alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 502.2 Terms defined. As used in this part, unless the context otherwise specifically requires: ( a ) The terms *Act, regulation* or *regulations, consumer commodity, package, label, person, commerce, principal display panel,* and *random package* have the same meaning as those terms are defined under part 500 of this chapter.
( b ) The term *packager* and *labeler* means any person engaged in the packaging or labeling of any consumer commodity for distribution in commerce or any person, other than a common carrier for hire, a contract carrier for hire, or a freight forwarder for hire, engaged in the distribution in commerce of any packaged or labeled consumer commodity; except persons engaged in business as wholesale or retail distributors of consumer commodities are not included unless such persons ( 1 ) are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such commodities, or
( 2 ) prescribe or specify by any means the manner in which such commodities are packaged or labeled.
( c ) The terms *ordinary and customary* and *regular* when used with the term *price* means the price at which a consumer commodity has been openly and actively sold in the most recent and regular course of business in a particular market or trade area for a reasonably substantial period of time, i.e., a 30-day period. For consumer commodities which fluctuate in price, the ordinary and customary price shall be the lowest price at which any substantial sales were made during the aforesaid 30-day period.
Exhibit 8.1

LIST OF SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.



|                                        |  |                               |  |                                             |     |  
|--------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------- | --- | -
|Company                                 |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation |  | Percentage OwnershipAs of December 31, 2016 |    
|SPIL (B.V.I.) Holding Limited           |  | British Virgin Islands        |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware U.S.A. Inc.                 |  | United States of America      |  |                                             | 100 | %
|SPIL (Cayman) Holding Limited           |  | Cayman Islands                |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware Technology (Suzhou) Limited |  | Peoples Republic of China    |  |                                             | 100 | %
|Siliconware Investment Co., Ltd.        |  | Taiwan                        |  |                                             | 100 | %
#### President and Trustees of the Village of Ossining, Appellants-Respondents, v. Joseph E. Meredith et al., Individually and Doing Business as Copartners under the Names of Westchester Equipment Company and Meredith *&*Hitchcock, Respondents-Appellants.

On.the appeal by plaintiffs, judgment modified on the law and the facts by striking out the second *851ordering paragraph, and inserting in the first ordering paragraph the word “ trailers ” immediately preceding the words “ freight trucks As so modified, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs. The following new findings are herewith made: “Since January 1, 1946, the defendants have caused their tractors to enter and leave the lot daily, except Sundays, between the hours of 4 a.m. and 10 p.m., in connection with the use of .their trailers; that the operation of connecting a tractor to a trailer consumes about ten minutes, during which time the tractor’s motor is raced; that the racing of two or three such motors at the same time produces a very loud noise, and at times as many as four tractors have been in operation at the same time; that the racing of the motors also causes vibration, which is transmitted to neighboring dwellings; and that the non-conforming use of the subject parcel by defendants’ predecessor in title involved only very slight noise and no vibration.” Finding No. 11 is reversed. There is no support in the record therefor. On the contrary, the testimony of defendant Meredith indicates that the small lot on the adjoining parcel has not been used for storage of trailers. In our opinion, the storing or parking of trailers, freight trucks and buses, and the use of tractors in the manner as found above, is not a continuation of the nonconforming use of the premises for the storing of poles, reels of cable, pipe and other equipment, other than vehicles in connection with which trucks entered the lot for the purpose of removing such materials from time to time and not daily. Conclusion of law No. 2 is disapproved; and this court adds to conclusion of law No. 1 the provision that the storage of trailers and the use of tractors in connection with such storage on the lot, are also violations of the zoning ordinance and that plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against defendants enjoining such use. Any other findings and conclusions which may be inconsistent with the foregoing are also reversed and disapproved. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. Settle order on five days’ notice. [190 Misc. 142.]
No: III-16-006 May 3, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

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

Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public open house on May 12 to discuss the 

agency’s annual review of safety performance of the Quad Cities nuclear power plant. The two-unit 

plant is operated by Exelon Generation Co. LLC, and is located in Cordova, Ill., about 20 miles 

northeast of Moline. 

Those who attend the open house will have an opportunity to ask questions and have 

discussions directly with NRC staff members about the plant’s 2015 performance and the agency’s 

oversight of the facility. The open house, which will also include informational posters, is scheduled for 

4-6 p.m. at the Cordova Township Civic Center, 910 3rd Avenue South, in Cordova.

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

looking forward to speaking with members of the public about the performance of the Quad Cities plant 

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

Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold such meetings near the plant every year to share 

information about the wide range of activities we conduct every year to ensure the plant operates safely 

and foster an open dialogue with interested members of the public.”

Overall, the Quad Cities facility operated safely in 2015. All performance indicators and 

inspection findings for both units were green or low safety significance. The NRC uses color-coded 

inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start 

with green and then increase to white, yellow, or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the 

issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical measurements of plant and equipment 

performance.

This year, Quad Cities Unit 1 and 2 will continue to receive the detailed routine inspections 

conducted at all nuclear power plants. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC resident 

inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III office in Lisle, Ill., 

and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

The NRC’s 2015 assessment letter and current performance information for Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 

available on the NRC website.
#### Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, Respondent, v. Walter F. Bean et al., Appellants. Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, Respondent, v. Walter F. Bean, Appellant.

-Appeals dismissed unless appellant proceeds to settle his record and to serve the printed records and briefs within thirty days from the date of sendee of a copy of the order herein. Memorandum: The respondent moves to dismiss the appeal for failure to file briefs and records. The appeal is taken on the law and facts from the final order of condemnation and “from the whole thereof and each and every part thereof.” The appellant now states that he will limit his appeal and wishes to present his appeal on an abridged record. If the appellant intends to limit his appeal, he should file with the County Judge and with the attorneys for the respondent an affidavit specifically defining the limit of his appeal. If he desires that the appeal be heard upon an abridged record, he should proceed for a settlement of such record before the County Judge in the manner provided by the Rules of Civil Practice. If this practice is complied with, the appellant may make application to this court for leave to dispense in part with printing, if so advised. The parties should make an earnest effort to agree upon abridgment of the record. It is important in this case as in all others to save expense in printing unnecessary matter in records upon appeal. If the appellant desires to limit his appeal to the question of the form of the commissioners’ report and so states in his affidavit, the record need not, and should not, contain any of the testimony. *854The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted unless the appellant proceeds to settle his record and to serve the printed records and briefs within thirty days from the date of service of a copy of this order. (See *Capone*v. *Matteo Realty Corp.,*241 App. Div. 845; *Matter of City of Rochester,*234 App. Div. 647.)
#### § 312.7 Prohibition against conditioning a child's participation on collection of personal information.

An operator is prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child's disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity.
#### Catherine Luther, Appellant, v. David Jacobs, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Schoharie County, entered November 12, 1952, dismissing the complaint upon a verdict of a jury of no cause of action; also appeal from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury. The action is one for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of an employee of the defendant (a building contractor) in leaving a coil of wire in an unlighted corridor of a school building, over which plaintiff tripped. The evidence presented a question of fact for the jury as to the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence and we would not disturb the verdict of no cause of action except for the fact that the defendant’s counsel, for an obviously ulterior purpose injected into the case the fact that the plaintiff’s injury was covered by workmen’s compensation insurance carried by the school district which employed her. Despite the fact that the plaintiff’s physicians freely admitted on cross-examination all the statements in their workmen’s compensa*810tion reports which were alleged to be in conflict with the opinions expressed in their direct testimony, the defendant’s counsel insisted upon the reports themselves being received in evidence over the objection of the plaintiff’s attorney and, again over the plaintiff’s objection, the court ordered that the jury be allowed to take the reports with them into the jury room. The reports clearly indicated that the plaintiff’s injuries were covered by workmen’s compensation and that her employer carried workmen’s compensation insurance with the Travelers Insurance Company. Furthermore, in his summation, the defendant’s counsel referred to the fact that provision was made by “ the school tax dollar — to take care of claims that this plaintiff had.” In a ease as closely balanced as this one, we cannot say that the injection of this extraneous issue was not prejudicial *(Began*v. *Frontier Elevator é Mill Co.,*211 App. Div. 164; *Zimber*v. *Kress,*225 App. Div. 16; *Coutts*v. *Christopher,*233 App. Div. 136; *Posnich v. Crystal,*181 App. Div. 660; *Plough*v. *Baltimore & O. B. Co.,*164 F. 2d 254, certiorari denied 333 U.S. 861). Judgment and order appealed from reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ., concur.
#### § 310.1 Scope of regulations in this part.

This part implements the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108, as amended.
#### § 1702.4 Petitions with insufficient or incomplete information.

If a petition is submitted that is not complete and does not explain the reason for the absence of the information, the Commission shall afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to provide additional information. If the required information is not submitted to the Commission, or if the petitioner does not satisfactorily explain the absence of the information within a reasonable time, the petition shall be closed if insufficient or incomplete information has been submitted to enable the Commission to evaluate the merits of the exemption request.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

August 3, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-16-0084 – WYOMING’S 

PROPOSAL FOR A LIMITED AGREEMENT TO ONLY 

REGULATE MILLING FACILITIES’ SOURCE MATERIAL AND 

11E.(2) BYPRODUCT MATERIAL 

The Commission has approved Wyoming’s proposed approach to enter into a limited 

Agreement pursuant to Section 274b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to 

assume regulatory authority over a subcategory of source material related to milling activities 

and the management and disposal of Section 11e.(2) byproduct material. The Commission has 

also approved proposed language for inclusion in a potential agreement with Wyoming 

(Enclosure to SECY-16-0084). 

The staff should continue to engage with the State of Wyoming to advance progress on the 

limited Agreement and should report back to the Commission on its progress, following the 

adjournment of the 2017 General Session of the Wyoming legislature. 

 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

PDR
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6390

SHAWN M. RICE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN ANTONELLI,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00234-JPB)

Submitted: September 30, 2021 Decided: October 13, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn M. Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Shawn M. Rice, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Rice’s 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which Rice sought to challenge his conviction by way of the 

savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his 

conviction in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion 

would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a 

conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or 

the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent 

to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law 

changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed 

not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping 

provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law. 

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). 

We have reviewed the record and, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Greer 

v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021), find no reversible error. Accordingly, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Frank Ferraro, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Corporate Road
Show.Com, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
         material information relating to the registrant, including its
         consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
         entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
         is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
         this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
         evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: November 12, 2004

/s/ Frank Ferraro
--------------------------------------------
Name: Frank Ferraro
Title: President and Chief Financial Officer


                                    Page 14
**Exhibit31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS

Exhibit 31 Rule13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certifications

I, J. Nicholas Bayne,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maine & Maritimes Corporation (theregistrant);

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

 (a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 (b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on our evaluation; and

 (c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors:

 (a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 (b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Dated:  August11, 2006
| /s/ J. Nicholas Bayne                  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| J. Nicholas  Bayne                     |
| President and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----