alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: I-14-040 October 23, 2014

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Issues Security-related Inspection Finding for Limerick Nuclear Plant,

Resulting in Increase in Agency’s Oversight at Facility 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will increase its level of oversight at the Limerick nuclear power plant 

following the finalization of a security-related inspection finding that has been classified as “greater than 

green.” The twin-reactor plant is located in Limerick (Montgomery County), Pa., and is operated by Exelon.

The NRC uses a color-coded assessment system for inspection findings and performance 

indicators. The colors range from “green,” for very low safety or security significance, to “white,” 

“yellow” or “red,” for high safety or security significance. In the case of security-related inspection 

findings or performance indicators, the NRC notifies the public when the “greater than green” threshold 

has been crossed. However, the agency does not provide specifics because of the sensitivity associated 

with such findings and indicators.

During an inspection conducted at the Limerick plant from June 16 to 20, the NRC documented 

the finding. Per the NRC’s review process, Exelon was offered an opportunity to provide a written 

response or take part in a Regulatory Conference with NRC staff to provide additional information 

and/or perspectives regarding the finding. Exelon chose to take part in a conference, which was held on 

Sept. 18.

After considering the information presented by the company, and the information developed 

during the inspection, the NRC has determined the finding is appropriately characterized as “greater 

than green.”

“Based on the finalization of the finding, the NRC will perform a supplemental inspection at 

Limerick to ensure Exelon fully understands the root causes of the issue and has implemented longterm, permanent corrective actions,” Acting NRC Region I Administrator David Lew said. “We would 

stress that the plant remains secure. Indeed, before our inspectors left the site after the issue had been 

identified, we ensured that appropriate interim compensatory actions were put in place.”
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   |      |                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|--------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (1)  | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of                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. |

|   | /s/ Howard                Becker                                                          |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Howard Becker                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer and Director (Principal                  Executive Officer andPrincipal                  Financial Officer)                                                                                                                                                |
§ 1028.117 Documentation of informed consent. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following: ( 1 ) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 1028.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
( 2 ) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 1028.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 1028.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
( c ) ( 1 ) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following: ( i ) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
( ii ) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
( iii ) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
( 2 ) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
§ 254.7 Deceptive sales practices. ( a ) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to use advertisements or promotional materials that misrepresent, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that employment is being offered or that a talent hunt or contest is being conducted. For example, captions such as, “Men/women wanted to train for * * * ,” “Help Wanted,” “Employment,” “Business Opportunities,” and words or terms of similar import, may falsely convey that employment is being offered and therefore should be avoided.
( b ) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to fail to disclose to a prospective student, prior to enrollment, the total cost of the program of instruction and the school's refund policy if the student does not complete the program of instruction.
( c ) It is deceptive for an Industry Member to fail to disclose to a prospective student, prior to enrollment, all requirements for successfully completing the course or program of instruction and the circumstances that would constitute grounds for terminating the student's enrollment prior to completion of the program of instruction.
[78 FR 68991, Nov. 18, 2013]
# C_2012331EN.01002001.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red)

(Case T-329/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

(2012/C 331/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2010 (Case R 191/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in black, grey, beige and dark red as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---
### §1437h. Implementation of provisions by Secretary

#### (a) Preparation and submission of annual budget program; maintenance of accounts; audit by Government Accountability Office

In the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties vested in him by this chapter, the Secretary, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, shall—

(1) prepare annually and submit a budget program as provided for wholly owned Government corporations by chapter 91 of title 31; and

(2) maintain an integral set of accounts which may be audited by the Government Accountability Office as provided by chapter 91 of title 31.

#### (b) Availability of receipts and assets

All receipts and assets of the Secretary under this chapter shall be available for the purposes of this chapter until expended.

#### (c) Federal Reserve banks to act as depositories, custodians and fiscal agents; reimbursement for services

The Federal Reserve banks are authorized and directed to act as depositories, custodians, and fiscal agents for the Secretary in the general exercise of his powers under this chapter, and the Secretary may reimburse any such bank for its services in such manner as may be agreed upon.

(Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, title I, §10, as added Pub. L. 93–383, title II, §201(a), Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 666; amended Pub. L. 98–479, title II, §203(b)(2), Oct. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 2229; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 100–358, §5, June 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 681; Pub. L. 104–316, title I, §122(k), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3837; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 10 of act Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, 50 Stat. 891, as amended, authorized annual contributions in assistance of low rentals for housing projects and was classified to section 1410 of this title, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 93–383. Similar provisions are contained in section 1437c of this title.

#### Amendments

2004—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".

1996—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 104–316 substituted "maintain an integral set of accounts which may be audited by the General Accounting Office as provided by chapter 91 of title 31." for "maintain an integral set of accounts which shall be audited annually by the General Accounting Office in accordance with the principles and procedures applicable to commercial transactions as provided by chapter 91 of title 31, and no other audit shall be required."

1984—Subsec. (a)(1), (2). Pub. L. 98–479 substituted "chapter 91 of title 31" for "the Government Corporations Control Act, as amended".
### §1396–1. Appropriations

For the purpose of enabling each State, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to furnish (1) medical assistance on behalf of families with dependent children and of aged, blind, or disabled individuals, whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services, and (2) rehabilitation and other services to help such families and individuals attain or retain capability for independence or self-care, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes of this subchapter. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans for medical assistance.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XIX, §1901, as added Pub. L. 89–97, title I, §121(a), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 343; amended Pub. L. 93–233, §13(a)(1), Dec. 31, 1973, 87 Stat. 960; Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VI, §2663(j)(3)(C), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1171.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1396 of this title.

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–369 struck out "of Health, Education, and Welfare" after "Secretary".

1973—Pub. L. 93–233 substituted "disabled individuals" for "permanently and totally disabled individuals".

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–369 effective July 18, 1984, but not to be construed as changing or affecting any right, liability, status, or interpretation which existed (under the provisions of law involved) before that date, see section 2664(b) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 401 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1973 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–233 effective with respect to payments under section 1396b of this title for calendar quarters commencing after Dec. 31, 1973, see section 13(d) of Pub. L. 93–233, set out as a note under section 1396a of this title.
#### Ronald A. Marlett et al., Respondents, v Richard A. Hennessy, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[823 NYS2d 325]

*1294Appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), entered September 12, 2005 in a legal malpractice action. The order denied the motion of defendants Charles M. Tebbutt, Richard J. Lippes, and Allen, Lippes & Shonn, now known as Allen & Lippes, and the cross motion of defendants Richard A. Hennessy, Jr. and Hennessy & Gorham to dismiss the complaint and cross claims against them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting the cross motion and dismissing the complaint and cross claims against defendants Richard A. Hennessy, Jr. and Hennessy & Gorham and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action for legal malpractice in 2003 against two sets of defendants, both of which appeal from an order denying their respective motion and cross motion to dismiss the complaint and cross claims against them pursuant to CPLR 3211. We agree with defendants Richard A. Hennessy, Jr. and Hennessy & Gorham (Hennessy defendants) that Supreme Court should have granted their cross motion and dismissed the complaint and cross claims against them as untimely interposed, and we modify the order accordingly. As we held in a prior related appeal, the underlying toxic tort/ personal injury claims of plaintiffs, on which defendants allegedly negligently failed to commence suit in a timely manner, were in fact time-barred as of October 1993 *(see Marlett v Petr-All Petroleum Corp.,*295 AD2d 961 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 613 [2002]). Because the instant action was not commenced within three years of that accrual date of the instant legal malpractice claim, plaintiffs must have the benefit of the continuous representation doctrine or their legal malpractice claim is time-barred *(see*CPLR 214 [6]; *Greene v Greene,*56 NY2d 86, 93-95 [1982]; *Amendola v Kendzia,*17 AD3d 1105, 1108 [2005]; *Kanter v Pieri,*11 AD3d 912 [2004]). Here, the representation of plaintiffs by the Hennessy defendants did not continue beyond February 25, 1994, the date on which plaintiffs explicitly “terminated the] services” of the Hennessy defendants *(see Cerio v Koldin,*289 AD2d 1080 [2001]; *Piliero v Adler & Stavros,*282 AD2d 511, 512 [2001]; *Aaron v Roemer, Wallens & Mineaux,*272 AD2d 752, 754-755 [2000], *lv dismissed*96 NY2d 730 [2001]). Thus, application of the continuous representation doctrine does not render the action timely as against the Hennessy defendants.

*1295In view of our determination, we do not address the remaining contentions of the Hennessy defendants. Moreover, we have considered the contentions of the remaining defendants and conclude that they are without merit. Present — Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
April 15, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request Under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations

To whom it may concern,

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) 

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Premier Real Estate Services, a Real Estate Broker, hereby applies for an 

exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") to allow them to operate a 

small Unmanned Aircraft System ("sUAS) under the conditions and limitations set forth in this 

Petition.

The requested exemption would permit Premier Real Estate Services to operate the DJI S 

Phantom 2 Vision+ primarily to conduct aerial photography and videography for homeowners, 

realtors, home builders, home contractors, and/or home inspectors for real estate marketing.

Premier Real Estate Services states that all sUAS flights will occur over private or controlled 

access property will do so with the property owner’s consent and knowledge and that only 

people who have consented or otherwise have agreed to be in the area where videography will 

take place.

Noel Johnson

Broker/Owner

Premier Real Estate Services

550 25th Ave N

St. Cloud, MN 56303

(320) 259-4554 

Noel@PremierHomeSearch.com
|  |   | FGDC Publications- Executive Order 12906  ClearinghouseFramework
- Metadata  NSDI Funding Programs   - 1998 NSDI Funding Programs  (Benefits, CAP, and FDPP)       Benefits Program1997Cooperative Agreements Program
1999
 |          
1997
 |         
1996
 |         
1995
 |         
1994
- Framework Demonstration Projects Program   1996  |          1997   NSDI StrategyReport on Financing the NSDI   
Executive Summary (pdf 55kb)
- PDF Version (size 2.5 MB)  PDF Version - ZIP file (size 1.9 MB)Standards
- Partnership Programs Guidelines |
|--|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1212

SEKOUBA FATY,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: October 31, 2018 Decided: November 6, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, Maryland, for 

Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, 

Assistant Director, Corey L. Farrell, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sekouba Faty, a native and citizen of Mali, petitions for review of an order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying as untimely his motion to reopen. We 

have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of 

discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)(2) (2018). We therefore deny the petition for 

review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re Faty (B.I.A. Jan. 29, 2018).

We lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte 

authority to reopen and, therefore, dismiss this portion of the petition for review. See 

Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206-07 (4th Cir. 2016); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 

397, 400-01 (4th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED IN PART 

AND DISMISSED IN PART
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SRM-SECY-15-0163:  Proposed Revisions to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy

Accession Number: ML16265A543

Date Released: Wednesday, September 21, 2016

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.
    - ML16265A530 - SRM-SECY-15-0163:  Proposed Revisions to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy. (1 page(s), 9/21/2016)
    - ML16265A552 - SRM-SECY-15-0163:  Enclosure 1 - Proposed Revisions to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy. (26 page(s), 9/21/2016)
    - ML16265A558 - SRM-SECY-15-0163:  Enclosure 2 - Proposed Revisions to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enforcement Policy. (91 page(s), 9/21/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer