alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 801.14 Aggregate total amount of voting securities and assets. For purposes of Section 7A(a)(2) and § 801.1(h), the aggregate total amount of voting securities and assets shall be the sum of: ( a ) The value of all voting securities of the acquired person which the acquiring person would hold as a result of the acquisition, determined in accordance with § 801.13(a); and
( b ) The value of all assets of the acquired person which the acquiring person would hold as a result of the acquisition, determined in accordance with § 801.13(b). Examples: 1. Acquiring person “A” previously acquired less than $50 million (as adjusted) of the voting securities (not convertible voting securities) of corporation X. “A” now intends to acquire additional assets of X. Under paragraph (a) of this section, “A” looks to § 801.13(a) and determines that the voting securities are to be held “as a result of” the acquisition. Section 801.13(a) also provides that “A” must determine the present value of the previously acquired securities. Under paragraph (b) of this section, “A” looks to § 801.13(b)(1) and determines that the assets to be acquired will be held “as a result of” the acquisition, and are valued under § 801.10(b). Therefore, if the voting securities have a present value which when combined with the value of the assets would exceed $50 million (as adjusted), the asset acquisition is subject to the requirements of the act since, as a result of it, “A” would hold an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and assets of “X” in excess of $50 million (as adjusted) . 2. In the previous example, assume that the assets acquisition occurred first, and that the acquisition of the voting securities is to occur within 180 days of the first acquisition. “A” now looks to § 801.13(b)(2) and determines that because the second acquisition is of voting securities and not assets, the asset and voting securities acquisitions are not treated as one transaction. Therefore, the second acquisition would not be subject to the requirements of the act since the value of the securities to be acquired does not exceed the $50 million (as adjusted) size-of-transaction test.
( c ) The value of all non-corporate interests of the acquired person which the acquiring person would hold as a result of the acquisition, determined in accordance with § 801.13(c).
[43 FR 33537, July 31, 1978, as amended at 66 FR 8689, Feb. 1, 2001; 67 FR 11902, Mar. 18, 2002; 70 FR 4991, Jan. 31, 2005; 70 FR 73372, Dec. 12, 2005]
§ 802.65 Exempt acquisition of non-corporate interests in financing transactions. An acquisition of non-corporate interests that confers control of a new or existing unincorporated entity is exempt from the notification requirements of the Act if: ( a ) The acquiring person is contributing only cash to the unincorporated entity;
( b ) For the purpose of providing financing; and
( c ) The terms of the financing agreement are such that the acquiring person will no longer control the entity after it realizes its preferred return.
[70 FR 11514, Mar. 8, 2005]
1

NRR-PMDAPEm Resource

From: Deborah Grinnell <grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 12:46 PM

To: Lamb, John

Cc: Paul Brown

Subject: [External_Sender] Paul Brown's comments for the NRC PRB considering C-10's 2, 206 

Petition on Feb 16th 

Dear Ms. Grinnell 

Please feel free to pass the following comments on to Mr. Lamb of the NRC 

There is no justification for not testing cores. (1) The implications of the magnitudes of core 

compressive strengths and core splitting tensile strengths and their ratios on the deterioration of 

concrete are well understood within the concrete community. Perhaps this is the basis for the 

reluctance of the utility to acquire these data. (2) Core testing is governed by an ASTM standard and 

is the principal way by which concrete behavior is evaluated. (3) Extraction of cores is governed by an 

ASTM standard and is not meaningfully damaging to a structure. (4) The data obtained from testing 

cores extracted from locations where there is concern about the occurrence of ASR can be compared 

to cores extracted from locations where ASR has not occurred and both can be compared to design 

strengths. Had this been systematically been done since ASR was first observed, there would 

presently be a basis for understanding whether ASR is meaningfully progressing or not and there 

basis for at least qualitatively predicting future performance. (5) The cost of extraction and testing of 

cores is moderate, approximately $100/per core. 

Regards 

Paul Brown 
Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA 

Email Number: 2656 

Mail Envelope Properties (6AB8780D-4F32-4441-8B93-1563A5D2E2C5) 

Subject: [External_Sender] Paul Brown's comments for the NRC PRB considering C-10's 

2, 206 Petition on Feb 16th 

Sent Date: 2/14/2016 12:46:28 PM 

Received Date: 2/14/2016 12:46:41 PM 

From: Deborah Grinnell 

Created By: grinnelldebbie2@gmail.com 

Recipients: 

"Paul Brown" <grtbrown@aol.com> 

Tracking Status: None 

"Lamb, John" <John.Lamb@nrc.gov> 

Tracking Status: None 

Post Office: gmail.com 

Files Size Date & Time 

MESSAGE 1244 2/14/2016 12:46:41 PM 

Options 

Priority: Standard 

Return Notification: No 

Reply Requested: No 

Sensitivity: Normal 

Expiration Date: 

Recipients Received:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00057

- CV

Luis Hess v. Rudy Villarreal
On Appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 4354

- 13

- E

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appe al, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for observance. December 30, 2014
§ 890.1409 Cancellation of coverage or decreases in enrollment. ( a ) A tribal employee enrolled under this subpart may cancel enrollment as described at § 890.304(d) or decrease his or her enrollment as described at § 890.301. A tribal employee who does not participate in premium conversion may cancel his or her enrollment or decrease his or her enrollment at any time by request to the tribal employer, unless there is a legally binding court or administrative order requiring coverage of a child as described at § 890.301(g)(3). A tribal employee who participates in premium conversion may cancel his or her enrollment as provided by § 892.209 or decrease his or her enrollment as provided by § 892.208 of this chapter only during open season or because of and consistent with a qualifying life event.
( b ) A cancellation of enrollment becomes effective as described at § 890.304(d). A decrease in enrollment becomes effective as described in § 890.301(e)(2).
( c ) A tribal employee who cancels his or her enrollment under this section or decreases his or her enrollment may reenroll or increase his or her enrollment only during open season or because of and consistent with a qualifying life event.
#### § 5.64 Initial decision.

Section 3.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice shall govern the initial decision in proceedings under this subpart, except that the determination of the Administrative Law Judge must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
### **CHAPTER 8B—PUBLIC WORKS OR FACILITIES**
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 20, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1012

Lower Tribunal No. 19-34863

________________

L. Powers,

Appellant,

vs.

Arthur J. Morburger,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Martin Zilber, 

Judge.

L. Powers, in proper person.

Arthur J. Morburger, in proper person.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 07-2670 RICHARD DENNIS, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v . OSRAM SYLVANIA, INC., Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on December 10, 2008, is amended as follows: On p.7, line 17: Change heading "Dennis' Motion for Summary Judgment" to "Sylvania's Motion for Summary Judgment."
NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS OVERSIGHT

OF NEW SUMMER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNITS 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, Jan. 8, 

2013 to discuss the inspection and oversight process for two new nuclear units being built at the 

South Carolina Electric & Gas Summer plant site near Jenkinsville, S.C., about 26 miles 

northwest of Columbia.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will begin at 6 p.m. EST at the McCroreyListon Elementary School, 1978 State Highway 215 South in Blair, S.C.

At the meeting, NRC staff will be providing an update and seeking public comment on 

the NRC’s construction reactor oversight process, known as the cROP pilot program, at the 

Summer site. The program includes inspection, assessment, enforcement and the verification 

process to ensure that new nuclear power plants are built according to their approved design, 

their license and NRC regulations. 

“We hope people who live near the plant site or have an interest in the process will come 

out to give us their feedback on our overall process for ensuring the safety of the new units,” said

Fred Brown, NRC Region II deputy administrator for construction. 

The NRC has three construction resident inspectors at the Summer site, supplemented by 

additional inspectors from the regional office in Atlanta and NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

The NRC staff issued operating licenses for two AP1000 reactors at the Summer site in 

early 2012. SCE&G submitted its application for those units in March 2008. 

Additional information on the NRC construction reactor oversight process can be found 

at www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/oversight/crop.html.

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-12-068

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 

 December 28, 2012

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________ RAFIQ BIN BASHIR BIN : JALLUL ALHAMI, et al., : : Petitioners, : : v. : Civil Action No. 05-359 (GK) : GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., : : Respondents. : ______________________________: ORDER A Status Conference was held in this case on January 14, 2009, which was open to the public. Upon consideration of the representations of the parties, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED , that Respondents’ opposition to Petitioners’ Motion f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t i s due by 5:00 p.m. on February 6, 2009 . Petitioners’ reply is due by February 27, 2009 ; and it is further ORDERED , that a Motions Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgement will take place on March 10, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. The Hearing will be held in Courtroom 26A, and will be closed to the public so that classified matters can be discussed. At that hearing, Respondents will have 30 minutes to present their case,-2-

Petitioners will have 30 minutes to respond, and then Respondents will be allowed 15 minutes to reply.

/ s / January 14, 2009 Gladys Kessler United States District Judge Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
EXHIBIT 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.

We
consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 and Form S-3, File Nos. 333-46438,
333-89148, 333-126153, 333-107130, 333-118293, 333-126151, 333-135898, 333-145219 of Bancorp Rhode
Island, Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and
2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007
and the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Bancorp Rhode Island, Inc.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Providence,
Rhode Island
March 10, 2008

---



QuickLinks
#### § 1270.1 Scope, application, and effective date.

This part establishes a consumer product safety standard for adult portable bed rails manufactured after August 21, 2023.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENT EVAN WEBSTER, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 

Appellee.

No. 20-35798 

D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00875-MO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Brent Evan Webster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying any relief sought 

in his “objections to no evidence hearings on April 30, 2020,” in his adversary 

proceeding against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-35798 

U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Webster fails to address how the district court erred by 

dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, Webster has waived his 

challenge to the district court’s order. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 

(9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief 

are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We 

will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not 

preserve a claim . . . .”). 

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Mano-Y 

& M, Ltd. v. Field (In re Mortg. Store, Inc.), 773 F.3d 990, 998 (9th Cir. 2014); 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Barry Moss et al., Respondents, v Thomas H. McKelvey et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[821 NYS2d 525]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered February 17, 2006. The order granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted plaintiffs’ motion insofar as it sought partial summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the motion for leave to renew is denied.

Same memorandum as in *Moss v McKelvey*(32 AD3d 1281 [2006]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Gorski, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
#### § 308.1 Scope of regulations in this part.

This rule implements titles II and III of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, to be codified in relevant part at 15 U.S.C. 5711-14, 5721-24.
#### § 1420.4 Restrictions on three-wheel ATVs.

Until a mandatory consumer product safety standard applicable to three-wheel ATVs promulgated pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act is in effect, new three wheel ATVs may not be imported into or distributed in commerce in the United States.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2524 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2524

To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue 
   Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ``Federal Bureau of 
                       Investigation Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2003

  Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. 
 Delahunt, Mr. Blumenauer, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Lewis of 
Georgia, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Watt, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Watson, 
 and Mr. Conyers) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate the Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue 
   Northwest in the District of Columbia as the ``Federal Bureau of 
                       Investigation Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest 
in the District of Columbia, commonly known as the J. Edgar Hoover 
Federal Building, shall be known and designated as the ``Federal Bureau 
of Investigation Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Federal Bureau of 
Investigation Building''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Maria Wyatt v. Ruth O. Wyatt.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 562.]
#### Colonial Piece Dye Works, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. General Dyestuff Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. [Tuller Fabrics Corp., Plaintiff, v. Colonial Piece Dye Works, Inc., Defendant.]

—Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 858.]
§ 995.3 Availability of other publications. ( a ) For further guidance you may obtain the following: ( 1 ) IEC 61174—The International Electrotechnical Commission identified and described the necessary performance tests and checks for an International Maritime Organization (IMO) compliant ECDIS. The IMO Performance Standards permit National Maritime Safety Administrations to consider ECDIS as the functional equivalent to charts required by Regulation V, Chapter 20 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention. IEC Publication 61174, dated August 1998, can be purchased from the IEC Web site: *http://www.iec.ch .*
( 2 ) IHO Special Publication S57—The IHO Transfer Standard for Hydrographic Data, edition 3.1, dated November 2000, describes the data structure and format to be used for the exchange of ENC data, product specification for the production of ENC data, and an updating profile. IHO S-57 documentation is available for free download at *http://www.iho.shom.fr .* Send written requests to the International Hydrographic Bureau, 4 quai Antoine 1er, B.P. 445, MC 98011 MONACO CEDEX; telephone: (377) 93.10.81.00; e-mail: *info@ihb.mc .*
( 3 ) IHO Special Publication S58—The IHO Validation Checks for Hydrographic Data, edition 2.0, dated October 2003, describes the validation checks to be used on ENC data. This document was formally published as S-57 Appendix B.1, Annex C, but has been renamed to S-58 due to the S-57 publication having been frozen (*i.e.* will not change) for a fixed time period. IHO S-58 documentation is available for free download at *http://www.iho.shom.fr .* Send written requests to the International Hydrographic Bureau, 4 quai Antoine 1er, B.P. 445, MC 98011 MONACO CEDEX; telephone: (377) 93.10.81.00; e-mail: *info@ihb.mc .*
( b ) [Reserved]
Exhibit 35.1

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

|   | Re: | HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------|

|   | Series 2007-1, Class A Notes and Series 2007-2, Class A Notes |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|

 

I, Dennis J. Mickey, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer – Treasury of HSBC Finance Corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 3.05 of the Second Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2006 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Receivables Funding Inc. I, as Transferor, the Company, as Servicer, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee of the HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I, hereby certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Company from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below: |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | NONE |
|--------|------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 12th day of March 2010.

 

HSBC Finance Corporation

 

 

|   | By: | /s/ Dennis J. Mickey |
|--------|-----|----------------------|

|   | Name: | Dennis J. Mickey |
|--------|-------|------------------|

|   | Title: | Senior Vice President, Chief |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|

Operating Officer – Treasury
Exhibit 32

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nelnet Education Loan Funding,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.


Date:  August 16, 2004                     By:    /s/ Terry J. Heimes
                                                  ------------------------------
                                           Name:  Terry J. Heimes
                                           Title: President
                                                  (Chief Executive Officer)
                                           By:    /s/ James D. Kruger
                                                  ------------------------------
                                           Name:  James D. Kruger
                                           Title: Secretary and Treasurer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)