alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 165.1 General.

Section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act, entitled “Commodity Whistleblower Incentives and Protection,” requires the Commission to pay awards, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to whistleblowers who voluntarily provide the Commission with original information about violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. This part 165 describes the whistleblower program that the Commission intends to establish to implement the provisions of Section 23, and explains the procedures the whistleblower will need to follow in order to be eligible for an award. Whistleblowers should read these procedures carefully, because the failure to take certain required steps within the time frames described in this part may result in disqualification from receiving an award. Unless expressly provided for in this part, no person is authorized to make any offer or promise, or otherwise to bind the Commission with respect to the payment of any award or the amount thereof.
#### Julius Luftman et al., Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Tenants of the Hotel Marcy, v. Paul Ross et al., Constituting the Temporary City Housing Rent Commission of the City of New York, et al.

Present— Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 766.]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00153-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.H. AND G.F.H.,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA01945

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on September 24, 2018.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
No: 15-040 August 3, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

 

NRC Launches Special Inspection at Honeywell Metropolis Works

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a special inspection at Honeywell 

Metropolis Works to assess a uranium hexafluoride leak that occurred during maintenance activities 

Saturday evening.

The Metropolis, Ill., based uranium conversion facility declared an Alert, the lower of the 

NRC’s two emergency classification levels for fuel facilities, at 5:55 p.m. CDT on Saturday. 

Honeywell reported that a valve installed during the maintenance activities had begun to leak. No one 

at the facility was injured and the company reported that no material was released past the site 

boundary. The leak was reported to have been stopped at 7:48 p.m. CDT.

Honeywell officials indicated that the leak was on the sixth floor of the plant’s Feed Materials 

Building. The facility’s mitigation towers, which are large water sprays, were activated, and according 

to Honeywell, no uranium hexafluoride left the plant site. Monitoring devices located at the site

boundaries detected no radiological release beyond regulatory limits. 

“This special inspection will analyze all the details of this incident,” said Victor McCree, the 

NRC’s Region II administrator. “While no workers were affected and there was no offsite release, any 

release of uranium hexafluoride is a potentially serious event.”

The special inspection will look at the sequence of events leading up to the release, verify that 

the company followed its procedures for mitigating the release and notifying local and state agencies,

verify the initial information indicating that the material remained within the plant boundary, and assess

the performance of the plant’s detection and sampling systems. The NRC inspectors will also review 

any corrective actions the company has taken or is planning to take. 

A senior fuel facility inspector from the NRC’s Region II office in Atlanta arrived at the site

Sunday and began gathering information. The inspection is likely to take at least a week. A report 

documenting the findings will be issued within 45 days after the inspection is completed.
#### In the Matter of Heinrich J. Schneider, Petitioner, against John F. O’Connell et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Yan Yoorhis, JJ.
#### Jack Marcus, as Administrator of the Estate of Helen Marcus, Deceased, Respondent, v. Specific Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. *919Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### §13215. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 102–486, title III, §306, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2873, which related to incentives for Federal agencies to encourage and promote use of alternative fueled vehicles, ceased to be effective after Oct. 24, 1995.
### §13365. Coal fuel mixtures

Within one year following October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate on the status of technologies for combining coal with other materials, such as oil or water fuel mixtures. The report shall include—

(1) a technical and economic feasibility assessment of such technologies;

(2) projected developments in such technologies;

(3) an assessment of the market potential of such technologies, including the potential to displace imported crude oil and refined petroleum products;

(4) identification of barriers to commercialization of such technologies; and

(5) recommendations for addressing barriers to commercialization.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1336, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2985.)

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Commerce of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives, and jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges and insurance generally transferred to Committee on Financial Services of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 2001.
#### Gloria Rosenberg, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v. Barnes Development Corp. et al., Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ,
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OG A S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 73616 A ge nc yN o. A 079- 570- 221 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t14, 2013 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , G R A B E R , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J ogaS i ngh, ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen rem ov al pr oc e e di ngs . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of 

# FI LED AU G 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 73616 2 d is c r e tio n th e B I A ’s d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . N

aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 597 F . 3d 9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng S i ng h’ s m ot i on t o reopen as un t i m el y w here the m ot i on w as fi l ed ov erthree ye ar s a ft erthe B IA ’ s f i nal order, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and S i ngh f a i l e d t o pr e s e nts uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e of c h an g e dc i r c u ms t an c e s i n I n d i at o qu a l i f yf o rth e r e g u l a t o rye x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim it f o rf ilin g m o tio n s to r e o p e n , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; M al t y v . A s h c r o ft , 38 1 F . 3d94 2, 94 5 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( “ T he cr i t i ca lqu es t i on i s . . . w hether c i r c um s t anc e s have c hange d s uf f i c i e nt l ytha tape t i t i one rw ho pr e vi ous l ydi d not have a l egi t i m at e c l ai m for a sy l um no w has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe arof future p e r s e c u tio n .” ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Edward Montrose for Admission to Practice as an Attorney.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 1025.]
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 13 , 2015

NO. 03
- 12
- 00314
- CV

Dr. Saung Zin Park, Appellant

v. Escalera Ranch Owners' Association, Inc. and Rostrata Builders, Inc., Appellee S

APPEAL FROM 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PURYEAR AND PEMBERTON AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

–

OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on February 9, 2012 . Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in those portions of the trial court’s judgment granting injunctive relief, attor neys’ fees, interest, and costs to Escalera Ranch Owners’ Association , and therefore, we affirm those portions of the trial court’s judgment and affirm that Park take nothing on his counterclaims against Escalera Ranch Owners’ Association . However, we fin d that there was reversible error in the portion of the trial court’s judgment dismissing Park’s claims against Rostrata Builders, Inc. with prejudice , and therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the
trial co urt to allow Park to replead to cure the defects in his complaint against Rostrata Builders,
Inc. Park shall pay costs incurred by himself and by Escalera Ranch Owners’ Associationrelating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below. Rostrata Builders, Inc. shall pay

costs incurred by itself relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
>4J;e4/,s 

~-h.+1a..-, 

J<e~ Cho...V'e.;z._" C.e..sar .Tva..., 

CcA /1/a, WA_- 8P<-, :S-S·I -CJ i 

J:-,c..l Covrt we.. ...%. WOB·-o''f....SZ 7- I? fA) 

)tJ .~ Al~ I A ?o_:s Jc~ / C./ e r J:. 

. XVV\. wrr)-/-rJ -k A/o-//-~ ~' Uvr-/-.s ~~ ,~ h-'lai/,;::s 

?f)Jres..s ~ C.J..a~ Gl;'ICe,.. ~,,. .- ';A.~:- .-v~ rf.,_/cJ,.~ /,S -~ Lonn.::-t.lly VrrJi,; 

8 ql!( F.A1 6 .:SOl ,, k t:..n e...P'Y , 'Texet.s 78 i 11-

I. .vv-.. /1 aJ.-so ·vvav/.J /.xe- !o x-Y'IO.-- ,:.,L c..u_e- ~~~J of! ~ 

Cu~e A~ e~~e- . 

I e-P I' 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

MAY 28 2015 

Abel Acost~, Gferk
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67943-67944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25841]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Distributed Management Task Force, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Distributed Management Task 
Force, Inc. (``DMTF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
(1) the name and principal place of business of the standards 
development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards 
development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Distributed 
Management Task Force, Inc., Portland, OR. The nature and scope

[[Page 67944]]

of DMTF's standards development activities are: To develop standards 
for common management infrastructure components for instrumentation, 
control, and communications in a platform-independent and technology 
neutral way. DMTF technologies include information models (CIM), 
communication/control protocols (WBEM), and core management services/
utilities.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25841 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No: II-15-028 April 15, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

 Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Meetings to Discuss Agency’s Assessment of 

Vogtle Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Operation, and Units 3 and 4 Construction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for April 23 to discuss 

the safety performance in 2014 of Southern Nuclear Operating Co.’s two-unit Vogtle nuclear plant, 

near Waynesboro, Ga., about 26 miles southeast of Augusta. A separate meeting will follow covering 

the NRC inspections and the 2014 assessment for the two new units that are under construction at the 

same site. 

The open house will begin at 6 p.m. in the Augusta Technical Campus Auditorium, 

216 Highway 24 South in Waynesboro. 

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

operating units during 2014 and will serve as the basis for informal discussions during the open house. 

The NRC found that the two operating Vogtle units met all NRC safety objectives in 2014. That 

performance means the plant will continue to receive the normal detailed NRC inspections this year. 

However, an apparent violation related to a shipment of radioactive waste has not been finalized and 

could affect the level of NRC oversight at the plant.

“NRC inspectors continually evaluate each nuclear plant’s safety, and each year we take a 

detailed look at that information to identify any trends and help plan future inspections,” said 

NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “Inspection results are available throughout the year, but 

these annual meetings allow us to talk to local residents and answer any questions they may have.”

Current performance information for Vogtle Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC website. 

At the second public meeting, which is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. in the same auditorium, the 

NRC staff will discuss the agency’s assessment of the construction of the two new units in 2014. The 

NRC has two resident inspectors for the operating units and four resident inspectors at the Vogtle 

construction site.

A letter sent from the NRC to plant officials addresses the oversight of the construction and will 

serve as the basis for the meeting presentation. The NRC staff found that the units were being 

constructed in a manner that protected public health and safety and met all regulatory objectives.

The NRC website has additional information on the NRC construction reactor oversight 

process.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0961. CASEY ATES v. FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT.

Prisoner Casey Ates has filed an original mandamus petition in this Court. In

the petition, Atesstatesthat in 2010, he obtained a judgment in Bibb County Superior

Court, presumably against the State. In 2017, Ates filed a “claim” in Fulton County

Superior Court seeking to collect the judgment.

1 According to Ates, the Fulton

County Superior Court “refuse[d] to prosecute [his] claim.” Ates, however, has not

included any order from Fulton County Superior Court disposing of his claim. Ates

asks us to “order that [his] claim be heard fairly under the law.”

“Generally, the superior courts of this state have the power, in proper cases, to

issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo

warranto, and injunction, and hence the need to resort to the appellate courts for such

relief by petition filed in the appellate courts will be extremely rare.” Brown v.

Johnson, 251 Ga. 436, 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983). Based on the limited information

that Ates has provided us, it does not appear that this is one of the extremely rare

instances in which this Court will exercise original mandamus jurisdiction. See Gay

v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480, 483 (2) (738 SE2d 614) (2013). Until such time as Ates has

pursued formal relief in superior court and obtained a ruling thereon, there is no basis

1

It is not clear whether Ates’s “claim” took the form of a proposed complaint.

January 09, 2018
for this Court to exercise jurisdiction. See Brown, 251 Ga. at 437. Accordingly, this

petition is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/09/2018
### §13432. Advanced automotive fuel economy

#### (a) Program direction

The Secretary shall conduct a program, in accordance with sections 13541 and 13542 of this title, to supplement ongoing research activities of a similar nature at the Department of Energy, to accelerate the near-term and mid-term development of advanced technologies to improve the fuel economy of light-duty passenger vehicles powered by a piston engine, and hybrid vehicles powered by a combination of piston engine and electric motor.

#### (b) Program goal

The goal of the program established under subsection (a) shall be to stimulate the development of emerging technologies with the potential to achieve significant improvements in fuel economy while reducing emissions of air pollutants.

#### (c) Proposals

Within 1 year after October 24, 1992, the Secretary shall solicit proposals for conducting activities under this section, making a special effort to involve small businesses in the program.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XX, §2022, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3061.)
---

---

Exhibit 32.1

# 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-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), we, Gadi Aner, President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director of the Company, and Gabby Klausner, Treasurer and Chief Financial 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, to our knowledge, 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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Gadi Aner
Gadi AnerPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By: /s/ Gabby Klausner
Gabby KlausnerTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 20, 2009



---

---
#### § 2.5 By whom conducted.

Inquiries and investigations are conducted under the various statutes administered by the Commission by Commission representatives designated and duly authorized for the purpose. Such representatives are “examiners” or “Commission investigators” within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act and are authorized to exercise and perform the duties of their office in accordance with the laws of the United States and the regulations of the Commission. Included among such duties is the administration of oaths and affirmations in any matter under investigation by the Commission.

[45 FR 36341, May 29, 1980]
CC Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898








STOCK OPTION PLAN

OPTION AGREEMENT

Without prior written approval of the TSX Venture Exchange  and compliance with all applicable securities legislation, the securities represented by this agreement and any securities issued upon exercise thereof may not be sold, transferred, hypothecated or otherwise traded on or through the facilities of the TSX Venture Exchange or otherwise in Canada or to or for the benefit of a Canadian resident until , 200 four months and one day after the date of grant.

This Option Agreement is entered into between Pan-Nevada Gold Corporation (previously Castleworth Ventures Inc.) ("the Corporation") and the Optionee named below pursuant to the Pan-Nevada Gold Corporation Stock Option Plan (the "Plan"), a copy of which is attached hereto, and confirms that:

1.

on , 200 (the "Grant Date");

2.

 (the "Optionee");

3.

was granted the option (the "Option") to purchase  Common Shares (the "Option Shares") of the Corporation;

4.

for the price (the "Option Price") of $ per share;

5.

which shall be exercisable ("Vested") as to ;

6.

terminating on the , 200 (the "Expiry Date");

all on the terms and subject to the conditions set out in the Plan.  For greater certainty, once Option Shares have become Vested, they continue to be exercisable until the termination or cancellation thereof as provided in this Option Agreement and the Plan.

By signing this Option Agreement, the Optionee acknowledges that the Optionee has read and understands the Plan and agrees to the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Option Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Option Agreement as of the  day of , 200.

		
	





OPTIONEE

	


Per:



Authorized Signatory