alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 13-085 October 9, 2013

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Postpones Ohio, Minnesota Meetings on Waste Confidence 

Because of Government Shutdown

Due to the continuing government shutdown, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is postponing

public meetings scheduled for Oct. 15 in Ohio and Oct. 17 in Minnesota on the agency’s proposed rule 

and environmental study about the extended storage of spent nuclear fuel. The agency intends to 

reschedule the meetings once the shutdown is resolved.

The proposed rule and generic environmental impact study, collectively known as “waste 

confidence,” were published Sept. 13, with a public comment period to Nov. 27. The agency scheduled 

12 meetings around the country to present the findings and receive public comments.

“The continuing government shutdown gives us no option but to postpone these meetings,” 

NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane said. “We want to give as much notice as possible so members of 

the public who were planning to attend can make other arrangements. Once we resume full operations, 

we will reschedule the meetings.”

The federal shutdown began Oct. 1, the start of the new fiscal year, due to a lapse of 

appropriations from Congress. The NRC has continued to operate on unexpended funds from previous 

appropriations, and held the first two public meetings on waste confidence Oct. 1 at agency 

headquarters in Rockville, Md., and Oct. 3 in Denver. Meetings scheduled for this week in California 

were postponed. The NRC projects that its funds will run out Thursday, and the agency at that time will 

begin scaled-down operations focusing on immediate public safety and security issues. For more 

information about the effect of the partial government shutdown on NRC operations, see the agency 

blog.

The NRC is also canceling other public meetings scheduled for NRC headquarters and around 

the country. The status of these meetings will be updated on the agency’s Public Meetings Schedule on 

the NRC website.

The Oct. 15 waste confidence meeting was scheduled for Perrysburg, Ohio; the Oct. 17 meeting 

for Minnetonka, Minn. Decisions on additional waste confidence meetings will be made on a week-byweek basis.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3528 

To amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes against the 

homeless. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. COHEN, and Ms. 

MOORE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes 

against the homeless. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hate Crimes Against 

5 the Homeless Statistics Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF HOMELESS. 

7 Section 1(b) of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 

8 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3528 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘homeless 

2 status,’’ after ‘‘sexual orientation,’’; and 

3 (2) by adding the the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(6) As used in this subsection, the term 

5 ‘homeless status’ with respect to an individual, re6 fers to an individual who— 

7 ‘‘(A) lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate 

8 nighttime residence; or 

9 ‘‘(B) has a primary nighttime residence 

10 that is— 

11 ‘‘(i) a public or private place not de12 signed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular 

13 sleeping accommodation for human beings, 

14 including cars, parks, public spaces, aban15 doned buildings, substandard housing, bus 

16 or train stations, or similar settings; 

17 ‘‘(ii) a supervised publicly or privately 

18 operated shelter designed to provide tem19 porary living accommodations, including 

20 motels, hotels, congregate shelters, and 

21 transitional housing; or 

22 ‘‘(iii) housing of other persons in 

23 which the individual is temporarily staying 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3528 IH

1 due to loss of housing, economic hardship, 

2 or a similar reason.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



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 Annual Report of Endeavour International Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K as amended by Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A for the annual period ended December 31,
2004 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
William L. Transier, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ William L. TransierWilliam L. TransierCo-Chief Executive Officer
 May 5, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Endeavour International Corporation and will be retained by Endeavour International Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1210.16 Production testing. ( a ) *General.* Manufacturers and importers shall test samples of lighters subject to the standard as they are manufactured, to demonstrate that the lighters meet the specifications, required under § 1210.15, of the surrogate that has been shown by qualification testing to meet the requirements of the standard.
( b ) *Types and frequency of testing.* Manufacturers, private labelers, and importers shall determine the types of tests for production testing. Each production test shall be conducted at a production interval short enough to provide a high degree of assurance that, if the samples selected for testing pass the production tests, all other lighters produced during the interval will meet the standard.
( c ) *Test failure* — ( 1 ) *Sale of lighters.* If any test yields results which indicate that any lighters manufactured during the production interval may not meet the standard, production and distribution in commerce of lighters that may not comply with the standard must cease until it is determined that the lighters meet the standard or until corrective action is taken. (It may be necessary to modify the lighters or perform additional tests to ensure that only complying lighters are distributed in commerce. Lighters from other production intervals having test results showing that lighters from that interval comply with the standard could be produced and distributed unless there was some reason to believe that they might not comply with the standard.)
( 2 ) *Corrective actions.* When any production test fails to provide a high degree of assurance that all lighters comply with the standard, corrective action must be taken. Corrective action may include changes in the manufacturing process, the assembly process, the equipment used to manufacture the product, or the product's materials or design. The corrective action must provide a high degree of assurance that all lighters produced after the corrective action will comply with the standard. If the corrective action changes the product from the surrogate used for qualification testing in a manner that could adversely affect its child resistance, the lighter must undergo new qualification tests in accordance with § 1210.14, above.
| (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/ Asaf Porat                                                |   |
|                    |            | Asaf Porat                                                    |   |
|                    |            | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                    |            |                                                          |   |
|  November 28, 2011 |            |                                                          |   |
Exhibit 32.2

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                           by Chief Financial Officer

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Raffaele M. Branca, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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: November 10, 2004

                                                /s/ RAFFAELE M. BRANCA
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Raffaele M. Branca
                                                Executive Vice President and CFO


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       28
American Water Works Association (AWWA) meeting with EPA on Proposed RMP

Revisions

May 6, 2016

Attendees :

Mathy Stanislaus, Nitin Natarajan, and Becky Brooks of Office of Land and Emergency Management , USEPA, Washington, DC

Nathan Frey of RSS Group LLC

Jonathan Gled hill of Policy Navigation Group

Tracy Mehan and Kevin Worley of the A merican Water Works Associati on

AWWA provided a summary of the ir issues on next page ( following the meeting agenda ) . They

also mentioned utilizing the lowest option in the RIA for their 2 NAICS codes. AWWA provided

a copy of one of their reports, “Buried No Longer: Confronting America’s Water Infrastructure Challenge ” , which can also be found on this webpage:

http://www.awwa.org/portals/0/files/legreg/documents/buriednolonger.pdf
### §12897. Limitation on selection criteria

In establishing criteria for selecting applicants to receive assistance under this part, the Secretary may not establish any selection criterion or criteria that grant or deny such assistance to an applicant (or have the effect of granting or denying assistance) based on the implementation, continuation, or discontinuation of any public policy, regulation, or law of any jurisdiction in which the applicant or project is located.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title IV, §447, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4180.)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49290-49291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

[Docket Number DARS-2014-0035]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 49291]]

SUMMARY: The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to 
OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 
35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by 
September 19, 2014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Small Business Programs; OMB Control 
Number 0704-0386.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 41.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 41.
    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1 hour.
    Annual Burden Hours: 41.
    Needs and Uses: DoD needs this information to improve 
administration under the small business subcontracting program and to 
evaluate a contractor's past performance in complying with its 
subcontracting plan.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit entities and not-
for-profit institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number, and title for the Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other public submissions from members 
of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing 
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received 
without change, including any personal identifiers or contact 
information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please 
check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after 
submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of 
comments submitted by mail).
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, 
Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

Manuel Quinones,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2014-19743 Filed 8-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
### §12331. Purpose

It is the purpose of this part to encourage and assist State and local agencies to coordinate resources, reduce barriers to services, and develop new capacities to ensure that State and community services designed to serve children, youth, and families are more effective and comprehensive.

(Pub. L. 101–501, title IX, §925, Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1268.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1990, see section 1001(a) of Pub. L. 101–501, set out as an Effective Date of 1990 Amendment note under section 8621 of this title.
(No. 39929.

#### The People *ex rel.*Charles Skinner, Appellant, *vs.*Ross V. Randolph, Warden, Appellee.

*Opinion filed November 14, 1966.*

Charles Skinner, *pro se,*appellant.

William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice House

delivered the opinion of the court:

Charles Skinner, whose conviction of murder was affirmed by this court in 1947 on writ of error, *(People*v. *Skinner,*397 Ill. 273,) now appeals from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus.*His contentions are: (1) that the incompetency of two counsel appointed to defend him, and the lunacy of one such counsel, •denied him a fair and impartial trial; (2) that a prison rule *590deprived him of his constitutional right to a timely review; (3) that improper evidence was admitted; and (4) that the murder indictment was defective.

Due. to limitations imposed by the legislature in the Habeas Corpus Act, particularly section *22,*(111. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 65, par. 22,) it has long been held in this State that a court has jurisdiction in a *habeas corpus*proceeding to direct a release from custody only where the original proceeding or judgment of conviction was void or where something has happened since the detention for rendition of the judgment to entitle the prisoner to his release. *(People ex rel. Wiseman*v. *Nierstheimer,*401 Ill. 260; *People ex rel. Castle*v. *Spivey,*10 Ill.2d 586.) Mere errors or irregularities, which only render the proceeding voidable and are of nonjurisdictional nature, are not grounds for relief on writ of *habeas corpus.*(See: *People ex rel. Rose*v. *Randolph,*33 Ill.2d 453, where it was held a claim of a denial of the constitutional right to counsel could not be determined on writ of *habeas corpus; People ex rel. Downer*v. *O’Brien,*373 Ill. 383, holding the technical sufficiency of an indictment or information is not subj ect to consideration in a *habeas corpus*proceeding.) As was said in *People ex rel. Georgetown*v. *Murphy,*202 Ill. 493, 497-498: “* * * ‘a person imprisoned under the sentence of a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the person of the defendant, and power to render the judgment, cannot be discharged on *habeas corpus*because of irregularities in the proceedings under which he is convicted, his remedy in such cases being by writ of error.’ ” (See also: *People ex rel. Ross*v. *Becker,*382 Ill. 404, 410.) We hold that the matters raised by petitioner were not proper for determination in a *habeas corpus*proceeding, and that the trial court properly dismissed his petition.

Before affirming the order of the trial court we are constrained to point out that the most substantial of the *591petitioner’s claims, namely, that the incompetency of his counsel deprived him of due process of law, has been thoroughly adjudicated and determined against him in a *habeas corpus*proceeding in a Federal district court. See: *United States ex rel. Skinner*v. *Robinson,*(1952, D.C. Ill.,) 105 F. Supp. 153.

The order of the circuit court of Lee County dismissing the petition for writ of *habeas corpus*is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*
#### Rose Wax, Respondent, v. Albert Wax, Appellant.

*846The proof adduced was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the determination that respondent was entitled to .an order directing support by appellant on the ground that she was likely to become a public charge; and respondent did not establish that she was entitled to such an order on any other ground. Present — -Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
#### § 1105.9 Itemized vouchers.

The participant shall be paid upon submission of an itemized voucher listing each item of expense. Each item of expense exceeding $15 must be substantiated by a copy of a receipt, invoice, or appropriate document evidencing the fact that the cost was incurred.
#### § 1507.6 Burnout and blowout.

The pyrotechnic chamber in fireworks devices shall be constructed in a manner to allow functioning in a normal manner without burnout or blowout.
No: IV-13-031 September 23, 2013

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 100-1519

NRC Issues Confirmatory Action Letter Inspection Report for

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

The NRC has preliminarily determined that the inadequate design of the steam generators at San 

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was a violation of low to moderate safety significance. 

The preliminary finding is identified in an inspection report documenting the NRC’s 

assessment of Southern California Edison’s response to a Confirmatory Action Letter issued on March 

27, 2012. The CAL documented actions that Edison agreed to take in response to the Jan. 31, 2012, 

steam generator tube leak at its Unit 3 reactor. The NRC conducts inspections in order to verify that the 

commitments made in the licensee’s response to a CAL have been completed. Such inspections can 

lead to findings such as those cited in this instance.

In addition, NRC has issued a Notice of Nonconformance to Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for 

problems associated with the design of the steam generators. Mitsubishi has 30 days in which to 

respond in writing. The company can contest the notice, or provide additional information explaining 

corrective actions they have taken or plan to take to address the nonconformance. 

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings to assess the risk significance of violations. The 

colors start with green, then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance 

of the issues involved. The NRC has preliminarily determined that the inadequate computer modeling 

that led to the deficient design of the steam generators is a white finding of low to moderate safety 

significance in Unit 3. A green finding was issued for Unit 2 because its tubes did not lose integrity. 

Two minor violations were also identified associated with the review of proposed changes to limit plant 

power to 70 percent.

Edison has 10 days in which to notify the NRC of its intentions of whether it will accept the 

violation, request a regulatory conference or submit information in writing before a final determination 

is made on the proposed violation. 

###

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-2328

ERIC ALAN SANDERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, of Charlotte, NC; 

JOHN HAYWARD; MIKE CALZAREETA; DOUG FORD; RAYVON IRBY, 

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 8, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Celeste T. Jones, William Grayson Lambert, 

Richard James Morgan, BURR & FORMAN, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for 
2

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Eric Alan Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying his postjudgment 

motion to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Sanders v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, No. 0:15-cv-02313-JMC (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2018). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 311.3 Preemption.

No law, regulation, or order of any State or political subdivision thereof may apply, or remain applicable, to any container of recycled oil, if such law, regulation, or order requires any container of recycled oil, which container bears a label in accordance with the terms of § 311.5 of this part, to bear any label with respect to the comparative characteristics of such recycled oil with new oil that is not identical to that permitted by § 311.5 of this part.