alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OPENING REMARKS OF NRC CHAIRMAN GREGORY JACZKO AT THE 

BRIEFING ON THE FINAL REPORT OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON 

AMERICA’S NUCLEAR FUTURE

We’re meeting here today to talk with representatives of the Blue Ribbon Commission on 

America’s Nuclear Future as well as the NRC staff. This meeting offers an important opportunity 

for the agency to discuss in detail the comprehensive recommendations that the Blue Ribbon 

Commission made to Energy Secretary Chu this past January. This report is the culmination of 

nearly two years of work by the Commission in developing recommendations for creating a safe, 

long-term solution for managing and disposing of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel and high‐level 

radioactive waste.

We are very pleased to have General Brent Scrowcroft here today to talk about the report. 

It is important to hear directly from the Blue Ribbon Commission on its eight key 

recommendations and their possible implications. Many of these recommendations require action 

by the Administration and Congress, but the path and progress of these efforts will have 

significant implications on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The more we know going 

forward, the better we can plan ahead. The issues of permanent storage for spent nuclear fuel are

very important for the country, and we look forward to a very interesting discussion today.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

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

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

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

No. 12-036 April 10, 2012
#### § 1608.6 Reference to guaranty by Government prohibited.

No representation nor suggestion shall be made in advertising or otherwise marketing or handling products, fabrics or related materials subject to the act that the act, the Government, or any branch thereof, guarantees, in any manner that such product, fabric, or related material conforms to a flammability standard in effect under the act.
§ 1102.12 Manufacturer comments. ( a ) *Who may submit.* A manufacturer or private labeler may submit a comment related to a report of harm if the report of harm identifies such manufacturer or private labeler.
( b ) *How to submit.* A manufacturer or private labeler may submit comments to the CPSC using one of the following methods: ( 1 ) A manufacturer or private labeler who registers with the Commission as described in § 1102.20(f) may submit comments through a manufacturer portal maintained on the CPSC's Internet Web site;
( 2 ) A manufacturer or private labeler may submit comments by electronic mail, directed to the Office of the Secretary at *info@cpsc.gov ;* or
( 3 ) A manufacturer or private labeler may submit written comments directed to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408.
( c ) *What must be submitted.* Subject to §§ 1102.24 and 1102.26, the Commission will publish manufacturer comments related to a report of harm transmitted to a manufacturer or private labeler in the Database if such manufacturer comment meets the following requirements: ( 1 ) *Manufacturer comment relates to report of harm.* The manufacturer or private labeler's comment must relate to information contained in a specific report of harm that identifies such manufacturer or private labeler and that is submitted for publication in the Database.
( 2 ) *Unique identifier.* A manufacturer comment must state the unique identifier provided by the CPSC.
( 3 ) *Verification.* A manufacturer or private labeler must verify that it has reviewed the report of harm and the comment related to the report of harm and that the information contained in the comment is true and accurate to the best of the firm's knowledge, information, and belief.
( 4 ) *Request for publication.* When a manufacturer or private labeler submits a comment regarding a report of harm, it may request that the Commission publish such comment in the Database. A manufacturer or private labeler must affirmatively request publication of the comment, and consent to such publication in the Database, for each comment submitted to the CPSC.
( d ) *Information published.* Subject to §§ 1102.24 and 1102.26, the Commission will publish a manufacturer comment and the date of its submission to the CPSC in the Database if the comment meets the minimum requirements for publication as described in paragraph (c) of this section.
( e ) *Information not published.* The Commission will not publish in the Database consents and verifications associated with a manufacturer comment.
### §13363. Conventional coal technology transfer

If the Secretary determines that the utilization of a clean coal technology is not practicable for a proposed project and that a United States conventional coal technology would constitute a substantial improvement in efficiency, costs, and environmental performance relative to the technology being used in a developing country or country making the transition from nonmarket to market economies, with significant indigenous coal resources, such technology shall, for purposes of sections 13361 and 13362 1 of this title, be considered a clean coal technology. In the case of combustion technologies, only the retrofit, repowering, or replacement of a conventional technology shall constitute a substantial improvement for purposes of this section. In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall give highest priority to promoting the most environmentally sound and energy efficient technologies.

(Pub. L. 102–486, title XIII, §1333, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2984.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 13361 and 13362 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original "sections 1321 and 1322" and was translated as reading "sections 1331 and 1332" meaning sections 1331 and 1332 of Pub. L. 102–486, to reflect the probable intent of Congress, because Pub. L. 102–486 does not contain a section 1322 and sections 1331 and 1332 of Pub. L. 102–486 relate to export of clean coal technology.

1 See References in Text note below.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RUSSELL WEATHERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 678 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of February, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7798

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOYCE C. JAMESON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CR-90-60)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joyce C. Jameson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 and failed to obtain an extension of

the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided

by that rule. The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are

"mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its

order on August 4, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on

October 30, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or

obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of

jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No: III-15-020 August 12, 2015

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Increases Oversight of Clinton Power Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff issued a white finding of low-to-moderate safety 

significance to the Clinton nuclear station for the failure to make sure that a safety-related pump would 

continue to perform its safety function following modifications. The finding will result in increased 

oversight by the NRC.

On Sept. 16, 2014, a shutdown cooling water pump failed to start during a required operability 

test. A subsequent review showed that the pump stopped functioning at the conclusion of a similar test 

performed on May 30, 2014. The failure went undetected and the pump was inoperable for 108 days, 

which is a violation of NRC requirements. This pump provides water to cool safety-related equipment 

under certain conditions, such as a loss of offsite power. Another pump remained operable and would 

have been available to fulfil this safety function if needed.

NRC inspectors determined that the pump failed because, while performing modifications in 

1995, the plant did not conduct sufficiently thorough design analysis required by the NRC to ensure the 

pump’s long-term operability. Required tests regularly performed since 1995 demonstrated that the 

pump remained operable until its failure in 2014.

“The cooling water pump failure did not have a direct impact on plant or public safety. 

However, when licensees make modifications to safety equipment, we require them to perform a 

thorough analysis to ensure that safety systems stand ready in case of an event,” said NRC Region III 

Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “Clinton failed to perform this required level of analysis and will 

have to demonstrate to us that they have corrected this deficiency.”

The company installed a new a pump of a similar design in September 2014 and committed to 

additional monitoring to ensure it will remain operable until a new pump with an updated design can be 

installed in 2016.

The NRC will conduct an inspection to independently verify that the plant understands the 

cause of the problem and has taken sufficient action to make sure it does not recur.

As a result of this finding, the plant will move from Column 1 to Column 2 of the NRC’s 

Action Matrix, as of the first quarter of 2015.

The company has 30 days to contest the finding. 
Page | 2

The NRC inspection report is publicly available on the NRC website by using accession number 

ML15134A224, and the notice of violations is available under accession number ML15223B382.

The plant, operated by Exelon Generation LLC, is located in Clinton, Ill., approximately 23 

miles southeast of Bloomington.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0118:  Programmatic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program

Accession Number: ML15208A305

Date Released: Thursday, October 27, 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.
    - ML15243A192 - SECY-16-0118:  Programmatic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program (8 page(s), 10/11/2016)
    - ML15243A205 - SECY-16-0118:  Enclosure 1 - Programmatic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program (11 page(s), 10/11/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICECHAIR OF THE CONTINUING 

JUDICIAL EDUCATION BOARD OF 

JUDGES

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 921

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9

th day of November, 2022, the Honorable Steven C. Tolliver, Sr., 

is hereby designated as Chair, and the Honorable Alice B. Dubow, is designated as ViceChair, of the Continuing Judicial Education Board of Judges, commencing December 31, 

2022.
### §505. Exchange or transfer of medical supplies

(a) Excess Property Determination.—

(1) In general.—Medical materials or supplies an executive agency holds for national emergency purposes are considered excess property for purposes of subchapter II when the head of the agency determines that—

(A) the remaining storage or shelf life is too short to justify continued retention for national emergency purposes; and

(B) transfer or other disposal is in the national interest.

(2) Timing.—To the greatest extent practicable, the head of the agency shall make the determination in sufficient time to allow for the transfer or other disposal and use of medical materials or supplies before their shelf life expires and they are rendered unfit for human use.

(b) Transfer or Exchange.—

(1) In general.—In accordance with regulations the Administrator of General Services prescribes, medical materials or supplies considered excess property may be transferred to another federal agency or exchanged with another federal agency for other medical materials or supplies.

(2) Use of proceeds.—Any proceeds derived from a transfer under this section may be credited to the current applicable appropriation or fund of the transferor agency and shall be available only to purchase medical materials or supplies to be held for national emergency purposes.

(3) Disposal as surplus property.—If the materials or supplies are not transferred to or exchanged with another federal agency, they shall be disposed of as surplus property.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1081.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 505 | 40:481(e). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, §201(e), as added Pub. L. 91–426, §1, Sept. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 883. |

Section

In subsection (a)(2), the words "holding such medical materials or supplies" and "provided for in the first sentence of this subsection" are omitted as unnecessary because of the reorganization of the revised section. The words "in sufficient time to allow for" are substituted for "at such times as to insure . . . in sufficient time" for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.
### §10607. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10607 was editorially reclassified as section 20141 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
Exhibit No. 32.2


Vibe Records, Inc. Nevada


File No. 0-51107


Form 10-Q


Quarter ended March 31, 2010


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 Vibe Records, Inc. Nevada (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy Olphie, Chief Executive 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, 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: May 14, 2010
By:
/s/ Timothy OlphieTimothy OlphieChief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HPC Acquisitions, Inc. and will be retained by HPC Acquisitions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 368 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal 

courts, and for other purposes. 

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


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 368 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removal Clarification 

3 Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LITIGATION TO FEDERAL 

5 COURTS. 

6 (a) CLARIFICATION OF INCLUSION OF CERTAIN

7 TYPES OF PROCEEDINGS.—Section 1442 of title 28, 

8 United States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding 

10 paragraph (1)— 

11 (A) by inserting ‘‘that is’’ after ‘‘or crimi12 nal prosecution’’; 

13 (B) by inserting ‘‘and that is’’ after ‘‘in a 

14 State court’’; and 

15 (C) by inserting ‘‘or directed to’’ after 

16 ‘‘against’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(c) As used in subsection (a), the terms ‘civil action’ 

19 and ‘criminal prosecution’ include any proceeding (wheth20 er or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent 

21 that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a sub22 poena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If 

23 removal is sought for a proceeding described in the pre24 vious sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, 

25 only that proceeding may be removed to the district 

26 court.’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 368 RFS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 1442(a) 

2 of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

3 (1) in paragraph (1)— 

4 (A) by striking ‘‘capacity for’’ and insert5 ing ‘‘capacity, for or relating to’’; and 

6 (B) by striking ‘‘sued’’; and 

7 (2) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by in8 serting ‘‘or relating to’’ after ‘‘for’’. 

9 (c) APPLICATION OF TIMING REQUIREMENT.—Sec10 tion 1446 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 

11 adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(g) Where the civil action or criminal prosecution 

13 that is removable under section 1442(a) is a proceeding 

14 in which a judicial order for testimony or documents is 

15 sought or issued or sought to be enforced, the 30-day re16 quirement of subsections (b) and (c) is satisfied if the per17 son or entity desiring to remove the proceeding files the 

18 notice of removal not later than 30 days after receiving, 

19 through service, notice of any such proceeding.’’. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 368 RFS

1 (d) REVIEWABILITY ON APPEAL.—Section 1447(d) of 

2 title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 

3 ‘‘1442 or’’ before ‘‘1443’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 28, 

2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Election of Directors and Officers of National Kiddie Rides, Inc. Charles Katz et al., Appellants; Fred Rafanello et al., Respondents.

Order of July 31, 1953, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents, and the appeal from order entered August 25, 1953, denying reargument, is dismissed. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ. [See *post,*p. 812.]
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

April 19, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40244

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TIM C. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(C-02-CR-105-1)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Tim C. Williams appealed his conviction,

sentence, and final order of criminal forfeiture imposed after he

p leaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money and conspir acy to

possess with intent to distribute more than five kilog rams of

cocaine. Following our limited remand for the district court to

address Williams’s motion for reconsideration, we affirmed. U nited

States v. Williams

, No. 02-41608, 2004 WL 830779 (5th Cir. Apr. 19,

2004) (unpublished). While the case was on limited remand in the

district court, Williams filed a motion to recuse the district2

court judge, which motion was denied. Williams’s appeal from the

denial of the recusal mot ion was docketed in this court as a

separate appeal from his appeal of his conviction and sentence.

Assuming the denial of the recusal motion is properly before us, we

perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of

that motion.

Williams argues that comments made by the district judge

d uring a sentencing hearing in a related criminal proceeding

demonstrated personal bias or prejudice toward Williams. He also

argues that recusal was warranted because the district court

unsealed his sent encing transcript for purposes of a state

forfeiture proceeding without giving him an opportunity to respond

to the motion to unseal and without requiring the government to

comply with a local rule.

We review a district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)

motion for recusal for abuse of discretion. U nited States v.

Jordan

, 49 F.3d 152, 156 (5th Cir. 1995). Recusal should occur if

a reasonable person with knowledge of all the circumstances would

harbor doubts about the jud ge’s impartiality. U nited States v.

Anderson , 160 F.3d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 1998). The general rule is

that, to be disqualifying, bias or prejudice must stem from an

“extrajudicial source.” L iteky v. United States

, 510 U.S. 540, 555

(1994).

As our review of the entire context of the judicial

proceedings in which the events challenged in this case arose3

reveals no disqualifying judicial bias, we conclude that there was

no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Williams’s

recusal motion. S ee Andrade v. Chojnacki

, 338 F.3d 448, 454-55

(5th Cir. 2003). Even if he had shown an abuse of discretion, any

error would be harmless. S ee Patterson v. Mobil Oil Co rp. , 335

F.3d 476, 485 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied

, 540 U.S. 1108 (2004).

AFFIRMED.