alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. I-14-016 April 9, 2014 

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

NRC Issues Order Imposing $7,000 Fine Against Puerto Rico Firm

For Failing to Dispose of Licensed Nuclear Materials

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued an Order to a Santurce, Puerto Rico, company

imposing a $7,000 civil penalty for failure to dispose of licensed nuclear material in its possession. The 

material is contained in nuclear devices used for medical diagnostic purposes.

The NRC considered additional daily fines against Centro de Medicina (CDM) Nuclear because 

of its ongoing possession of the material, but the agency has determined further penalties are not 

warranted because CDM has initiated steps towards site decommissioning.

In a previous Order issued Aug. 7, 2012, the NRC notified CDM that it had failed to pay its 

annual licensing fee to the agency and had 20 days to do so. When the firm did not comply, the NRC 

revoked CDM’s license on Aug. 28, 2012, and required CDM to take several steps, including arranging 

for the disposal or transfer of any licensed nuclear materials possessed under its license.

During a visit to the Santurce site on Jan. 17, 2013, an NRC inspector confirmed that the 

company’s licensed radioactive sources were properly accounted for and secured. However, despite the 

August 2012 Order, CDM was not acting to address the issue and had failed to respond to NRC 

communications on the matter.

An NRC notice of the proposed $7,000 fine was issued on Nov. 5, 2013. When CDM did not 

respond to the notice, an NRC inspector visited the facility on Jan. 29, 2014. Company representatives 

agreed at that time to obtain cost estimates for disposal of the material but subsequently said CDM did 

not have sufficient funds to do so. Since then, the company has secured an estimate for disposal or 

transfer of the materials.

CDM has 20 days from the date of the current Order to pay the civil penalty or request a 

hearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,598,500
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          10,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,350,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 11,118,402
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       7,594,347
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         7,533,394
<LOANS>                                     31,893,984
<ALLOWANCE>                                    646,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,171,801
<DEPOSITS>                                  50,693,953
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            410,558
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,567,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              57,171,801
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,237,317
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              614,488
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               188,231
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,040,036
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,415,576
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,428,217
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,611,819
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   90,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                795,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                890,297
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     890,297
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   585,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.36
<LOANS-NON>                                    321,428
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                602,130
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               617,457
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   71,227
<RECOVERIES>                                    10,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              646,230
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           646,230
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
§ 1508.800 What are the causes for debarment? We may debar a person for— ( a ) Conviction of or civil judgment for— ( 1 ) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction;
( 2 ) Violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging;
( 3 ) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; or
( 4 ) Commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects your present responsibility;
( b ) Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serious as to affect the integrity of an agency program, such as— ( 1 ) A willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more public agreements or transactions;
( 2 ) A history of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance of one or more public agreements or transactions; or
( 3 ) A willful violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or requirement applicable to a public agreement or transaction;
( c ) Any of the following causes: ( 1 ) A nonprocurement debarment by any Federal agency taken before October 1, 1988, or a procurement debarment by any Federal agency taken pursuant to 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, before August 25, 1995;
( 2 ) Knowingly doing business with an ineligible person, except as permitted under § 1508.120;
( 3 ) Failure to pay a single substantial debt, or a number of outstanding debts (including disallowed costs and overpayments, but not including sums owed the Federal Government under the Internal Revenue Code) owed to any Federal agency or instrumentality, provided the debt is uncontested by the debtor or, if contested, provided that the debtor's legal and administrative remedies have been exhausted;
( 4 ) Violation of a material provision of a voluntary exclusion agreement entered into under § 1508.640 or of any settlement of a debarment or suspension action; or
( 5 ) Violation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701); or
( d ) Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects your present responsibility.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of a Paper Writing Purporting to Be the Last Will and Testament of William Gernhardt, Deceased.

The decision of this motion will be held until November 17, 1916, in order to enable the appellant to-apply to the surrogate for permission to resign as executrix of the will of William Bernhardt, deceased, in which event the record of the aeeeptance’of such resignation may be presented to this court on or before that date. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton, Mills and Putnam, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Joseph DiNardo, an Attorney, Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 925]

—Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f). Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ. (Filed Oct. 25, 2000.)
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

RICHARD KRAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CROOK,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-0038 WHA

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

PLAINTIFF CHARLES KRAH TO

ATTEND THE MEDIATION

TELEPHONICALLY

Date: July 23, 2010

Mediator: Randolph Hall

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for plaintiff Charles Krah to be excused from

personally attending the July 23, 2010 mediation session before Randolph Hall is GRANTED. Mr.

Krah shall be available at all times to participate by telephone in the mediation in accordance with

ADR L.R. 6-10(f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

July 15, 2010 By:

Dated Elizabeth D. Laporte

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00038-WHA Document 42 Filed 07/16/10 Page 1 of 1
### §290cc–29. Requirement of application

The Secretary may not make payments under section 290cc–21 of this title unless the State involved—

(1) submits to the Secretary an application for the payments containing agreements and information in accordance with this part;

(2) the agreements are made through certification from the chief executive officer of the State; and

(3) the application otherwise is in such form, is made in such manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this part.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §529, as added Pub. L. 100–77, title VI, §611(3), July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 520; amended Pub. L. 100–607, title VIII, §811(b), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3170; Pub. L. 100–628, title VI, §611(b), Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3243; Pub. L. 101–93, §5(t)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 615; Pub. L. 101–645, title V, §511, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4731.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–645 amended section generally, substituting provisions relating to requirement of application for provisions relating to conversion to State categorical program in event of failure of State with respect to expending allotment.

1989—Pub. L. 101–93 directed that this section as similarly amended by title VIII of Pub. L. 100–607 and title VI of Pub. L. 100–628 be amended to read as if the amendments made by title VI of Pub. L. 100–628 had not been enacted. See 1988 Amendment note below.

1988—Pub. L. 100–607 and Pub. L. 100–628 made identical amendments, amending section generally by substituting present provisions for provisions which had related to: in subsec. (a), additional allotments for certain States; in subsec. (b), description of funds; and in subsec. (c), determination of amount of allotment.

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendments

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–628 effective Nov. 7, 1988, see section 631 of Pub. L. 100–628, set out as a note under section 254e of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–607 effective Nov. 4, 1988, see section 831 of Pub. L. 100–607, set out as a note under section 254e of this title.
§ 20.5 Survivor benefits. ( a ) *Type of benefits.* A former spouse who meets the eligibility requirements of § 20.3 is entitled to survivor benefits equal to one of the following; whichever is applicable: ( 1 ) 55 percent of the full annuity to which the principal was entitled on the commencement or recomputation date of the annuity in the case of a principal who dies while in receipt of a Foreign Service annuity computed under section 806, 808, 823, 824, or 855 of the Act of 5 U.S.C. 8415;
( 2 ) 55 percent of the annuity to which the principal was entitled at death in the case of a principal who dies while in receipt of a Foreign Service annuity computed under 5 U.S.C. 8452;
( 3 ) 55 percent of the full annuity to which the principal would have been entitled if he or she retired (or returned to retirement status) on the date of death computed—depending on the provision that would be used to compute an annuity for a surviving spouse of the principal—under section 806(a), 823, 824, or 855(b) of the Act of 5 U.S.C. 8415 and using the actual service of the principal, in the case of a principal who dies while in active service, including service on recall or reemployment while annuity is suspended or reduced; or,
( 4 ) 55 percent of the full annuity computed under 5 U.S.C. 8413(b) that the principal could have elected to receive commencing on the date of death or, if later, commencing on the date the principal would have attained the minimum retirement age described in 5 U.S.C. 8412(h), in the case of a principal while entitled to a deferred annuity under 5 U.S.C. 8413(b), but before commencement of that annuity. A survivor annuity under this paragraph may not commence before the date the principal would have attained the minimum retirement age.
( b ) *Effect of election of alternate form annuity.* If a principal elects an alternate form annuity under section 829 of the Act or 5 U.S.C. 8420a, survivor benefits for a former spouse under this section shall, nevertheless, be based on what the principal's annuity would have been had the principal not withdrawn retirement contributions in a lump sum.
( c ) *Reduction because of receipt of other survivor benefits.* If a former spouse is in receipt of a survivor annuity based on an election by the principal under section 806(f) or 2109 of the Act, the survivor benefits for the former spouse under this section shall be reduced on the effective date by the amount of such elected survivor annuity.
( d ) *Commencement and Termination.* Entitlement to survivor benefits under this section— ( 1 ) Shall commence on the latter of— ( i ) The date the principal dies;
( ii ) December 22, 1987; and
( 2 ) Shall terminate on the last day of the month before the former spouse dies or remarries before attaining age 55.
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 Quarterly Report of Life USA, Inc. (the Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Richard Newton CFO
of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.



                                                /s/Richard Newton
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Richard Newton, CFO



  Dated:  May 15, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                         (000s, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                For the quarter ended      For the six months ended
                                                    June 30, 1999                June 30, 199
                                                ---------------------      ------------------------
<S>                                             <C>                        <C>
Net income                                      $               577        $                 687

Weighted average number of outstanding
     shares of common stock                                   8,492                        8,485

Basic earnings per share                        $              0.07        $                0.08
                                               ======================      ========================
Net income                                      $               577        $                 687

Weighted average number of outstanding
     shares of common stock                                   8,492                        8,485
Dilutive stock options                                           11                            7
                                                ---------------------      ------------------------
                                                              8,503                        8,492

Earnings per share assuming dilution            $              0.07        $                0.08
                                                =====================      ========================

</TABLE>
§ 4.30 Prohibited activities. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no commodity trading advisor may solicit, accept or receive from an existing or prospective client funds, securities or other property in the trading advisor's name (or extend credit in lieu thereof) to purchase, margin, guarantee or secure any commodity interest of the client.
( b ) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to: ( 1 ) A futures commission merchant that is registered as such under the Act;
( 2 ) A leverage transaction merchant that is registered as a commodity trading advisor under the Act;
( 3 ) A retail foreign exchange dealer that is registered as such under the Act; or
( 4 ) A swap dealer that is registered as such under the Act, with respect to funds, securities or other property accepted to purchase, margin, guarantee or secure any swap that is not cleared through a derivatives clearing organization.
[77 FR 54359, Sept. 5, 2012]
§ 1423.9 Action by the Regional Director. ( a ) The Regional Director shall take action which may consist of the following, as appropriate: ( 1 ) Approve a request to withdraw a charge;
( 2 ) Refuse to issue a complaint;
( 3 ) Approve a written settlement agreement in accordance with the provisions of § 1423.11;
( 4 ) Issue a complaint;
( 5 ) Upon agreement of all parties, transfer to the Board for decision, after issuance of a complaint, a stipulation of facts in accordance with the provisions of § 1429.1(a) this subchapter; or
( 6 ) Withdraw a complaint.
( b ) Parties may request the General Counsel to seek appropriate temporary relief (including a restraining order) under 22 U.S.C. 4109(d). The General Counsel will initiate and prosecute injunctive proceedings under 22 U.S.C. 4109(d) only upon approval of the Board. A determination by the General Counsel not to seek approval of the Board for such temporary relief is final and may not be applied to the Board.
( c ) Upon a determination to issue a complaint, whenever it is deemed advisable by the Board to seek appropriate temporary relief (including a restraining order) under 22 U.S.C. 4109(d), the Regional Attorney or other designated agent of the Board to whom the matter has been referred will make application for appropriate temporary relief (including a restraining order) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Such temporary relief will not be sought unless the record establishes probable cause that an unfair labor practice is being committed, or if such temporary relief will interfere with the ability of the Department to carry out its essential functions.
( d ) Whenever temporary relief has been obtained pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 4109(d) and thereafter the Administrative Law Judge hearing the complaint, upon which the determination to seek such temporary relief was predicated, recommends dismissal of such complaint, in whole or in part, the Regional Attorney or other designated agent of the Board handling the case for the Board shall inform the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of the possible change in circumstances arising out of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
#### Mauricio LOPEZ ORTIZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72468.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 15, 2007.

Mauricio Lopez Ortiz, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Camelia Cantu De Lopez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Ana Karina Lopez Cantu, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Zobeida Lopez Cantu, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

Jovanny Lopez Cantu, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

*511CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Robbin K. Blaya, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Genevieve Holm, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mauricio Lopez Ortiz, his wife Camelia Cantu de Lopez, and their three children Zobeida, Ana Karina, and Jovanny Lopez Cantu (the “children”), all natives and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen cancellation of removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, *Ordonez v. INS,*345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as to Lopez Ortiz because it considered the evidence presented regarding his child’s new medical condition and acted within its broad discretion in determining that it did not indicate her condition was severe enough to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen with regard to Cantu de Lopez and the three children because the new medical evidence is not relevant to the BIA’s earlier determination that they failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

We do not consider petitioners’ remaining contentions regarding the BIA’s underlying decision of December 7, 2004, because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that decision. *See Membreno v. Gonzales,*425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*512ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.