alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pueblo Community Forum on 

Acceleration Options 

Saturday, July 26, 2003 

9 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.

Pueblo Convention Center, 320 Central Main St., Pueblo, CO 

The partnership that includes the Pueblo Chemical Depot, the Colorado

Citizens’ Advisory Commission, the Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment, Bechtel Pueblo, and the Program Manager Assembled Chemical

Weapons Alternatives among others, invites you to attend an informational 

forum. 

A group of approximately 50 Pueblo-area community leaders will discuss and

provide advice regarding upcoming events in the chemical weapons destruction

process. The forum agenda will focus on acceleration options under consideration

to speed the destruction of the stockpile, as directed by the Department of 

Defense. Acceleration discussions began in previous community forums, resulting

in mutually acceptable methods to help destroy the weapons more quickly. Some

of these concepts are already in the process of being implemented, such as 

pursuing innovative regulatory permitting approaches and faster contracting 

methods. 

At a previous forum, an option to ship neutralization by-products off the depot 

for commercial treatment was discussed. While it was noted that such shipments 

could save money and time, some community members expressed concern 

regarding a perceived loss of jobs and sending waste to other communities. At 

the time, however, there was insufficient data to clarify the real impacts--positive

or negative. Thus, it was agreed that possible impacts would be studied and then

reviewed by a local subcommittee of the Citizens’ Advisory Commission, known as

the “Acceleration Options Working Group.” This group along with members of the

ACWA program staff will be presenting data and recommendations at the

upcoming forum so that the government may consider these recommendations 

and other community input before making final decisions. 

Opportunities will be made available for public comment at this meeting. As 

registration is required, please complete the attached response form and return it 

to the Pueblo Chemical Depot Community Outreach Office before July 14, 2003. 

For more information, contact the 

Pueblo Chemical Depot Community Outreach Office 

at 719-546-0400, fax 719-546-0409 

FS-01 20030303
#### § 995.4 Definitions.

*Certified NOAA ENC Distributor (CED)* means an entity that is certified as a distributor of NOAA ENC files by NOAA. This certification indicates that the distributor meets certain requirements (in Subparts A, B, and D of this part) that ensure timely and accurate dissemination of NOAA ENC data.

*Certified NOAA ENC Value Added Distributor (CEVAD)* means an entity that creates a derived product that has been produced from NOAA ENC files using a process certified by NOAA. This certification indicates that the CEVAD meets certain requirements (in Subparts A, C, and D of this part) that ensure timely and accurate dissemination of NOAA ENC data in a non-ENC format.

*Derived product* means a navigational product produced by transforming the NOAA ENC files to another format while preserving the content and accuracy. It may contain information from other sources.

*Distributor* means a person or company that redistributes a NOAA ENC to end users in its original format.

*Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS)* means the internationally adopted computer-assisted navigation system which, when complying with all of the required specifications, can be accepted as the up-to-date chart required by V/20 of the 1974 SOLAS Convention.

*Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC)* means a database, standardized as to content, structure, and format, issued for use with ECDIS on the authority of government authorized hydrographic offices. The ENC contains all the chart information necessary for safe navigation and may contain supplementary information in addition to that contained in the paper chart (e.g., sailing directions), which may be considered necessary for safe navigation.

*Entity* means one person, one person within a company, or one company.

*NOAA ENC* ® means Electronic Navigational Charts produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA ENC files comply with the IHO S-57 standard, Edition 3.1 and the ENC Product Specification. The phrase “NOAA ENC” is a registered trademark and may not be used without permission.

*Redistributed* means to distribute again, either as a direct copy or in a different way. A redistributed NOAA ENC is one that has been downloaded from an official NOAA ENC Web site by one entity and provided to another entity.

*System Electronic Navigational Chart (SENC)* means a database resulting from the transformation of the ENC by ECDIS for appropriate use, updates to the ENC by appropriate means and other data added by the mariner. It is this database that is actually accessed by ECDIS for the display generation and other navigational functions, and is equivalent to an up-to-date paper chart. The SENC may also contain information from other sources.

*Value Added Distributor* means a person or company that redistributes a NOAA ENC with additional data included or in a different format to create newly derived products used by end users.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 02 3

- 2159 LT Case No

. 2 021

- 100149

- CFDL

_____________________________
M ICHAEL H ARRIS , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Volu sia County

. Elizabeth A. Blackburn , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero
, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard A. Pallas, Jr.
, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

June 4, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , S OUD , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
§ 255.4 Endorsements by organizations. ( a ) Endorsements by organizations, especially expert ones, are viewed as representing the judgment of a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member, and whose judgments are generally free of the sort of subjective factors that vary from individual to individual. Therefore, an organization's endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization. Moreover, if an organization is represented as being expert, then, in conjunction with a proper exercise of its expertise in evaluating the product under § 255.3, it must utilize an expert or experts recognized as such by the organization or standards previously adopted by the organization and suitable for judging the relevant merits of such products. (*See* § 255.1(e) regarding the liability of endorsers.)
( b ) Examples: ( 1 ) *Example 1.* A mattress manufacturer advertises that its product is endorsed by a chiropractic association. Because the association would be regarded as expert with respect to judging mattresses, its endorsement must be supported by an evaluation by an expert or experts recognized as such by the organization, or by compliance with standards previously adopted by the organization and aimed at measuring the performance of mattresses in general and not designed with the unique features of the advertised mattress in mind.
( 2 ) *Example 2.* A trampoline manufacturer sets up and operates what appears to be a trampoline review website operated by an independent trampoline institute. The site reviews the manufacturer's trampolines, as well as those of competing manufacturers. Because the website falsely appears to be independent, it is deceptive. (*See* § 255.5.)
( 3 ) *Example 3.* ( i ) A third-party company operates a wireless headphone review website that provides rankings of different manufacturers' wireless headphones from most recommended to least recommended. The website operator accepts money from manufacturers in exchange for higher rankings of their products. Regardless of whether the website makes express claims of objectivity or independence, such paid-for rankings are deceptive and the website operator is liable for the deception. A headphone manufacturer who pays for a higher ranking on the website may also be held liable for the deception. A disclosure that the website operator receives payments from headphone manufacturers would be inadequate because the payments actually determine the headphones' relative rankings. If, however, the review website does not take payments for higher rankings, but receives payments from some of the headphone manufacturers, such as for affiliate link referrals, it should clearly and conspicuously disclose that it receives such payments. (*See* § 255.5(k)(11))
( ii ) Assume that the headphone review website operator uses a ranking methodology that results in higher rankings for products whose sellers have a relationship to the operator because of those relationships. The use of such a methodology is also misleading.
August 21, 2015 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, Committee on Energy 

 and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of the Commission, I am transmitting the July 2015 monthly status report on 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) activities and use of unobligated carryover 

funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. This report describes NRC activities in July 

2015 to address the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 

the case In re Aiken County regarding the licensing process for the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Yucca Mountain license application. 

 Please feel free to contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional 

Affairs, at 301-415-1776, if you have questions or need more information. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 /RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. 

 
Identical letter sent to: 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, Committee on Energy 

 and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

 and the Economy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Paul Tonko 

The Honorable James Inhofe 

Chairman, Committee on Environment 

 and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Barbara Boxer 

The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air 

 and Nuclear Safety 

Committee on Environment 

 and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Thomas R. Carper 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

 and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Bobby L. Rush 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Nita Lowey 

The Honorable Mike Simpson 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

 and Water Development 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Marcy Kaptur 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

 and Water Development 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
EXHIBIT 10.2


AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”),
executed on April 19, 2007, to be effective for all purposes as of August 29,
2006, is between FiberTower Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
and Michael K. Gallagher, an individual 
(the “Executive”).


WHEREAS, the
Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement dated August 29,
2006 (the “Original Agreement”);


WHEREAS, due to
an administrative error, the Original Agreement did not correctly reflect the
vesting dates of the restricted stock grant to the Executive as approved by the
board of directors of the Company on August 29, 2006; and


WHEREAS, the
Company and the Executive desire to amend the Original Agreement as described
herein in order to correct such error.


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:


1.             Section 4(c) of the Original
Agreement is hereby amended to delete the fifth sentence of that paragraph,
which reads: “The Company’s right of repurchase with respect to the Restricted
Stock shall lapse as to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total shares subject
to the Restricted Stock award on each November 15th, beginning November 15,
2007.”  Such sentence is hereby replaced
with the sentence: “The Company’s right of repurchase with respect to the
Restricted Stock shall lapse as to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total
shares subject to the Restricted Stock award on each August 29th, beginning
August 29, 2007.”


3.             The Original Agreement, excepted as
amended by this Amendment, remains in full force and effect.













IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to
be effective on the day and year above written.


 


 


	
  

  	
   

  	
  FIBERTOWER CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ John D. Beletic

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  John D. Beletic

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  Executive Chairman

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Michael K. Gallagher

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Michael K. Gallagher
#### Morris Golub, Appellant, v. City of New York, Defendant, and Jane Sciacca, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas P. Sciacca, et al., Respondents.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ. [201 Mise. 866.]
#### Regina Schafer, as Administratrix of the Estate of Henry J. Schafer, Deceased, Appellant, v. Norwood Equipment Corp., Respondent

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ.
§ 147.10 Interpretation of this part with other provisions. ( a ) Nothing in this part shall be interpreted as: ( 1 ) Expanding or limiting the present rights of any person under part 145 of this title (implementing the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552), except that the exemptions set forth in § 147.3(b) of this part shall govern in the case of any request made pursuant to part 145 to copy or inspect the transcripts, recordings or sets of minutes described in this part; or
( 2 ) Authorizing the Commission to withhold from any person any record, including transcripts, recordings or sets of minutes required by this part, which is otherwise accessible to such individual under part 146 of this title (implementing the provisions of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a).
( b ) The requirements of chapter 33 of title 44, U.S. Code (with respect to the disposal of records), shall not apply to the transcripts, recordings and minutes described in this part.
#### Ex Parte: In the Matter of E. E. KIRBY, Petitioner.

January 13, 1890.

Writ granted.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTESS Data Release Notes: Sectors 1-9, Multi-Sector Search, DR15This release note discusses the science data products produced by the Science Processing Operations Center at Ames Research Center from the Sector 1-9 transiting planet search with observations made with the TESS spacecraft and cameras as a means to document instrument performance and data characteristics.Document ID20190026771Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsBurke, Christopher J.*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Fausnaugh, Michael M.*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Caldwell, Douglas A.*(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Inst. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Jenkins, Jon M.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Smith, Jeffrey C.*(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Inst. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Twicken, Joseph D.*(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Inst. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Vanderspek, Roland*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Doty, John*(Noqsi Aerospace Ltd. Billerica, MA, United States)*Ting, Eric B.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Villesenor, Joel S.*(Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge, MA, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 30, 2019Publication DateMay 17, 2019Subject CategoryAstronomyReport/Patent NumberARC-E-DAA-TN69032NASA/TM-2019–220228Funding Number(s)WBS: 985788.04.02.03CONTRACT_GRANT: NNG14FC03CCONTRACT_GRANT: NNX17AK23ADistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20190026771.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>

                 Exhibit 23.2 Consent of Conyers Dill & Pearman

                             Conyers, Dill & Pearman
                                 Clarendon House
                                 2 Church Street
                                 P.O. Box HM 666
                             Hamilton, Bermuda HM CX

Telephone: (441) 295-1422     Facsimile:  (441) 292-4720   E-Mail: info@cdp.bm



                                                                 17, August 2000


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C.  20549


         Re:  Coastal Caribbean Oils & Minerals Ltd.


Ladies and Gentlemen:



         We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the prospectus  constituting a part of the registration statement on
Form S-1 relating to 10,000,000 shares of common stock of Coastal Caribbean Oils
& Minerals, Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.


Yours faithfully,

/s/ Conyers  Dill & Pearman

 CONYERS  DILL & PEARMAN
Issue Date: 08/13/14 1 14-018 

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS 

Change Notice 14-018

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date

1. IP 65001.04 04/18/08 IP 65001.04 08/13/14 

2. IP 70462 11/13/08 IP 70462 08/13/14 

3. IP 70562 11/13/08 IP 71562 08/13/14 

4. TI 2515/168 05/19/06 

TRAINING: No 

REMARKS: IP 65001.04, “Inspection of ITAAC-Related Installation of Pipe Supports and 

Restraints,” has been revised to correct the designator and title of reference to 

the ASME subsection on reports, as well as a periodic update. 

 IP 70462, “Reactor Coolant System Hydrostatic Test – Test Witnessing,” which 

was initially issued 10/01/1983, deleted 11/20/1998, and reactivated 11/13/2008 

without any changes to accommodate Watts Bar 2, has been revised to support 

the current conditions for the Watts Bar 2 hydrostatic test. 

 IP 70562, “Reactor Coolant System Hydrostatic Test Results Evaluation,” which 

was initially issued 10/01/1983, deleted 11/20/1998, and reactivated 11/13/2008 

without any changes to accommodate Watts Bar 2, has been revised to support 

the current conditions for the Watts Bar 2 hydrostatic test. 

The following Temporary Instructions have been completed and will be deleted: 

 TI 2515/168 “Closeout Inspection of Nuclear Reactor Safeguards Interim 

Compensatory measures - Section B.5.b of the February 25, 2002, Orders” 

PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION: Standard 

END
#### In the Matter of Marco Wan, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 489]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Following a fight in the laundry room, correction officers received confidential information in the form of anonymous notes which indicated that petitioner, a laundry porter, possessed a weapon and was making homemade alcohol. They searched the laundry room and found a metal shank wrapped in *1123brown duct tape secreted in a jump suit as well as four gallons of a substance determined to be alcohol. They also searched petitioner’s cell where they found a roll of duct tape of the same type wrapped around the metal shank. As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with possessing a weapon and possessing alcohol. At the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of possessing a weapon, but not guilty of possessing alcohol. The determination of guilt was upheld on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

Upon our review, “[t]he misbehavior report, testimony at the hearing and supporting documents, together with the circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt” *(Matter of Gourdine v Goord,*18 AD3d 1045, 1045-1046 [2005]). While petitioner contends that the Hearing Officer did not ascertain the reliability of the confidential sources, we note that the information they disclosed prompted the investigation and search but did not provide the basis for the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Hemphill v Selsky,*26 AD3d 548, 549 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.