alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: IV-15-011 April 27, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 NRC To Discuss 2014 Performance Assessment for Arkansas Nuclear One

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Russellville, Ark., on May 12 with 

representatives of Entergy Operations to discuss the agency's 2014 assessment of safety performance 

for Arkansas Nuclear One. The plant is located in Russellville.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. in the Lakepoint 

Conference Center, 61 Lake Point Lane.

In addition to presenting their assessment of plant performance, the NRC staff will be available 

to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of Arkansas Nuclear One, as well as the 

NRC's role in ensuring safe plant operation.

"The NRC continually reviews the performance of Arkansas Nuclear One and the nation's other 

commercial nuclear power facilities to ensure they are being operated safely," said Marc Dapas, NRC 

Region IV Administrator. "This meeting is important because it provides an opportunity for a 

discussion of Entergy’s actions to address the significant decline in plant performance since the last 

annual assessment. Local officials and residents who live near the plant will get to hear that discussion 

and ask any questions." 

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

plant during 2014 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. 

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. The NRC’s action matrix reflects overall plant performance and 

agency response. There are five columns in the matrix with Column 1 requiring a baseline level of 

inspections; plants in Column 5 are not permitted to operate. The NRC increases the level of oversight 

and inspection as plant performance deteriorates.

Arkansas Nuclear One is in Column 4 of the NRC’s action matrix, and will receive the highest 

level of oversight for the rest of 2014. In June 2014, the NRC issued two yellow findings to Arkansas 

Nuclear One in connection with a 2013 heavy equipment handling incident at the plant. In January 

2015, the NRC issued two yellow findings to Arkansas Nuclear One associated with flood protection at 

the plant. The cumulative effect of these violations moved the plant into Column 4.
Page | 2

Inspections will be performed by three NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant, 

inspection specialists from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, and specialists from the agency’s 

headquarters in Rockville, Md. The plant will receive numerous supplemental inspections because it is 

in Column 4.

Information about the plant’s current performance is available on the NRC web site.
#### § 1000.5 Petitions.

Any interested person may petition the Commission to issue, amend, or revoke a rule or regulation by submitting a written request to the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Petitions must comply with the Commission's procedure for petitioning for rulemaking at 16 CFR part 1051.
### §1320a–2. Effect of failure to carry out State plan

In an action brought to enforce a provision of this chapter, such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of this chapter requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State plan. This section is not intended to limit or expand the grounds for determining the availability of private actions to enforce State plan requirements other than by overturning any such grounds applied in Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992), but not applied in prior Supreme Court decisions respecting such enforceability; provided, however, that this section is not intended to alter the holding in Suter v. Artist M. that section 671(a)(15) of this title is not enforceable in a private right of action.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1123, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title V, §555(a), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4057.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1320a–2, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1123, as added Oct. 30, 1972, Pub. L. 92–603, title II, §241, 86 Stat. 1418; amended Dec. 5, 1980, Pub. L. 96–499, title IX, §911, 94 Stat. 2619; Sept. 3, 1982, Pub. L. 97–248, title I, §126, 96 Stat. 366; Apr. 7, 1986, Pub. L. 99–272, title IX, §9303(b)(4), 100 Stat. 189, related to qualifications for health care personnel, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–360, title IV, §430(a), as added Pub. L. 100–485, title VI, §608(b), (g)(1), Oct. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 2412, 2424, effective as if included in the enactment of Pub. L. 100–360.

Another section 1123 of act Aug. 14, 1935, was renumbered section 1123A, and is classified to section 1320a–2a of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 103–382, title V, §555(b), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4058, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall apply to actions pending on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 20, 1994] and to actions brought on or after such date of enactment."
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Shirley L. Tyler, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Heritage Bankshares ofFlorida, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 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)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date:  August 5, 2005 By:  /s/ Shirley L. Tyler      Shirley L. Tyler,          Executive Vice President and Treasurer   A 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.
§ 10.11 Appearance in adjudicatory proceedings. ( a ) *Appearance* — ( 1 ) *By non-attorneys.* An individual may appear pro se (in his own behalf), a member of a partnership may represent the partnership, a bona fide officer of a corporation, trust or association may represent the corporation, trust or association, an officer or employee of a State Commission or of a department or political subdivision of a State may represent the State Commission or the department or political subdivision of the State in any proceeding.
( 2 ) *By attorneys.* An attorney-at-law who is admitted to practice before the highest Court in any State or territory, or of the District of Columbia, who has not been suspended or disbarred from appearance and practice before the Commission in accordance with the provisions of part 14 of this title, may represent parties in proceedings before the Commission.
( b ) *Debarment of counsel or representative by administrative law judge during the course of a proceeding.* ( 1 ) Whenever, while a proceeding is pending before him, the Administrative Law Judge finds that a person acting as counsel or representative for any party to the proceeding is guilty of contemptuous conduct, the Administrative Law Judge may order that such person be precluded from further acting as counsel or representative in such proceeding. An immediate appeal to the Commission may be sought from any such order, pursuant to the terms of § 10.101, but the proceeding shall not be delayed or suspended pending disposition of the appeal: *Provided,* That the Administrative Law Judge may suspend the proceedings for a reasonable time for the purpose of enabling the party to obtain other counsel or representative.
( 2 ) Whenever the Administrative Law Judge has issued an order precluding a person from further acting as counsel for representative in the proceeding, the Administrative Law Judge within a reasonable time thereafter, shall submit to the Commission a report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the issuance of the order and shall recommend what action the Commission should take respecting the appearance of such person as counsel or representative in other proceedings before the Commission.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 25, 2011

y0718 

# Order

July 25, 2011

143041

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143041 COA: 296050 Wayne CC: 09-021522-FH KYLE J. AMES DONAHEE, a/k/a KYLE JAMES DONAHEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 17, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.
#### Anna Gerlach, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Erie Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, J. Leonard Ivins, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Oncolin
Therapeutics, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Oncolin Therapeutics,
Inc.





Date:  May 5,
2010





By:
              /s/ J. Leonard
      IvinsJ. Leonard
      IvinsPrincipal Financial and Accounting
      Officer
#### § 301.10 Use of term “Broadtail-processed Lamb” permitted.

The term *Broadtail-processed Lamb* may be used to describe the skin of a lamb which has been sheared, leaving a moire hair pattern on the pelt having the appearance of the true fur pattern of “Broadtail Lamb”; as for example:

Dyed Broadtail-processed Lamb

Fur origin: Argentina
#### Louis Agre, Appellant, v. Tuteur Bio-Chemicals, Inc., Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Kevin L. Williams, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 669]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Ap*1090peal Board, filed December 6, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, a mail handler, was accused of inappropriately grabbing a female coworker from behind and then trying to do the same to another female coworker. In addition to being discharged from his employment, claimant also was arrested and charged with sexual abuse and forcible touching. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. We affirm. It is well settled that offensive behavior in the workplace which is detrimental to the employer’s best interest constitutes disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Ferro [Commissioner of Labor],*283 AD2d 828, 829 [2001]; *Matter of Krupa [Sweeney],*236 AD2d 772 [1997]). Although claimant denied engaging in any inappropriate conduct, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Manno [Commissioner of Labor],*8 AD3d 869 [2004]). Notwithstanding the fact that the criminal charges against claimant were dismissed, there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Board’s decision.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### R. K. Corbin, Inc., v. Marvin S. Levine et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ. [See 284 App. Div. 1035.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26543]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Cancellation of the Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement for Stabilization of In-Water Facilities at the Fox 
Island Laboratory, Tacoma, WA

ACTION: Notice; cancellation.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy (DON) hereby cancels its notice of 
intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Stabilization 
of In-Water Facilities at the Fox Island Laboratory, Tacoma, WA, as 
published in the Federal Register, March 28, 2002, (67 FR 14921).
    The previously published notice is cancelled because DON will be 
considering consolidation of the Fox Island Laboratory with the 
Bremerton Detachment of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock 
Division at another location. There are efficiencies of size and 
economy to be realized by this consolidation. DON will initiate review 
of the consolidation under the National Environmental Policy Act in the 
near future.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Kollars, Director, Naval 
Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Detachment Bremerton, Bldg. 
290, First Floor, 530 Farragut Ave., Bremerton, WA 98314-5215, phone: 
(360) 476-4335.

    Dated: November 22, 2004.
J.H. Wagshul,
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26543 Filed 12-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
§ 1209.10 Certification and enforcement. ( a ) While this part 1209 prescribes test methods to determine whether cellulose insulation subject to this interim standard meets its requirements, the interim standard itself does not require that a manufacturer or private labeler test any cellulose insulation. However, section 14 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2063) requires manufacturers and private labelers of products subject to safety standards to certify that the product conforms to the standard based on either a test of each product or a reasonable testing program. (Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 44 FR 39983, the Commission has issued a certification rule that prescribes requirements that manufacturers and private labelers shall follow to certify that their cellulose insulation complies with the requirements of the amended standard.)
( b ) The Commission intends to use the test procedures set forth in this part 1209 to determine whether insulation subject to the interim standard meets the requirements of the interim standard.
§ 303.32 Products containing reused stuffing. Any upholstered product, mattress, or cushion which contains stuffing which has been previously used as stuffing in any other upholstered product, mattress, or cushion shall have securely attached thereto a substantial tag or label, at least 2 inches (5.08 cm) by 3 inches (7.62 cm) in size, and statements thereon conspicuously stamped or printed in the English language and in plain type not less than 1 ⁄ 3 inch (8.38 mm) high, indicating that the stuffing therein is composed in whole or in part of “reused stuffing,” “secondhand stuffing,” “previously used stuffing,” or “used stuffing.” [61 FR 11544, Mar. 21, 1996]
BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS IN THE R.F.E.

----

**November 1998**
U.S. business travelers to the Russian Far East can participate in sessions of internationalbusiness associations established in Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.   Themain goal of these groups is to create an open business environment and foster businessliaisons between local and foreign businesses. No membership fees are charged to occasionalvisitors.
Vladivostok International Business Association (VIBA)
2023.07.19
§ 1633.1 Purpose, scope and applicability. ( a ) *Purpose.* This part 1633 establishes flammability requirements that all mattress sets must meet before sale or introduction into commerce. The purpose of the standard is to reduce deaths and injuries associated with mattress fires by limiting the size of the fire generated by a mattress set during a thirty minute test.
( b ) *Scope.* ( 1 ) All mattress sets, as defined in § 1633.2(c), manufactured, imported, or renovated on or after the effective date of this standard are subject to the requirements of the standard.
( 2 ) One-of-a-kind mattress sets may be exempted from testing under this standard in accordance with § 1633.13(c).
( c ) *Applicability.* The requirements of this part 1633 shall apply to each “manufacturer” (as that term is defined in § 1633.2(k)) of mattress sets which are manufactured for sale in commerce.
Search For Partners,  October 26, 1998

----

The Business Information Service for the Newly Independent States (BISNIS) is the U.S.government's clearinghouse for trade and investment information on the Newly IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union.
#### § 2.17 Statutory delays of notifications and prohibitions of disclosure.

Upon authorization by the Commissioner who issues compulsory process pursuant to § 2.7(a) or, alternatively, upon authorization by the General Counsel, Commission attorneys may seek to delay notifications or prohibit disclosures pursuant to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. 3409), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2705), or section 7 of the U.S. SAFE WEB Act (15 U.S.C. 57b-2a).

[76 FR 54691, Sept. 2, 2011]
#### § 802.40 Exempt formation of corporations or unincorporated entities.

The formation of an entity is exempt from the requirements of the Act if the entity will be not-for-profit within the meaning of sections 501(c)(1)-(4), (6)-(15), (17)-(20) or (d) of the Internal Revenue Code.

[70 FR 11514, Mar. 8, 2005]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JUSTIN CORLISS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 399 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Memorandum and 

Order of the Superior Court at No. 

1690 EDA 2015 entered on March 9, 

2016, affirming the Order of the 

Monroe County Court of Common 

Pleas at No. CP-45-CR-0001748-

2013 entered on April 16, 2015

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is 

REMANDED to the Superior Court for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Muniz, 

164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017).

Justice Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

DECIDED: February 23, 2018
§ 1702.8 Human experience data. Human experience data constitutes the primary criterion used by the Commission in evaluating petitions for exemptions. Petitions shall therefore include a compilation of all reasonably available reports pertaining to human use of the particular substance, including the product brand as well as generic equivalents and involving adverse reports of personal injury, illness, and significant allergenicity. Such information in children is of particular importance in evaluating exemption requests. However, similar data in adults shall also be submitted if available. Human experience data may be obtained from such sources as: ( a ) Reports from Poison Control Centers,
( b ) Reports of adverse reactions relative to the product that have been submitted to the company by physicians, hospitals, consumers, and other sources,
( c ) Extensive searches of the medical, pharmacological, and toxicological literature, and
( d ) For drugs, where the human experience data submitted is based on data required by FDA to be compiled for an Investigational Exemption for a New Drug (IND), 21 CFR part 312, or a New Drug Application (NDA), 21 CFR part 314, a summary of the relevant data should be provided. The entire NDA and IND material need not be submitted.