 


  

	 	•	 	 Up to $ 15,000 to assist you in any expense you may incur in joining a private club. Such club would be used from time to time to entertain clients or prospective
clients. 


 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT Ÿ FINANCIAL PLANNING Ÿ TAX PLANNING Ÿ PERSONAL BANKING Ÿ BUSINESS BANKING

 BROKERAGE SERVICES Ÿ INSURANCE Ÿ MORTGAGES Ÿ FIDUCIARY SERVICES 
 Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania 19010
• 610-525-1700 







 Matthew G. Waschull, CTFA 
 January 3, 2007 
 Page 2 
 Please
note that we will need to have you sign a non-solicitation agreement, in the unlikely event that you should leave the Bank in the future. 
 Matt, the Board of Directors and I are excited to have someone of your character and qualifications to lead our Wealth Management division. I know that you will be a major contributor to the growth and profitability of The Bryn Mawr Trust
Company in the years ahead. 
 With best wishes, 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Frederick C. Peters II
	 Frederick C. Peters, II
 Chairman and
CEO
Exhibit
10.2


Hallmark Channel


Advertising Sales


Revised


2007 Commission Proposal


January 2, 2007













2007 Advertising Sales Commission Plan


·                  Objective:


·                 Develop
a compensation plan based on individual, account by account spending targets by
quarter.  Include a Strategic Initiative
Component that rewards creative selling and aggressive deal-making in the
scatter marketplace.


·                  3 Components:


·                  Quarterly Commission to create daily
incentive


 


·                  Quarterly Performance Bonus Pool
awarded for outstanding accomplishments


 


·                  Year-end
Corporate Bonus


·                  Rationale:


·                 Drive
revenue and focus by heightening individual accountability and
responsibility.  Award strategic thinking
in the sales process.


2007 Sales Commission Plan Benefits


·                  Provide
additional motivation for sales team on a Quarter-to-Quarter basis


·                  Encourage Split communication and
cooperation


 


·                  More
thorough client coverage will help establish Channel’s value


·                  Ensure
focus in order to meet targets


·                  Ultimately,
will drive sales revenue higher


2007 Ad Sales Annual Commission Plan


·                  Year-end
Commission is paid as Corporate Goals is achieved:


	
  [$ of Ad Revenue]

  	
   

  	
  [% of Annual Base Salary]

  	
   

  
	
                               **

  	
   

  	
  2.5

  	
  %*

  
	
                               **

  	
   

  	
                     

  	
  **

  
	
                               **

  	
   

  	
                     

  	
  **

  
	
                               **

  	
   

  	
                     

  	
  **

  
	
                               **

  	
   

  	
                     

  	
  **

  
	
                               **

  	
   

  	
                     

  	
  **

  
	
  At Corporate Goal

  	
   

  	
                  15

  	
  %*

  



 






*Percentage applicable to William Abbott.


**Redacted, and omitted portion filed with the Commission.



 2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 372 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 372

    To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the 
  Secretary of the Interior to deny leases and permits to persons who 
engage in activities with the government of any foreign country that is 
subject to any sanction or an embargo established by the Government of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 20, 2011

  Mr. Buchanan (for himself, Mr. Miller of Florida, and Mr. Stearns) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the 
  Secretary of the Interior to deny leases and permits to persons who 
engage in activities with the government of any foreign country that is 
subject to any sanction or an embargo established by the Government of 
                           the United States.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO DENY OIL AND GAS LEASES AND PERMITS TO PERSONS 
              WHO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES WITH CERTAIN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

    Section 8(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1337(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(9) The Secretary may deny issuance of an oil and gas lease under 
this Act, or a permit for exploration, development, or production under 
such a lease, to any person that has engaged in activities with the 
government of any foreign country that is subject to any sanction or an 
embargo established by the Government of the United States, including 
any sanction or embargo established under section 203 of the Emergency 
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702).''.
                                 <all>
```