alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NRC NEWS

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-04-055 November 3, 2004

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

NRC TO MEET WITH U. S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION OFFICIALS NOVEMBER 9

 TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with officials of the United States

Enrichment Corporation in Piketon, Ohio, on Tuesday, Nov. 9, to discuss the NRC’s latest review of

performance at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. 

The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. (EST) at the Ohio State University South Centers, located

at 1864 Shyville Road in Piketon. The meeting will be open, and interested members of the public are

invited to attend to observe. There will be an opportunity to ask questions and make comments to the

NRC staff after the business portion of the meeting but before the meeting is adjourned.

The NRC action is called a Licensee Performance Review and covers a period from Oct. 1,

2002, through Aug. 7, 2004.

The NRC staff evaluated performance at the Portsmouth plant in four major areas: Safety

Operations, Radiological Controls, Facility Support and Special Topics. The NRC said Portsmouth

continued to conduct its activities safely, as determined during the review. The agency said in a Sept.

22 letter to the company however, that “implementation of radiation protection program requirements

was an area identified as needing improvement” and that the company “needs to continue to focus

upon adherence to procedures” regarding the conduct of operations and maintenance activities and

implementation of its corrective action program. 

Interested persons may obtain a copy of the letter and its enclosure, from the NRC to the

licensee concerning the performance review, by writing, calling, or e-mailing the NRC Region II office

of public affairs in Atlanta at the addresses listed above.

###
###### Editorial Note on Part 260

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 260 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 260.7a-26 Disclaimer of control.

If the existence of control is open to reasonable doubt in any instance, the applicant or the trustee, as the case may be, may disclaim the existence of control and any admission thereof; in such case, however, a statement shall be made of the material facts pertinent to the possible existence of control.
#### § 270.14a-1 Use of notification pursuant to regulation E under the Securities Act of 1933.

For the purposes of section 14(a)(3) of the Act, registration of securities under the Securities Act of 1933 by a small business investment company operating under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 shall be deemed to include the filing of a notification under Rule 604 of Regulation E promulgated under said Act if provision is made in connection with such notification which in the opinion of the Commission adequately insures (a) that after the effective date of such notification such company will not issue any security or receive any proceeds of any subscription for any security until firm agreements have been made with such company by not more than twenty-five responsible persons to purchase from it securities to be issued by it for an aggregate net amount which plus the then net worth of the company, if any, will equal at least $100,000; (b) that said aggregate net amount will be paid into such company before any subscriptions for such securities will be accepted from any persons in excess of twenty-five; (c) that arrangements will be made whereby any proceeds so paid in, as well as any sales load, will be refunded to any subscriber on demand without any deduction, in the event that the net proceeds so received by the company do not result in the company having a net worth of at least $100,000 within ninety days after such notification becomes effective.

[25 FR 3512, Apr. 22, 1960]
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Mary A. O’Donnell, Deceased. John M. Boenisch, Appellant. Catherine B. Bain et al., Respondents.—

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffeman, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAnalytical investigation of synchrophasing as a means of reducing aircraft interior noiseThe noise control characteristics of synchrophasing are investigated using a simplified model of an aircraft fuselage. The analysis presented here includes directivity effects of the noise sources and solves in closed form the coupled motion between the interior and exterior acoustic fields and the shell vibrational response. The variation in sound pressure level at various locations inside the shell is studied for various synchrophase angles as well as the shell vibrational response and input power flow in order to uncover the principal mechanisms behind the transmission phenomena.Document ID19840024053Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsFuller, C. R.*(Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ. Blacksburg, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateAugust 1, 1984Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-3823NAS 1.26:3823Accession Number84N32123Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-390Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840024053.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
#### § 230.150 Definition of “commission or other remuneration” in section 3(a)(9), for certain transactions.

The term *commission or other remuneration* in section 3(a)(9) of the Act shall not include payments made by the issuer, directly or indirectly, to its security holders in connection with an exchange of securities for outstanding securities, when such payments are part of the terms of the offer of exchange.

[2 FR 1076, May 26, 1937]
§ 203.4 Applicability of §§ 203.4 through 203.8. ( a ) Sections 203.4 through 203.8 shall be applicable to a witness who is sworn in a proceeding pursuant to a Commission order for investigation or examination, such proceeding being hereinafter referred to as a *formal investigative proceeding.*
( b ) Formal investigative proceedings may be held before the Commission, before one or more of its members, or before any officer designated by it for the purpose of taking testimony of witnesses and received other evidence. The term *officer conducting the investigation* shall mean any of the foregoing.
#### § 239.64 Form SE, form for submission of paper format exhibits by electronic filers.

This form shall be used by an electronic filer for the submission of any paper format document relating to an otherwise electronic filing, as provided in Rule 311 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.311 of this chapter).

[58 FR 14682, Mar. 18, 1993]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form SE, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1756** 

BRUCE ANTHONY DILLARD , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendant

– Appellee , and CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons , Defendant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv - 00009

- GMG

- MJA )

Submitted : November 18, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DUNCAN, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bruce Anthony Dillard, Appellant Pro Se. Erin Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Bruce Anthony Dillard appeals the district court ’ s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge dismissing Dillard’s complaint pur suant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1 ) . We have reviewed the rec ord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dillard v. United States , No. 3:16

- cv - 00009

- GMG

- MJA (N.D. W. Va. June 22, 2016) . We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2019-B (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 26, 2020 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
 Kevin J. Cullum President and Chief Executive Officer of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FRANCISCO JACQUEZ and T. DENNIS,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

ROBERT HOREL and RICHARD

KIRKLAND,

 Defendants.

No. 09-17516

D.C. No. 4:06-cv-05631-SBA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

FEB 24 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-17516

Sergio Alvarez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgments dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of access

to the courts and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291. We review de novo. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001)

(dismissal for failure to state a claim); Yanez v. United States, 63 F.3d 870, 872

(9th Cir. 1995) (judgment on the pleadings). We affirm.

The district court properly granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the

pleadings on Alvarez’s denial of access to the courts claim because Alvarez failed

to allege that he suffered actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49

(1996) (defining actual injury as “actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or

existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a

claim” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Alvarez’s due process claim because

defendants’ failure to remove erroneous information from Alvarez’s file did not

“impose[] atypical and significant hardship on [Alvarez] in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alvarez’s motion to

file an amended complaint because amendment would have been futile. See

Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 603 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2010).
3 09-17516

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Alvarez’s request

for appointment of counsel because he failed to show exceptional circumstances. 

See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). 

Alvarez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

<PAGE>




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the Amended  periodic  report on Form 10-QSB/A for the
period ended June 30, 2003 (the  "Report") of Life USA, Inc. (the  "Company") I,
Kelly Kendall, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18USC ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) 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.

Dated: August 10, 2004

/s/Kelly Kendall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Kendall, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


     This  certification  accompanies  the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Scott M. Storer, certify that:

 

1.                                      I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

 

2.                                      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date: February 3,   2017 | /s/ Scott M. Storer                                 |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                          | Scott M. Storer                                     |
|                          | Senior Vice President   and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 25, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40974

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE OSCAR OCHOA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-181-1

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

Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Jose Oscar Ochoa appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ochoa

complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that

the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Ochoa thus

contends that his sentence should not exceed the maximum terms of
No. 02-40974

-2-

imprisonment and supervised release prescribed in 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ochoa acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### § 230.459 Calculation of effective date.

Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall be counted in computing the effective date of registration statements under section 8(a) of the act. In the case of statements which become effective on the twentieth day after filing, the twentieth day shall be deemed to begin at the expiration of nineteen periods of 24 hours each from 5:30 p.m. eastern standard time or eastern daylight-saving time, whichever is in effect at the principal office of the Commission on the date of filing.

[Reg. C, 12 FR 4075, June 24, 1947]
### §15045. Authorization of appropriations

For allotments under section 15042 of this title, there are authorized to be appropriated $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.

(Pub. L. 106–402, title I, §145, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1718.)
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2019 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2019-3, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





1. CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.





3. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2021 and ending on February 28, 2022 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.








Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 27th day of May, 2022.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President and Treasurer
### §2000a–1. Prohibition against discrimination or segregation required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule or order of a State or State agency

All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

(Pub. L. 88–352, title II, §202, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 244.)
### §17734. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–314, §6, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3444

Section, Pub. L. 110–422, title IV, §407, Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4790, related to discussions of common docking system standard among spacefaring nations to facilitate exploration crew rescue. See section 71301 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
exv10w10



 





Exhibit 10.10











15 December 2006




David Smith

85 Gordon Street

Hawthorne QLD 4171



Dear David



Following the formal annual review of your performance and personal effectiveness, your
remuneration has been adjusted taking into account the outcomes of that review, market
relativities, your role requirements and other factors. This letter formalizes these adjustments
and your remuneration effective for calendar year 2007.





	 	•	 	Your base salary (excluding superannuation) for 2007 is to be increased from $120,000
per annum to $130,000 effective 1 January 2007, an increase of 8.3%.
	 
	 	•	 	An “at-risk” bonus payment of $13,000 will be paid to you based on performance for
2006.
	 
	 	•	 	As a long term incentive you will be allocated 100,000 Peplin Ltd options under the
shareholder approved employee share option plan (ESOP). Subject to your continuing
employment with Peplin, these options will vest in three equal annual tranches commencing
1 January 2007. The options will have an expiry date of 31 December 2011. The exercise
price is yet to be determined but will be calculated as the volume weighted average price
of Peplin’s ordinary shares for the 5 trading days following board approval.




Your other terms and conditions of employment are unchanged. Please note that the contents of this
letter are to be treated as confidential.



I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your personal contribution to Peplin’s
success in 2006, and look forward to your continuing support.




Yours sincerely





/s/ Michael Aldridge


Michael Aldridge

Managing Director & CEO
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Patrick Kennedy

*Gail A. Heller,*deputy assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*Irving A. Aronson,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided April 15, 1988

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 13 Conn. App. 576, is denied.