alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of James L. Benbow, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 869]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 19, 2004, which ruled that claimant was *1095disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked for the employer as a teaching assistant in its program for children with special needs. He was discharged after he failed to follow the instructions of a supervising teacher concerning the appropriate manner of handling a child who was exhibiting behavioral problems. This occurred after claimant had previously been warned about not following directions and had been placed under a performance improvement plan. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. An employee’s insubordinate behavior as evidenced by his or her failure to follow an employer’s reasonable instructions has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Guagliardo [Commissioner of Labor],*27 AD 3d 866, 867 [2006]; *Matter of Mercure [Commissioner of Labor],*27 AD3d 857, 857 [2006]; *Matter of Seguin [Sweeney],*244 AD2d 747, 747 [1997]). Here, after documenting claimant’s repeated failure to comply with directives as well as his arguments with supervisors, the employer gave claimant an opportunity to correct his behavior and warned him that, if he did not do so, he could be terminated. Claimant nevertheless continued to disregard the employer’s instructions during the incident leading to his discharge. Claimant’s contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Giotis [Hartnett],*176 AD2d 1164, 1165 [1991]). His remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
No: II-15-006 March 9, 2015

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss Annual Assessment of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house on Tuesday, 

March 17 to discuss the agency’s assessment of the safety performance during 2014 at the St. Lucie

nuclear power plant.

The plant, operated by Florida Power & Light Co., is located about 10 miles southeast of Fort

Pierce near Jensen Beach, Fla.

The informal open house and poster session is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in Room 6 of the 

Havert L. Fenn Center, 2000 Virginia Avenue, in Fort Pierce. NRC staff will be available to answer 

questions on the plant’s safety performance during the last calendar year or any other concerns 

expressed by members of the public.

“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.”

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

plant during 2014 and will serve as the basis for the open house. It is available on the NRC website.

The NRC review concluded that the St. Lucie plant operated in a manner that preserved public 

health and safety and protected the environment. Unit One will receive some additional oversight and 

inspection due to a finding of low to moderate safety significance in the third quarter of 2014. That 

finding – since corrected – involved failure to maintain watertight integrity of the reactor auxiliary 

building. Unit Two will continue to receive detailed routine or baseline inspections this year that all 

nuclear power plants receive.

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

performance. The colors start with green, which has very low safety significance, and then progress to

white, yellow or red, based on the significance of the issues. The Unit One finding from 2014 was 

white, which had low to moderate safety significance. Inspection findings and performance indicators 

are updated on the NRC’s website each quarter. 

Current performance information for St. Lucie Unit 1 and Unit 2 is available on the NRC 

website.
#### Etta Stadelmann, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 30823.)

—Judgment affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment dismissing a claim for damages for personal injuries and for property damage to claimant’s automobile, alleged to have resulted by reason of negligent condition of State highway.) Present — McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball, Piper and Wheeler, JJ,
### §17707. Reports

The Secretary of Defense shall report to the Congress and the President—

(1) in January of each year, the actions taken under this chapter during the preceding 12 months; and

(2) not later than 90 days after completion of each transfer under this chapter, a full account of that transfer.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1288.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 17707 | 40:786. | Pub. L. 90–135, title I, §206, Nov. 14, 1967, 81 Stat. 443. |

Section
### §10200. Study of research and development needs for monitored retrievable storage proposal

Not later than 6 months after January 7, 1983, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report describing the research and development activities the Secretary considers necessary to develop the proposal required in section 10161(b) of this title with respect to a monitored retrievable storage facility.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title II, §220, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2254.)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 5, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00495

- CV

Josefina LOPEZ

, Appellant

v.

GERMANIA FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATI ON and Christopher Yates, Appellees

From the County Court at Law No

. 2

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CVH

- 002055

- C3

Honorable Victor Villarreal , Judge Presidin g

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of this appeal are assessed against appellant.

It is so ORDERED on February 5, 2020

.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

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

court on this 5th day of February, 2020

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
No: IV-15-003 January 26, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC Begins Special Inspection at River Bend Station 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the River Bend Station 

nuclear power plant to review circumstances surrounding an unplanned reactor shutdown that occurred 

on Dec. 25, 2014. The plant, operated by Entergy Operations, Inc., is located in St. Francisville, La.

The plant was operating at 85 percent capacity Christmas morning when an unplanned 

shutdown with complications occurred. Following the shutdown some problems were experienced with 

the plant’s feedwater system, which supplies short-term cooling water to the reactor core, as well as 

several electrical circuit breakers. Operators took compensatory action to ensure the plant would remain 

in a safe shutdown mode.

“The purpose of this special inspection is to better understand the circumstances surrounding the 

event, determine if there are any generic implications, and review the licensee’s corrective actions to 

ensure that the cause of the event, including associated equipment problems have been effectively 

addressed,” NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said.

 Several NRC inspectors will spend about a week on site evaluating the licensee’s root cause 

analysis, maintenance of some plant systems and adequacy of corrective actions. An inspection report 

documenting the team’s findings will be publicly available within 45 days of the end of the inspection.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3486 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3486

To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States 
receiving funds under section 106 of such Act to have in effect a State 
  law providing for a criminal penalty on an individual who fails to 
  report witnessing another individual engaging in sexual abuse of a 
                                 child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2011

Ms. Bass of California (for herself, Mr. Schilling, Mr. McDermott, Mr. 
   Fortenberry, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Towns, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. 
 Loebsack, Ms. Clarke of New York, and Ms. Richardson) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to require States 
receiving funds under section 106 of such Act to have in effect a State 
  law providing for a criminal penalty on an individual who fails to 
  report witnessing another individual engaging in sexual abuse of a 
                                 child.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Speak Out to Stop Child Abuse Act'' 
or the ``SOS Child Abuse Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT ON STATES RECEIVING GRANTS FOR CHILD ABUSE AND 
              NEGLECT PREVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 106(b)(2) of the Child Abuse Prevention 
and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(H) an assurance in the form of a certification 
                by the Governor of the State that the State has in 
                effect and is enforcing a State law providing for a 
                criminal penalty on an individual 18 years of age or 
                older who fails to report to a State or local law 
                enforcement official or child protective services that 
                the individual has witnessed another individual in the 
                State engaging in sexual abuse of a child.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Jack J. Sissman, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[820 NYS2d 533]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in 1962. He maintains a law office in Latham, Albany County.

Petitioner has commenced a disciplinary proceeding against respondent and now moves for an order suspending him from the practice of law due to incapacity pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (2) and this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.10 [a]). In support of the motion, petitioner submits reports from respondent’s treating physicians stating that he is no longer capable of practicing law. Respondent admits that his illnesses make it impossible for him to carry out his obligations to his clients. We grant petitioner’s motion and suspend respondent from practice indefinitely and until further order of this Court. We also grant petitioner’s motion for an order declaring that no factual issues are raised by the pleadings in the disciplinary proceeding and direct the Clerk to fix a time at which respondent may be heard in mitigation *(see*22 NYCRR 806.5).

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motions are granted; and it is further ordered that, pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.10 [a]), respondent is suspended from the practice of law indefinitely and until further order of this Court, effective immediately; and it is further ordered that, pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.5), it is declared that no factual issues are raised by the pleadings and the Clerk is directed to fix a time at which respondent may be heard in mitigation or otherwise; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
Exhibit
      32





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 Zingo, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Holly Roseberry,
      Chief
      Executive 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.





/s/
                Holly RoseberryHolly
                RoseberryChief
                Executive Officer and
              Principal
                Financial Officer





August
      17, 2007
No: IV-13-033 Nov. 4, 2013

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 100-1519

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at the Columbia Generating Station

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Daniel 

Bradley to be the new resident inspector at Columbia Generating Station, 

located 12 miles northwest of Richland, Wash.

“Daniel’s background and experience will assist the NRC in 

carrying out its mission of protecting people and the environment and 

ensuring the safe operation of the Columbia Generating Station,” said NRC 

Region IV Administrator Marc L. Dapas.

Bradley joined the NRC’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas in 

2011. He worked as a project engineer in the Division of Reactor Projects. Prior to joining the NRC, he 

served in the U.S. Navy’s submarine force aboard the USS Texas. He holds a bachelor’s degree in 

physics and a master’s degree in nuclear and radiological engineering from the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant has at least two resident inspectors. Bradley joins 

senior resident inspector Jeremy Groom. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, 

conducting inspections and monitoring significant work projects.

The Columbia Generating Station resident inspectors can be reached at (509) 377-2627.
exv10w6



 





Exhibit 10.6




QUICKSILVER RESOURCES INC.




Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation




     Beginning in 2007, each non-employee director of Quicksilver Resources Inc. receives an annual
fee of $205,000. Each non-employee director is paid $99,000 of the annual fee in restricted stock
under the Quicksilver Resources Inc. 2006 Equity Plan (the “Plan”). Each non-employee director is
paid the remaining $106,000 of the annual fee in cash, unless the non-employee director makes an
appropriate election under the Plan to receive some or all of the remaining $106,000 of the annual
fee in restricted stock or options to purchase common stock.
### §12655k. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–82, title I, §101(e)(8)(A), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 816

Section, Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §199L, formerly §132, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3147; renumbered §199L, Pub. L. 103–82, title I, §101(a), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 788, related to post-service benefits.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1993, see section 123 of Pub. L. 103–82, set out as an Effective Date of 1993 Amendment note under section 1701 of Title 16, Conservation.
No: III-14-040 November 24, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Proposes $3,500 Fine For an Indianapolis Engineering Consulting Company

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,500 civil penalty to ATC Group 

Services, Inc., for the failure to ensure the security of a portable gauge containing a low level of 

radioactive material. The company, based in Indianapolis, Ind., uses portable nuclear gauges to perform 

soil density measurements. 

The violation was identified during an NRC inspection and an investigation into the theft of a 

nuclear gauge from an employee’s vehicle. The NRC staff concluded the company violated NRC 

requirements by failing to secure the gauge while it was in an unrestricted area. Specifically, a company 

employee left the gauge in the back of an open-bed truck in a store parking lot in Indianapolis, Ind., 

with the truck door unlocked and the keys in the ignition. Subsequently, the vehicle was stolen and the 

gauge has not been recovered to date. 

“Even though the potential consequences from this violation would have very low safety 

significance, our action underscores the expectation that NRC license holders will adhere to federal 

requirements to maintain the security of sealed nuclear sources,” said NRC Region III Administrator 

Cynthia D. Pederson. “These requirements are geared towards preventing unnecessary exposure to 

members of the public.”

ATC Group Services has to pay the fine or submit a letter protesting it by December 20, 2014.

The company took immediate and long-term actions to address the violation and prevent 

recurrence.

The NRC will conduct an inspection to verify that the company’s actions to correct the problem 

are thorough and sustainable.

The NRC’s inspection report, the summary of the investigation and the Notice of Violation are 

available on the NRC's website in the NRC's online document system.
#### § 318.8 Applicability date.

This part shall apply to breaches of security that are discovered on or after September 24, 2009.
§ 997.25 Financial oversight. ( a ) To become certified, an RCOS must comply with all financial oversight requirements established by the Administrator, including requirement relating to audits.
( b ) The application shall document compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in 2 CFR Part 215—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-profit Organizations, Subpart C—Post Award Requirements. Subpart C prescribes standards for financial management systems, among others. (Compliance with this criterion can be demonstrated by referencing any existing grant, cooperative agreement, or contract the RICE has with NOAA.)
( c ) The RCOS shall document annually the RCOS's operating and maintenance costs for all observing platforms and sensors, etc., owned and/or operated by the RCOS. This information shall be made available to NOAA upon request.
### §1395vv. Withholding payments from certain medicaid providers

#### (a) Adjustments by Secretary

The Secretary may adjust, in accordance with this section, payments under parts A and B to any institution which has in effect an agreement with the Secretary under section 1395cc of this title, and any person who has accepted payment on the basis of an assignment under section 1395u(b)(3)(B)(ii) of this title, where such institution or person—

(1) has (or previously had) in effect an agreement with a State agency to furnish medical care and services under a State plan approved under subchapter XIX, and

(2) from which (or from whom) such State agency (A) has been unable to recover overpayments made under the State plan, or (B) has been unable to collect the information necessary to enable it to determine the amount (if any) of the overpayments made to such institution or person under the State plan.

#### (b) Implementing regulations; notice, opportunity to be heard, etc.

The Secretary shall by regulation provide procedures for implementation of this section, which procedures shall—

(1) assure that the authority under this section is exercised only on behalf of a State agency which demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that it has provided adequate notice of a determination or of a need for information, and an opportunity to appeal such determination or to provide such information,

(2) determine the amount of the payment to which the institution or person would otherwise be entitled under this subchapter which shall be treated as a setoff against overpayments under subchapter XIX, and

(3) assure the restoration to the institution or person of amounts withheld under this section which are ultimately determined to be in excess of overpayments under subchapter XIX and to which the institution or person would otherwise be entitled under this subchapter.

#### (c) Payment to States of amounts recovered

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, from the trust funds established under sections 1395i and 1395t of this title, as appropriate, the Secretary shall pay to the appropriate State agency amounts recovered under this section to offset the State agency's overpayment under subchapter XIX. Such payments shall be accounted for by the State agency as recoveries of overpayments under the State plan.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVIII, §1885, as added Pub. L. 97–35, title XXI, §2104, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 788.)
EXHIBIT 32
----------




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


      The following statement is provided by the undersigned with respect
to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

      Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of KAANAPALI LAND, LLC.




    By:  /s/ Gary Nickele                 By: /s/ Gailen J. Hull
         ---------------------------          ---------------------------
         Gary Nickele                         Gailen J. Hull
         Chief Executive Officer              Chief Financial Officer and
                                              Chief Accounting Officer