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

[821 NYS2d 670]

Appeals (1) from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 8, 2004, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause, and (2) from a decision of said Board, filed July 26, 2005, which denied claimant’s application to reopen and reconsider a prior decision.

Claimant, an attorney, was hired by a law firm to manage its immigration practice in the City of White Plains, Westchester County. After only two weeks, she resigned, citing concerns with the manner in which the firm conducted business. Claimant filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits and, after various proceedings, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The Board adhered to this decision upon reconsideration and denied claimant’s subsequent application for reopening and reconsideration. Claimant appeals.

“It is well settled that dissatisfaction with an employer’s method of doing business does not constitute good cause for leaving employment, particularly where an employee has not taken measures to protect his or her employment by notifying management of his or her concerns” *(Matter of Weed [Greece Cent. School Dist.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*11 AD3d 873, 874 [2004] [citations omitted]). Here, the managing partner of the firm stated that, prior to her resignation, claimant did not voice any complaints about those issues that were of concern to her. Although claimant gave contrary testimony, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Cherry [Commissioner of Labor],*18 AD3d 937, 938 [2005]). Thus, regardless of the validity of claimant’s concerns, inasmuch as the Board was free to credit testimony to the effect that claimant did not give the firm an opportunity to rectify the *1094problems before she resigned, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that she left her job for personal and noncompelling reasons.

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Peters, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decisions are affirmed, without costs.
No. I-16-026 August 30, 2016 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

 NRC Proposes $14,000 Fine for Puerto Rico Company for Failing

to Carry Out Cyclotron Decommissioning Activities

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a $14,000 civil penalty for a Puerto Rico 

firm for its failure to perform decommissioning activities associated with its cyclotron. International 

Cyclotron, of Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, operated the device to produce radionuclides used to provide 

nuclear medicine treatments to patients.

On Dec. 19, 2011, the NRC issued an order to the company requiring that it provide financial 

assurance for the decommissioning of the cyclotron facility within 60 days or suspend all NRC-licensed 

activities. The firm did not provide the necessary financial assurance but did halt the licensed activities 

as of Feb. 17, 2012.

International Cyclotron submitted a letter to the NRC on March 22, 2014, stating its intention to 

begin decommissioning of the facility as soon as possible, but certainly prior to April 18, 2014. To 

date, however, the company has taken no steps to initiate decommissioning activities, despite NRC 

regulations requiring such work be completed within 24 months. Further, the firm’s owner has not 

responded to an NRC letter issued on June 13, 2016, that described apparent violations related to the 

failure to decommission the facility in a timely manner.

As a result, the NRC is proposing a Severity Level III violation and $14,000 fine for 

International Cyclotron.

“The NRC’s overriding interest is to ensure that the company meets its obligation to 

decommission the facility and that any radioactive materials used or generated during the cyclotron’s 

operation are properly disposed of or transferred,” NRC Region I Administrator Dan Dorman said. “As 

such, the agency will consider not taking enforcement action if International Cyclotron properly 

disposes of or transfers the materials within 30 days and submits within 60 days a plan and schedule for 

completing decommissioning.”

Should the company fail to complete the actions, the NRC will impose the civil penalty and 

consider daily fines until the facility is successfully decommissioned.

The site does not pose a safety concern for the public because any radioactive contamination is 

contained within the facility.
Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONI, David G. Powers certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Heritage Bankshares of Florida,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.     Date: May 8, 2006 By:   /s/ David G. Powers           David G. Powers, President and Chief        Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 210.12-13A Open futures contracts.

[For management investment companies only]

| Col. A | Col. B | Col. C | Col. D | Col. E | Col. F |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Description1 2 3 4 5 | Number of contracts | Expiration date | Notional amount6 | Value | Unrealized appreciation/depreciation. |
| | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 Information as to long purchases of futures contracts shall be shown separately from information as to futures contracts sold short. | | | | | |
| 2 Futures contracts where descriptions or expiration dates differ shall be listed separately. | | | | | |
| 3 Description should include the name of the reference asset or index. | | | | | |
| 4 Indicate by an appropriate symbol each investment which cannot be sold because of restrictions or conditions applicable to the investment. | | | | | |
| 5 Indicate by an appropriate symbol each investment whose value was determined using significant unobservable inputs. | | | | | |
| 6 Notional amount shall be the current notional amount at close of period. | | | | | |

[[81 FR 82017](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/81-FR-82017), Nov. 18, 2016]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wage Chronology: The Anaconda Co. [Montana Mining Div.] and the Steelworkers, 1941-77

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics					 and 	Davis, William M., Jr. 						*Wage Chronology: The Anaconda Co. [Montana Mining Div.] and the Steelworkers, 1941-77 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1953*,												Washington, D.C: 								Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										1977,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4906,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### Part D—Expiration
No. II-13-011 April 8, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC SCHEDULES OPEN HOUSE TO DISCUSS ANNUAL 

ASSESSMENT OF HATCH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have scheduled an open house for April 17 to 

discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance during 2012 for the Hatch nuclear power 

plant. The plant, operated by Southern Nuclear, is in south Georgia near Baxley, about 20 miles 

south of Vidalia.

The open house, which the public is invited to attend, is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. in 

Conference Room 171 of the Southeastern Technical College, 3001 East First St., in Vidalia, Ga.

NRC staff will be available to answer questions on the safety performance of the Hatch 

plant, as well as the NRC role in ensuring safe plant operations.

Overall, the NRC staff concluded that the Hatch plant operated safely in 2012 and will 

receive normal detailed baseline oversight and inspection efforts. All inspection findings and

performance indicators at the plant had very low safety significance.

“The NRC inspects nuclear plants and monitors their performance on an ongoing basis,” 

said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “We issue inspection reports throughout the 

year and we hold these annual meetings near each plant to discuss our oversight and answer any 

questions local residents may have.”

Routine inspections are carried out by the NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region II office in Atlanta. The inspections at the Hatch 

plant this year will include fire protection, emergency preparedness and operator licensing 

examinations.

The annual assessment letter for the Hatch plant and current performance information for 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 are available on the NRC website. 

###

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, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Website: www.nrc.gov
112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3869 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 600 East Capitol Avenue in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ Sanders McMath Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3869 EH

1 SECTION 1. SIDNEY ‘‘SID’’ SANDERS MCMATH POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 600 East Capitol Avenue in Lit5 tle Rock, Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ Sanders McMath Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ Sanders 

11 McMath Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 20, 

2012. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3869 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostSanders McMath Post Office Building’’. Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Sidney ‘Sid’ al Service located at 600 East Capitol Avenue in
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 1.70 Notification of State enforcement actions brought under the Commodity Exchange Act. ( a ) Immediately upon instituting any proceeding in any Federal district court for violation of the Act or any rule, regulation or order thereunder against any person who is subject to suit pursuant to sections 6d(1)-(6) of the Act, the authorized State official of the State instituting the proceeding shall submit to the Commission a copy of the complaint filed in the proceeding, together with a written notice which: ( 1 ) Indicates the names of parties to the proceeding;
( 2 ) Indicates the provision of the Act or the rule, regulation or order thereunder which is alleged to have been violated. The complaint and written notice must be sent by first-class U.S. mail or personally delivered to the Secretary, at the Commission's Washington, DC headquarters.
( b ) Prior to instituting any proceeding in a State court for the alleged violation of any antifraud provisions of the Act or any antifraud rule, regulation or order thereunder against any person registered with the Commission who is subject to suit pursuant to the provisions of section 6d(8) of the Act, the authorized State official of the State intending to institute the proceeding shall submit to the Commission written notice which: ( 1 ) Indicates the names of parties to the proposed proceeding;
( 2 ) Indicates the provision of the Act or the rule, regulation or order thereunder which will be alleged to have been violated;
( 3 ) Contains a brief statement of the facts on which the proposed action will be based. Except as provided in paragraph (c), this written notice must be sent by first-class U.S. mail or personally delivered to the Secretary, at the Commission's Washington, DC headquarters not less than 5 business days prior to instituting the proceeding in State court.
( c ) Where it is impracticable to provide the Commission with written notice within the time period specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the authorized state official must inform the Secretary of the Commission by telephone as soon as practicable to institute a proceeding in state court and must send the written notice required in paragraph (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section by facsimile or other similarly expeditious means of written communication to the Secretary of the Commission, prior to instituting the proceeding in state court.
( d ) Immediately upon instituting any proceeding in a State court pursuant to the provisions of section 6d(8) of the Act for alleged violation of any antifraud provisions of the Act or any antifraud rule, regulation or order thereunder, the authorized State official instituting the proceeding shall submit to the Commission a copy of the complaint filed in the proceeding. The copy of the complaint must be sent by first class U.S. mail or personally delivered to the Secretary, at the Commission's Washington, DC headquarters.
[48 FR 49503, Oct. 26, 1983, as amended at 60 FR 49334, Sept. 25, 1995]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Guy Cary et al., as Ancillary Executors and Trustees under the Will of Robert W. Goelet, Deceased, Respondents-Appellants, against William E. Boyland et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellants-Respondents. [379-387 Lexington Ave. and Other Premises, Borough of Manhattan.]

Present' — -Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 28, 2009 

s0520 

Order 

 

May 28, 2009 

137431 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137431 

 COA: 277184 

Wayne CC: 98-005154 

ROY BLACKMON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 19, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal.
**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Little Sioux Corn Processors,L.L.C. (the “Company”) for the three month fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Gary Grotjohn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |  /s/  Gary Grotjohn |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Gary  Grotjohn           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | Dated:                   |   August  13, 2004 |   |

 

----
110 STAT. 3814 PUBLIC LAW 104–308—OCT. 19, 1996

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 632:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–373 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 141 (1995): Dec. 12, considered and passed House.

Vol. 142 (1996): Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Oct. 4, House concurred in Senate amendments.

Æ

Public Law 104–308

104th Congress

An Act

To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

(a) AMENDMENT.—Section 1498(a) of title 28, United States

Code, is amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph

the following: ‘‘Reasonable and entire compensation shall include

the owner’s reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert

witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is

an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity

that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the

5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented

invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than

10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies

for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall

not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position

of the United States was substantially justified or that special

circumstances make an award unjust.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a)

shall apply to actions under section 1498(a) of title 28, United

States Code, that are pending on, or brought on or after, the

date of the enactment of this Act.

Approved October 19, 1996.

28 USC 1498

note.

Oct. 19, 1996

[H.R. 632]
#### Virginia M. DeMille, Respondent, v Nelson R. DeMille, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 111]

In an action, inter alia, for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), dated July 1, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs prior motion for leave to renew and, upon renewal, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s second counterclaim to enforce the parties’ prenuptial agreement and, inter alia, set aside the prenuptial agreement.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof, upon renewal, granting the plaintiff’s prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s second counterclaim and substituting therefor a provision, upon renewal, denying the motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof setting aside the prenuptial agreement; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings before a different justice.

The issue of the timeliness of the plaintiffs challenges to the *412enforceability of the parties’ prenuptial agreement, including the ground raised in her motion for leave to renew, was argued and determined on a prior appeal *(see DeMille v DeMille,*5 AD3d 428 [2004]). Thus, upon renewal, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiffs prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s second counterclaim to enforce the agreement and should not have set aside the agreement based on such challenges.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur. *[See*5 Misc 3d 355 (2004).]