alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: 16-030 May 24, 2016

Contact: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200

NRC Approves License Transfer of La Crosse Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved the transfer of the license for the La Crosse 

Boiling Water Reactor from the Dairyland Power Cooperative to LaCrosseSolutions LLC. 

The La Crosse plant, located in Genoa, Wis., has been shut down since 1987. The NRC at that 

time modified the original operating license to a possession-only license for the purpose of storage of 

nuclear materials and waste and decommissioning activities.

On Oct. 8, 2015, Dairyland submitted an application to the NRC requesting transfer of the 

license to LaCrosseSolutions, a subsidiary of EnergySolutions LLC, a specialist in radioactive waste 

disposal. The license transfer would allow LaCrosseSolutions to expedite decommissioning activities 

on the site. 

Under the terms of the transfer, Dairyland will remain the owner of the site and retain title to 

and responsibility for the spent nuclear fuel, currently stored in dry casks on the site. LaCrosseSolutions 

will lease the above-ground structures (other than the spent fuel storage site) and assume responsibility 

for decommissioning under NRC requirements.

EnergySolutions entered into a similar arrangement to decommission the shuttered Zion nuclear 

plant in Illinois in 2010.

The NRC’s order approving the transfer and its safety evaluation of the transfer are available in 

the NRC’s ADAMS document database at ML16123A049.
Exhibit 32.2



CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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



The undersigned, C. William Hosler, the Chief
Financial Officer of Catellus Development Corporation (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



(i) the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



Date: May 6, 2004



/S/ C. WILLIAM HOSLERC. William Hosler




THIS
CERTIFICATION IS FURNISHED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AND IS NOT BEING FILED AS PART OF THE REPORT OR AS A SEPARATE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT.



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 50519 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ERICA MINJAREZ

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 18

- 1

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Erica Minjarez has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Minjarez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brie f and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 21, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-50519 Document: 00514882243 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2019No. 18

- 50519

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-50519 Document: 00514882243 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2019
### subpart 6—national institute of allergy and infectious diseases
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3745 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3745

 To amend the Federal Credit Union Act with respect to the limitations 
                       on member business loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2011

Ms. Brown of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Credit Union Act with respect to the limitations 
                       on member business loans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Faith-Based Lending Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MEMBER BUSINESS LOAN EXCLUSION FOR LOANS TO NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS 
              ORGANIZATIONS.

    Section 107A(a) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 
1757a(a)) is amended by inserting ``, excluding loans made to nonprofit 
religious organizations,'' after ``total amount of such loans''.
                                 <all>
```
### SUBCHAPTER X—GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID TO BLIND

#### Repeal of Subchapter X of This Chapter; Inapplicability of Repeal to Puerto Rico, Guam, and Virgin Islands

Pub. L. 92–603, title III, §303(a), (b), Oct. 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 1484, provided that this subchapter is repealed effective Jan. 1, 1974, except with respect to Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
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.
#### In the Matter of Sidney Sigelman, an Attorney. Richmond County Bar Association, Petitioner.

Present — Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the sole Manager ofVestin Fund III, LLC, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Vestin Fund III, LLC;
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 consolidated 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 Vestin Fund III, LLC as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;
4.  Vestin Fund III, LLC’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 Vestin Fund III, LLC 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 Vestin Fund III LLC, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986;  (c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of Vestin Fund III, LLC’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  (d)  Disclosed in this report any changes in Vestin Fund III, LLC’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during Vestin Fund III, LLC’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affectVestin Fund III LLC’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  Vestin Fund III, LLC’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Vestin Fund III, LLC’sauditors and the audit committee of Vestin Fund III, LLC’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect Vestin Fund III, LLC’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in Vestin Fund III, LLC’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: May 13, 2005   /s/ Michael V. Shustek  Michael V. Shustek  Chief Executive Officer*  Vestin Mortgage, Inc., sole  Manager of Vestin Fund III, LLC  
* Michael V. Shustek functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the registrant
, GAO s Congressional 

Protocols
#### Paul J. Herold, Respondent-Appellant, v. F. Reed Wills et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs. Present — Dore, J. P., Callahan, Breitel and Botein, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 670.]
Exhibit 32

Certification pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Donald Mindiak, President and Chief Executive Officer and Kenneth Walter, Chief Financial Officer of BCB Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) each certify in his capacity as an officer of the Company
that he has reviewed the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 and that to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as
amended by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



|                  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|November 15, 2010 |  | /s/ Donald Mindiak                   
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  | 
|November 15, 2010 |  | /s/ Kenneth Walter                   
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer              



41
#### § 149.140 Employment.

No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
#### J. M. Hoyt, Defendant in Error, v. Earl J. Walker, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 20,171.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John R. Caverly, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 5, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action of the fourth class in the Municipal Court of Chicago by J. M. Hoyt against Earl J. Walker to recover of him as indorser the balance due on the following promissory note:

“Chicago, Nov. 1st, 1911.

On demand after date we promise to pay to the order of J. M. Hoyt ($1,000) one thousand and no/100 dollars, payable at-, value received with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Four days’ notice agreed upon.

Industrial & Historical Pageant Corporation,

By Laurence Clark, Pres.”

The note was indorsed by “Laurence Clark,” “H. H. Hoyt, Jr.,” “Earl J. Walker,” and also had the following indorsement: “Jan. 11/12, $120 paid on principal, J. M. H.” The cause was tried before the court without a jury, resulting in the court finding the issues against the defendant and assessing plaintiff’s damages at $986.29. Judgment against defendant was entered on the finding, from which judgment defendant brought error.

Miller, Starr, Packard & Peckham, for plaintiff in error; Charles L. Cobb, of counsel.

Eugene L. Garey and Archie J. Deutschman, for defendant in error; Frank D. Fulton and John M. Rankin, of counsel.

*106Abstract of the Decision.

Appeal and error, § 1401*—whew finding' *supported hy evidence.*In an action against an indorser on a promissory note, *held*that the finding and judgment against such indorser was amply supported by the evidence, there being proper presentment and demand for payment on the maker and notice of dishonor to the indorser, and the evidence did not show a material alteration of such note by adding words as to certain days' of notice after the note was indorsed., , .

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, anti Cumulative Quarterly, same topic anti section number.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-17-0013:  Discontinuation of Decoupling an Assumed Loss of Offsite Power from a Loss of Coolant Accident Rulemaking (LOOP/LOCA Rule) and PRM-50-77

Accession Number: ML16341A814

Date Released: Thursday, June 22, 2017

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16341A820 - SECY-17-0013:  Discontinuation of Rulemaking Activity-Decoupling an Assumed Loss-of-Offsite Power from a Loss of Coolant Accident, Part 50 of Title 10 of the CFR, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 35 (RIN 3150-4H43; NRC-2008-0602) (6 page(s), 1/26/2017)
    - ML16341A823 - SECY-17-0013:  Enclosure 1 - Federal Register Notice:  Discontinuation of Decoupling an Assumed Loss of Offsite Power from a Loss of Coolant Accident Rulemaking (LOOP/LOCA Rule) and PRM-50-77 (10 page(s), 1/26/2017)
    - ML16341A830 - SECY-17-0013:  Enclosure 2 - PRM-50-77:  Letter to the Petitioner:  Denying PRM-50-77 as part of discontinuing the Decoupling an Assumed Loss of Offsite Power from a Loss of Coolant Accident Rulemaking (LOOP/LOCA Rule) (2 page(s), 1/26/2017)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
No: IV-15-019 June 29, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

NRC to Begin Special Inspection at Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the Fort Calhoun nuclear 

plant to review circumstances surrounding a June 5 reported failure of an auxiliary feedwater valve that 

controls water flow to the steam generator. The plant, operated by Omaha Public Power District, is 

located 19 miles north of Omaha, Neb.

During a refueling outage, workers replaced seal material in a valve that controls cooling

water flow into one of the steam generators. During testing, the valve failed to open as designed.

Workers discovered that the new seal material was not adequate for the operating temperature of the 

valve. The seal material was replaced with a material rated for higher temperatures. Following 

successful testing, the plant resumed start up activities.

“The purpose of this special inspection is to better understand the circumstances surrounding 

the valve failure, determine if the licensee’s extent of condition review was sufficiently comprehensive, 

and review the licensee’s corrective actions to ensure that the causes of the failure have been effectively 

addressed,” NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said.

The NRC staff determined that a special inspection is warranted because the valve provides an

important safety function in the mitigation of plant events. 

NRC inspectors will spend about a week on site evaluating the licensee’s root cause analysis,

extent of condition review, and the adequacy of corrective actions as well as the quality of engineering 

assessments associated with the replacement of various plant components. An inspection report 

documenting the team’s findings will be publicly available within 45 days of the end of the inspection.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7798
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOYCE C. JAMESON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CR-90-60) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 29, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joyce C. Jameson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant noted this appeal outside the appeal period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 and failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by that rule. The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Br owder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its order on August 4, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 30, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-1815 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v . DAVID RODRÍGUEZ-PACHECO, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on February 5, 2007, is amended as follows: On page 48, line 1, "it" should be replaced with "he"
#### Virginia B. Smith, Respondent, v. Jerome Schiller, Appellant.

In our opinion the plaintiff on this record has failed to show any reasonable explanation or excuse for failure to bring the action to trial for almost three years after joinder of issue and has failed to present any showing of merits. Under such circumstances, denial of the motion to dismiss was an improvident exercise of discretion. *(Giovannucci*v. *Brooklyn & Richmond Ferry Co.,*278 App. Div. 861, and cases there cited; *McIntyre*v. *Branner,*214 App. Div. 145.) Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

§ 200.24a Director of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. The Director of the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy is responsible to the Chairman for the Commission's investor education and investor assistance programs. These programs include, but are not limited to: ( a ) Educating investors through in-person outreach, digital and social media, and other communication channels, including the Commission's website for individual investors, *Investor.gov*, by preparing and distributing to the public educational content describing the operations of the securities markets, developing strategies for prudent investor behavior, and increasing public knowledge of the functions of the Commission.
( b ) Implementing and administering a nationwide system for resolving investor complaints against individuals and entities regulated by the Commission by processing complaints received from individual investors and seeking to ensure that regulated individuals and entities process and respond to such complaints.
( c ) Providing information to investors and others who inquire about individuals and entities regulated by the Commission, the operation of the securities markets, or the functions of the Commission.
( d ) Advising the Commission and its staff, and exchanging information with domestic and international regulators and self-regulatory organizations, about problems frequently encountered by investors and possible solutions to them.
( e ) Transmitting to other offices and divisions of the Commission information provided by investors which concerns the responsibilities of these offices and divisions.
( f ) Providing for greater investor input in Commission rulemaking proceedings.
[86 FR 9443, Feb. 16, 2021]
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA) Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 8:15 AM To: 'andydees@aerovueimagery.com' Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Request for Additional Informatio n: AeroVue Imagery, LLC (FAA-2015-0961)

August 27, 2015

Dear Mr. Dees:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0961). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, mode ls, and types (i.e., fixed-wing, roto rcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions shou ld include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by September 10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.