alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. THOMAS MICHAEL LUTZ-MORRISON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 764 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 8th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is: (1) Whether [Petitioner] is subject to lifetime reporting requirements pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A[.] § 9799.15.
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 ARDEN REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS) ARDEN REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPFor the Years Ended December 31,2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001
    
    
    2000Earnings Available to Cover Fixed Charges:Net income
    
    $
    79,791
    
    
    $
    65,994
    
    
    $
    77,663
    
    
    $
    106,257
    
    
    $
    105,209Add:Interest Expense(1)
    
    
    89,515


    
    
    93,767


    
    
    88,516


    
    
    84,195
    (2)
    
    
    78,406
    (2)Total Earnings Available to Cover Fixed Charges
    
    $
    169,306
    
    
    $
    159,761
    
    
    $
    166,179
    
    
    $
    190,452
    
    
    $
    183,615Fixed Charges:Interest Expense(1)
    
    $
    89,515


    
    $
    93,767


    
    $
    88,516
    
    
    $
    84,195
    
    
    $
    78,406Interest Capitalized
    
    
    936
    
    
    
    2,496
    
    
    
    5,646
    
    
    
    9,095
    
    
    
    12,646Preferred Distributions
    
    
    4,309

(3)
    
    
    4,312
    
    
    
    4,312
    
    
    
    4,312
    
    
    
    4,312Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    94,760
    
    
    $
    100,575
    
    
    $
    98,474
    
    
    $
    97,602
    
    
    $
    95,364Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.79
    x
    
    
    1.59
    x
    
    
    1.69
    x
    
    
    1.95
    x
    
    
    1.93
    x
   (1)
    
    Includes interest expense for a property currently classified as
held for disposition.(2)
    
    Includes approximately $2.5 million and
$0.8 million of interest capitalized on an
office property that was classified as part of discontinued operations for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2000.(3)
    
    Includes approximately $1.1 million
allocated to the preferred partners relating to the original issuance
costs of the Preferred OP Units which were redeemed on
September 28, 2004.
#### Paul Maddaus, Respondent, v. William Goffen, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel, Botein and Rabin, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1050.]
### SUBCHAPTER IV—FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
No: III-16-011 May 26, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss Agency’s Assessment of

Fermi Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open house on June 2 to discuss the agency’s 

annual review of safety performance at the Fermi nuclear power plant. The single-unit plant is operated

by DTE Electric, and is located in Newport, Mich., about 25 miles northeast of Toledo, Ohio. 

The public will be able to talk with NRC staff members and ask questions about the plant’s 

2015 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. The open house, which will also include 

informational posters, is scheduled for 6-8 p.m. EDT at the Monroe County Board of Commissioners’ 

Chambers, County Courthouse, 125 E. Second St., in Monroe.

“NRC inspectors who work at the plant and NRC staff from our regional office in Lisle, Ill., are 

looking forward to speaking with members of the public about Fermi’s performance and other topics 

related to nuclear safety that are of interest to the community,” said NRC Region III Administrator 

Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold such meetings near the plant every year to discuss how we ensure the 

plant operates safely and foster an open dialogue with the public.”

The NRC concluded that, overall, Fermi operated safely in 2015. All performance indicators 

and inspection findings for the plant were “green.” As a result, the plant will continue to receive the 

NRC’s normal level of oversight during 2016. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear 

plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow,” or “red,” 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical 

measurements of plant and equipment performance.

Inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant, inspection 

specialists from the Region III Office, and specialists from the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year are activities associated with radiological 

safety, equipment designs and emergency preparedness.

The NRC’s 2015 assessment letter and current performance information for Unit 2 is available 

on the NRC website.
DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 18- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Chapter 50. Air Quality Control

Article 1. Ambient Air Quality Management 

Section 50.030 State air quality plan. 

Adopted

May 29, 2012

Sean Parnell

Governor

Larry Hartig

Commissioner
This page was intentionally left blank for two-sided copying.
1

Register ___, ________ 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

The lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.030 is amended to read:

18 AAC 50.030. State air quality plan. Volumes II and III of the State Air Quality 

Control Plan for implementing and enforcing the provisions of AS 46.14 and this chapter, as 

amended through {adoption date of the regulations} [JULY 13, 2011], are adopted by reference. 

The plan includes the following documents which are also adopted by reference:

(Eff. 1/18/97, Register 141; am 6/21/98, Register 146; am 9/4/98, Register 147; am 1/1/2000, 

Register 152; am 12/30/2000; Register 156; am 9/21/2001, Register 159; am 1/27/2002, Register 

161; am 3/27/2002, Register 161; am 5/3/2002, Register 162; am 2/20/2004, Register 169; am 

6/24/2004, Register 170; am 10/1/2004, Register 171; am 12/14/2006, Register 180; am 

12/30/2007, Register 184; am 5/17/2008, Register 186; am 7/25/2008, Register 187; am 

11/9/2008, Register 188; am 5/6/2009, Register 190; am 11/4/2009, Register 192; am 4/1/2010, 

Register 193; am 10/29/2010, Register 196; am 4/13/2011, Register 198; am 9/17/2011, Register 

199; am ___/___/___, Register ___)

Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.14.030 Sec. 30, ch. 74, SLA 1993

AS 46.14.020 AS 46.14.140
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0021: Discontinuation of Rulemaking Activities

Accession Number: ML16063A134

Date Released: Wednesday, March 16, 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.
    - ML15336A324 - SECY-16-0021:  Discontinuation of Rulemaking Activities. (9 page(s), 2/29/2016)
    - ML15336A413 - SECY-16-0021 - Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC (Enclosure) (21 page(s), 2/29/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### Anthon Bozevich, an Infant, by Wladas Bozevich, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. William A. Jamison and Others, etc., Defendants; William A. Jamison, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 31, 2022

No. 04-22-00446-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.L.C., A CHILD

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-0569-CV-A

Honorable Heather H. Wright, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 28, 2022, this court received appellant’s brief. The brief violates Rule 38 of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that the statement of facts and the argument do not 

contain any citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g), (i). It is therefore ORDERED 

that the brief filed by the appellant is STRICKEN from our record. It is further ORDERED that 

appellant must file an amended brief, in compliance with Rule 38.1 that includes appropriate 

citations to the record. It is further ORDERED that appellant’s amended brief is due on 

November 30, 2022, or this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.9, 42.3.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
### §13712. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13712 was editorially reclassified as section 12112 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
No. IV-16-006 March 17, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC to Hold Open House on April 21 for Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public open house on April 21, in Hahnville, 

La., to discuss the agency’s annual review of safety performance at the Waterford 3 nuclear power 

plant. The plant is operated by Entergy Operations, Inc.

NRC staff will be on hand from 5 to 7 p.m. at the St. Charles Parish Emergency Operations 

Center, 15026 River Road, Hahnville. While there are no formal presentations during the open house,

the public will have an opportunity to ask about the NRC’s assessment of the plant’s performance in 

2015 and the agency’s oversight plans for 2016. Among the NRC staff in attendance will be the 

resident inspectors assigned to the plant on a full-time basis. 

The NRC assesses plant performance through the use of inspection findings and other indicators 

that can trigger additional regulatory oversight if needed. Overall, the plant operated safely in 2015.

“By assessing each plant’s performance in a comprehensive manner, we are able to focus our 

inspection resources on those areas most in need of attention,” NRC Region IV Administrator 

Marc Dapas said. “Because Waterford 3 did not have any safety or security issues above very low 

significance in 2015, we are not planning any inspections above and beyond our normal baseline level 

of oversight.” 

The NRC’s normal level of oversight at each U.S. nuclear power plant involves thousands of 

hours of inspection. In 2015, the agency devoted about 6,000 hours of inspection and review at 

Waterford 3.

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of the 

plant during 2015. Current performance information for the plant can be found on the NRC website.
### §11824. Applications

#### (a) Submission of application

Any State, unit of local government (or combination of units of local government), agency, organization, institution, or individual desiring to receive a grant, or enter into a contract, under this subchapter shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and containing or accompanied by such information as may be prescribed by the Federal officer who is authorized to make such grant or enter into such contract (hereinafter in this subchapter referred to as the "appropriate Federal officer").

#### (b) Contents of application

In accordance with guidelines established by the appropriate Federal officer, each application for assistance under this subchapter shall—

(1) set forth a project or activity for carrying out one or more of the purposes for which such grant or contract is authorized to be made and expressly identify each such purpose such project or activity is designed to carry out,

(2) provide that such project or activity shall be administered by or under the supervision of the applicant,

(3) provide for the proper and efficient administration of such project or activity,

(4) provide for regular evaluation of such project or activity,

(5) provide that regular reports on such project or activity shall be sent to the appropriate Federal officer, and

(6) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement, and accurate accounting of funds received under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 100–690, title III, §3514, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4256.)
§ 1512.15 Requirements for seat. ( a ) *Seat limitations.* No part of the seat, seat supports, or accessories attached to the seat shall be more than 125 mm (5.0 in) above the top of the seat surface at the point where the seat surface is intersected by the seat post axis. This requirement does not apply to recumbent bicycles.
( b ) *Seat post.* The seat post shall contain a permanent mark or ring that clearly indicates the minimum insertion depth (maximum seat-height adjustment); the mark shall not affect the structural integrity of the seat post. This mark shall be located no less than two seat-post diameters from the lowest point on the post shaft, and the post strength shall be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark. This requirement does not apply to bicycles with integrated seat masts, however, a permanent mark or other means to clearly indicate that the seat or seat posts is safely installed shall be provided.
( c ) *Adjustment clamps.* The seat adjustment clamps shall be capable of securing the seat in any position to which it can be adjusted and preventing movement of the seat in any direction under normal conditions of use. Following the road test, § 1512.18(p) (or the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q), as applicable), the seat clamps shall be tested in accordance with the seat adjustment clamps and load test, § 1512.18(l).
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]
#### FARRAR et al. v. YANKTON LAND & INVESTMENT CO. et al.

Where the bill of exceptions- has been stricken out and no errors appear in the record -proper, or that -do not require support from a bill of exceptions, the judgment will be affirmed.

(Opinion filed, July 22, 1910.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pennington County. Hon. Lkvi McGbE, Judge.

Action by John J. Farrar and another, coportners, against the Yankton Rand & Investment Company, a corporation, and others. *95From a judgment for plaintiffs and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeal.

Affirmed.

Se, also 23 S. D. 525, 122 N. W. 585.

*Harry Kunjile,*for appellants Yankton Land & Investment Co., Taylor and Loffler. *Gamble, Tripp*& *Holman,*for appellants Stockwell & Lusk. *Charles W. Brown,*for respondents.

WHITING, P. J.

This appeal was taken tO' the April, 1909, term, and during said term, upon motion of the. respondents, the purported bill of exceptions appearing upon the record on this appeal, was stricken from such records. Thereafter, upon the petition of the appellants, this court at the October, 1909, term, granted an' order directing that upon payment by appellants of certain terms therein mentioned the record herein should be returned to the trial court “for the purpose of allowing appellants to apply to that court for an order to enlarge the' time in which a bill of exceptions or statement of the case- may be settled; to settle a bill or statement if that court in its discretion shall so order,” etc.

The appellants having failed to pay said terms or take any further steps herein; upon the petition of the respondents, an order to- show cause issued from this court requiring the appellants to show cause why the appeal herein should not be heard on its merits and the last order above held for naught, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed without further showing or proceedings. The appellants wholly failed to answer such order to show cause, and, it appearing that the respondents are entitled to a decision from this court upon the record as it now appears herein, and there being no errors claimed except such as are based upon matters appearing only in said purported bill of exceptions, the judgment of the trial court, and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.

SMITH and McCOY, JJ., taking no part herein.
#### Lewis Newman, Appellant, v. John Maggio, Doing Business as Rapid Cleaners, Respondent.

Action to recover as damages an unpaid baldiLce t>£ the purchase price of cleaning machinery, which balance was to be evidenced by notes to be given by the defendant, the purchaser, and to recover for work; labor and services. Defendant counterclaimed for the return of $2,700 paid i on account of the purchase price, $200 paid, at plaintiff’s request, to an employee <of plaintiff, and for further damages. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment (entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of defendant on the counterclaim and 'dismissing the complaint. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and new (trial granted. While the jury could find that the parties modified the original .■agreement to provide that appellant was obligated to deliver the cleaning ¡machine and the tumbler only, and that respondent could rescind if there was a ¡breach of warranty as to those articles, nevertheless it is undisputed that, long ■■after discovery of the alleged breach, the respondent retained and used the ■■articles after the refusal to accept their return, without promise of improvement in operation, or request or consent by appellant that respondent continue to use them on trial. Respondent’s conduct constituted an acceptance of the articles. (Cf. *Dwnornn*V. *Aeolian Co.,*270 N. Y. 267.) The proof did not, therefore, warrant submitting to the jury the respondent’s right to recover the payments made. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection withthe report of Nano-Jet Corp. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the "Report"), I, Ken Martin, Chief Financial Officer and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect. 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Ken Martin, Chief Financial Officerand

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: November 20, 2006
Extension Letter, dated June 21,2007



 Exhibit 10.8 
 Bank of America, N.A. 
 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 
 4 Penn Center, Suite 1100 
 Philadelphia, PA
19103 
 Banc of America Securities LLC 
 214 North Tryon Street, 17th & 18th Floors 
 Charlotte, NC 28255 
 June 21, 2007 
 StoneMor Operating LLC 
 155 Rittenhouse Circle 
 Bristol, Pennsylvania 19007 
 Attention: William Shane, President 
  

	 	Re:	Extension of Commitment Letter 

 Dear Bill: 
 You have requested that we extend the expiration date of our commitment letter dated March 15, 2007, as previously extended by an extension letter
dated May 31, 2007 (as so extended, the “Commitment Letter”), pursuant to which Bank of America, N.A. and Banc of America Securities LLC (collectively, “Bank of America”) advised you of their commitment to arrange for you a
$65,000,000 Senior Secured Credit Facility (the “Facility”). Subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Commitment Letter (other than the expiration date), Bank of America hereby agrees to extend the expiration of the
Commitment Letter to July 31, 2007. 
 If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please execute the enclosed copy of this letter no
later than 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2007. The Commitment Letter shall terminate if this letter is not so accepted by you prior to that time. Following acceptance by you, the Commitment Letter shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2007, unless
the Facility is closed by such time. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kenneth G. Wood

		 	Kenneth G. Wood, Senior Vice President
	
	BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Robert C. Megan

		 	Robert C. Megan, Managing Director


 EXTENSION ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO 
 THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2007: 
  

			
	STONEMOR OPERATING LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ William R. Shane

		 	William R. Shane, Executive Vice President
---

---

EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of ACRO Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gabby Klausner, the Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 13, 2007

|/s/ Gabby Klausner
Gabby KlausnerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer) |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 



---

---
#### Mola Realties, Inc., Appellant, v. Spear Dress Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Little Sioux CornProcessors, L.L.C. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gary Grotjohn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |     | /s/ Gary Grotjohn         |
|--------|----------|---------------------------|
|   |     | Gary Grotjohn             |
|   | * * | *Chief Financial Officer* |
|   |     |                      |
|   |     | Dated: August 14, 2007    |

 

----