alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: III-16-017 July 5, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

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

Byron Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open house on July 12 to discuss the agency’s 

annual review of safety performance at the Byron nuclear power plant. The two-unit plant is operated 

by Exelon Generation Company LLC, and is located in Byron, Ill., about 17 miles southwest of 

Rockford. 

The public will be able to talk with NRC staff members and ask questions about the plant’s 

2015 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. The open house, which will also include 

informational posters, is scheduled for 6-7 p.m. CDT at the Byron Station Training Building, Room 

107, 4450 N. German Church Rd., in Byron.

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

looking forward to speaking with members of the public about the performance of the Byron plant and 

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

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

we ensure the plant operates safely and foster an open dialogue with the public.”

The NRC concluded that, overall Byron operated safely in 2015. All performance indicators and 

inspection findings for the plant were “green.” As a result, the plant will continue to receive the NRC’s 

normal level of oversight during 2016. 

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.

Normal inspections are performed by the two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to Byron. 

Reviews are also performed at the site by specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, and from the 

agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year by 

NRC inspectors are activities associated with radiological safety, equipment designs, and emergency 

preparedness.

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

are available on the NRC website.
#### Turner Construction Company, Respondent, v 75 Broad, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[819 NYS2d 920]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered March 10, 2005, which, in a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action, granted plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 6513 for a three-year extension of its notice of pendency against defendant’s property only to the extent of extending the notice of pendency for one year, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied outright and the subject notice of pendency vacated and discharged.

*697After filing a mechanic’s lien against defendant’s property in November 2000 based on work performed for and at the behest of defendant’s defaulting tenant, plaintiff waited until March 2002 to file a notice of pendency and commence the instant action. Thereafter, during the ensuing three years, apart from moving for summary judgment in 2003, which motion was denied as premature, plaintiff did little to prosecute the action. The motion court found that plaintiffs delays were “inordinate” but nevertheless granted a one-year extension of its notice of pendency. This was error. “[A] litigant’s ability to file a notice of pendency [without prior judicial review is] an ‘extraordinary’ privilege because of the relative ease by which it can be obtained and its powerful effect on the alienability of real property” *(Matter of Sakow,*97 NY2d 436, 441 [2002]). As a counterbalance, strict compliance with CPLR article 65 is required *(id.).*Under CPLR 6513, a notice of pendency is valid for three years from the date of filing although it may be extended for an additional three-year period “for good cause shown.” Once the motion court found no good cause to extend plaintiffs notice of pendency for a full three-year period, it was without authority to extend it for only one year. In any event, assuming judicial discretion to shorten the extension period, the utter lack of good cause here militates against any further encumbrance of defendant’s property. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
### §239l–3. Funding

Beginning with fiscal year 2010, the Secretary shall transfer from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund such sums as may be necessary to carry out this part.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title II, §274, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title V, §5315, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 642.)

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

#### Transfer of Appropriated Funds

Pub. L. 112–10, div. B, title VIII, §1828, Apr. 15, 2011, 125 Stat. 162, provided that: "Hereafter, no funds appropriated by this division or by any previous or subsequent Act shall be available for transfer under section 274 [42 U.S.C. 239l–3] of the PHS Act [Public Health Service Act]."
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.31T Temporary rule regarding fiscal year 2004. ( a ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) For the purpose of this section, the following definitions shall apply: ( i ) *FY2004 adjustment amount* means the FY2004 recalculated amount minus the FY2004 prepayment amount.
( ii ) *FY2004 prepayment amount* means the total dollar amount of fees and assessments paid by a covered SRO pursuant to the March 15, 2004, due date for covered sales and covered round turn transactions having a charge date between September 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003, inclusive.
( iii ) *FY2004 recalculated amount* means the total dollar amount of fees and assessments owed by a covered SRO for covered sales and covered round turn transactions having a charge date between September 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003, inclusive, as calculated by the Commission based on the data submitted by the covered SRO in its Form R31 (§ 249.11 of this chapter) submissions for September 2003, October 2003, November 2003, and December 2003, and indicated on a Section 31 bill for these months.
( 2 ) Any term used in this section that is defined in § 240.30(a) of this chapter shall have the same meaning as in § 240.30(a) of this chapter.
( b ) By August 13, 2004, each covered SRO shall submit to the Commission a completed Form R31 for each of the months September 2003 to June 2004, inclusive.
( c ) If the FY2004 adjustment amount of a covered SRO is a positive number, the covered SRO shall include the FY2004 adjustment amount with the payment for its next Section 31 bill.
( d ) If the FY2004 adjustment amount is a negative number, the Commission shall credit the FY2004 adjustment amount to the covered SRO's next Section 31 bill.
( e ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section, any covered exchange that as of August 2003 was calculating its Section 31 fees based on the trade date of its covered sales shall not include on its September 2003 Form R31 data for any covered sale having a trade date before September 1, 2003.
( f ) This temporary section shall expire on January 1, 2005.
[69 FR 41080, July 7, 2004]
Subpart 508.4 - Federal Supply Schedules 	  **Parent topic:** Part 508 - Required Sources of Supplies And Services508.403 Applicability 		    This section establishes special ordering procedures when considering use of LPTA. 			       				         					          (a)                   *Evaluation of FSS contract price*. GSA performs a technical evaluation in products and services prior to awarding the item on the FSS contract. This evaluation ensures orders placed against FSS contracts satisfy the requirements of Section 880 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232, 41 U.S.C. 3701). 				         				         					          (b)                   *Evaluation of order/BPA price*. The contracting officer may base their award determination on the level of effort and price as described in FAR 8.405-2(d) when purchasing services. If the contracting officer is purchasing supplies, price can still be the dominant factor. When purchasing more complex services or supplies, the contracting officer should engage in a best value tradeoff when evaluating the factors. 					           						             							              (1)Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) from a medical context, such as gloves and masks, may be purchased using LPTA. PPE from a law enforcement context, such as body armor, should not be procured through LPTA. 						             						             							              (2)Information technology services should not be procured through LPTA. 						             						             							              (3)Professional services should not be procured on an LPTA basis. 						             						             							              (4)Cyber-security services should not be procured on an LPTA basis. 						             					           				         				         					          (c)                   *Documentation*. Ordering activities may use LPTA when evaluating quotes for FSS orders or BPAs without further justification other than documenting the evaluation methodology per FAR 8.405-2(f)(4). As used in this subpart, issuing an FSS order or BPA does not require the file documentation for LPTA described in GSAM 515.101-2 or GSAM 4 516.505, however the Contracting Officer should appropriately document their award decision as described in FAR 8.405-1(g)(5) and FAR 8.405-2(d).508.404 Use of Federal Supply Schedules. 		    Although FAR 19 (except for the requirement at 19.202-1(e)(1)(iii)) does not apply to BPAs or orders placed against Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts, they are not exempt from part  519.508.405 Ordering procedures for Federal Supply Schedules. 		    (a)For a D&F for a single award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with an estimated value exceeding $100 million, the D&F must be approved by the HCA                                          (b)COs shall follow the INFORM procedures in                    515.370 for all applicable orders and BPAs.
EXHIBIT 21.2

               LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
          NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                   JURISDICTION OF         NAMES UNDER WHICH THE SUBSIDIARY CONDUCTS
                                                INCORPORATION                           BUSINESS
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                      <C>                          <C>
HiEnergy Defense, Inc.                   Delaware                     HiEnergy Defense, Inc.
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
HiEnergy Europe, Inc.                    Delaware                     HiEnergy Europe, Inc.
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
HiEnergy Mfg. Company, Inc.              Delaware                     HiEnergy Mfg. Company, Inc
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
HiEnergy International, Inc.             Delaware                     HiEnergy International, Inc.
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
exv10w1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Summary of Option Cancellations and Restricted Stock Unit Awards




     On January 13, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Virco Mfg.
Corporation (the “Company”), unanimously approved (i) the cancellation of all existing options for
Company common stock previously granted by the Company for services as a director and held by the
Company’s non-employee directors (as reflected below) and (ii) the grant of restricted stock units
to such non-employee directors (as reflected below). The restricted stock units vest on July 5,
2006, on which date each vested restricted stock unit may be
converted into one share of common
stock of the Company.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Number of Shares	 	 
	 	 	Underlying Cancelled	 	Number of Restricted
	Non-Employee Director	 	Options	 	Stock Units Granted
	Donald S. Friesz
	 	 	14,220	 	 	 	14,220	 
	Evan M. Gruber
	 	 	8,200	 	 	 	8,200	 
	Robert K. Montgomery
	 	 	11,951	 	 	 	11,951	 
	Albert J. Moyer
	 	 	4,000	 	 	 	4,000	 
	Glen D. Parish
	 	 	2,000	 	 	 	2,000	 
	Donald A. Patrick
	 	 	16,755	 	 	 	16,755	 
	James R. Wilburn
	 	 	16,755	 	 	 	16,755
#### Johanna Feinberg, Appellant, v. Francis L. Tooley and Others, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Smith and Page, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAIMING ZHANG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

APPLE, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-15740 

D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00972-TLT 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Taiming Zhang appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 

request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his action alleging various federal 

and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Zhang failed to address the grounds for denial of his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 3 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-15740

request to proceed IFP and therefore has waived any such challenge. See Indep. 

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that 

“we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s 

opening brief”).

Zhang’s motions for reconsideration (Docket Entry Nos. 17 and 18) are 

denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
### §19063. Leveraging international expertise in research

The Director shall explore and advance opportunities for leveraging international capabilities and resources that align with the Foundation and United States research community priorities and have the potential to benefit United States prosperity, security, health, and well-being, including through binational research and development organizations and foundations and by sending teams of Foundation scientific staff for site visits of scientific facilities and agencies in other countries. The Director shall establish and implement policies, including through any research security training requirements, to mitigate the potential risks of such interactions, including risks to the protection of intellectual property and the risk of undue foreign influence on research.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10354, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1562.)
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4014 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 344
112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4014

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2012

                     Received; read the first time

                             March 28, 2012

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to information 
        provided to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

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

SECTION 1. FDIA AMENDMENTS REGARDING DISCLOSURES TO THE BUREAU OF 
              CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION.

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 11(t)(2)(A) (12 U.S.C. 1821(t)(2)(A)), by 
        inserting after clause (v) the following:
                            ``(vi) The Bureau of Consumer Financial 
                        Protection.''; and
            (2) in section 18(x) (12 U.S.C. 1828(x))--
                    (A) by inserting ``the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
                Protection,'' before ``any Federal banking agency'' 
                each place such term appears; and
                    (B) by striking ``such agency'' each place such 
                term appears and inserting ``such Bureau, agency''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                       Calendar No. 344

112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4014

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Act with respect to information 
        provided to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 28, 2012

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
### §2464a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 99–190, §101(b) [title VIII, §8111], Dec. 19, 1985, 99 Stat. 1185, 1222, which related to payloads launched on Titan II launch vehicles and cost effectiveness as against space shuttle launches in fiscal year 1986, was omitted from the Code following the enactment of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs, by Pub. L. 111–314.
###### Editorial Note on Part 240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 240.15c1-3 Misrepresentation by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers as to registration.

The term *manipulative, deceptive, or other fraudulent device or contrivance,* as used in section 15(c)(1) of the Act, is hereby defined to include any representation by a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer that the registration of a broker or dealer, pursuant to section 15(b) of the Act, or the registration of a municipal securities dealer pursuant to section 15B(a) of the Act, or the failure of the Commission to deny or revoke such registration, indicates in any way that the Commission has passed upon or approved the financial standing, business, or conduct of such registered broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer or the merits of any security or any transaction or transactions therein.

[41 FR 22825, June 7, 1976]
#### Chauncey B. Griffen, Respondent, v. Sunnybrook Realty Co., Inc., Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Nolan, P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ. [See 284 App. Div. 988.]
#### In the Matter of Wisdom M. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Catherine M., Appellant. (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Wadjet R. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Catherine M., Appellant, et al., Respondent. (Proceeding No. 2.)

[820 NYS2d 605]

In related child neglect proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from a fact-finding order of the Family Court, Richmond County (McElrath, J.), dated January 31, 2005, which, after a hearing, found that she had derivatively neglected the subject children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A finding of derivative neglect is supported by the evidence indicating the appellant’s lack of understanding of her parental responsibilities *(see Matter of John N.,*19 AD3d 497, 499 [2005]; *Matter of Rico D.,*19 AD3d 416, 417 [2005]; *Matter of Ramsay M.,*17 AD3d 678, 679 [2005]; *Matter of Rasheda S.,*183 AD2d 770, 771 [1992]). After the appellant was previously found to have neglected two of her other children, she failed to follow a plan for the return of those children developed by the Administration for Children’s Services. Accordingly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court’s determination. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3963 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3963

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid Blue 264.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2012

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid Blue 264.

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

SECTION 1. ACID BLUE 264.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Acid Blue 264, (2-  Free          No change       No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        Anthracenesulfoni                                                  31/2014.......
                        c acid, 1-amino-
                        9,10-dihydro-4-
                        [[4-[[methyl[(4-
                        methyl phenyl)
                        sulfonyl] amino]
                        methyl]phenyl]
                        amino]-9,10-dioxo-
                        , sodium salt
                        (1:1)) (CAS No.
                        72828-82-1)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.12.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```