alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29610]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2010-0361]


Toshiba Corporation Power Systems Company Notice of Receipt and 
Availability of an Application for Renewal of the U.S. Advanced Boiling 
Water Reactor Design Certification

    On November 2, 2010, Toshiba Corporation Power Systems Company 
(Toshiba) filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the 
Commission) pursuant to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 
CFR) part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear 
Power Plants,'' an application for a design certification (DC) renewal 
for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR).
    An applicant may seek a DC Renewal in accordance with subpart B of 
10 CFR part 52. The application was submitted in accordance with the 
requirements of 10 CFR 52.57(a). The information submitted by the 
applicant includes: Requests that the U.S. ABWR design certification be 
amended pursuant to 10 CFR 52.59(c); an aircraft impact assessment 
amendment pursuant to 10 CFR 50.150; and an environmental report 
pursuant to 10 CFR 52.47(b)(2) and 10 CFR 51.55(b).
    Subsequent Federal Register notices will address the acceptability 
of the tendered DC Renewal application for docketing and provisions for 
participation of the public in the DC Renewal review process.
    A copy of the application is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Public File Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland, and via the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
The accession numbers for the application are ML103080158 and 
ML103080513. Future publicly available documents related to the 
application will also be posted in ADAMS. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public Document Room staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#661602144814031509131405032608140548010910"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe8e9a8cd08c9b8d918b8c9d9bbe908c9dd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>. The application is also available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.html.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of November 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David Misenhimer,
Project Manager, BWR Projects Branch, Division of New Reactor 
Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2010-29610 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:98cr79-RH

HARRY ADRIAN ULMER, III, DOCKET NO. 4:06mj25-WCS

Defendant.

 / 

O R D E R

The Defendant appeared before the undersigned on a first appearance today

to answer to the charges of violating his supervised release. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Defendant shall appear before Chief

Judge Hinkle on March 17, 2006, beginning at 11:00 A.M., for a revocation hearing. 

Until that appearance, Defendant will remain subject to the conditions of supervised

release. 

DONE AND ORDERED on March 1, 2006.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:98-cr-00079-RH Document 104 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.3
 WebMD Health Corp.
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
 As of June 28, 2010
 Anthony Vuolo
c/o WebMD Health Corp.
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
 Dear Tony:
  1.
    
    Impact of a Change in Control of the Company on the 2010 Option and 2010 Restricted
Stock. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the applicable Award
Agreement, in the event of the occurrence of a Change in Control (as defined in Section 5.6
of the Employment Agreement), you may resign without Good Reason at any time after the one
year anniversary of such Change in Control and (i) the 2010 Option shall continue to vest and
remain outstanding through the second anniversary of the Change in Control as if you remained
in the employ of the Company through such date and the 90 day post-termination exercise period
shall commence on the second vesting date and (ii) that portion of the 2010 Restricted Stock
that would have vested through the second anniversary of the Change in Control will be deemed
vested as of the date of termination, in each case subject to the acknowledgment referred to
in Section 5.4 of the Employment Agreement becoming effective and your continued compliance
with Section 6 of the Employment Agreement. In the event that your employment is terminated
without Cause or for Good Reason on or following a




---



##### 



Change in Control of the Company, the 2010 Option and the 2010 Restricted Stock shall be
treated in the manner described in the preceding sentence (subject to the conditions
specified).
  WEBMD HEALTH CORP.By:
    /s/ Lewis H. LeicherLewis H. LeicherSenior Vice President  /s/ Anthony Vuolo

ANTHONY VUOLO
 2
#### James A. Murphy *v.*The People *ex rel.*Raymond, County Collector.

*Opinion filed December 18, 1899.*

*Taxes*— Improvement *act of 1897 does not affect county court’s jurisdiction to hear applications for sale.*The changes made in article 9 of the City and Village act by the act of 1897, relating to local improvements, do not affect the jurisdiction of the county court, under the constitution and the Revenue act, to hear and determine an application for judgment of sale for a delinquent special assessment.

Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin 1ST. Carter, Judge, presiding.

William J. Donlin, for appellant.

Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Armand F. Teefy, and Denis P. Sullivan, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Cartwright

delivered the opinion of the court:

Upon an application of the county collector for judgment against appellant’s lands delinquent as to a special assessment, and for an order of sale, he filed a special appearance and questioned the jurisdiction of the county court to entertain the application, on the ground that *186such jurisdiction was taken away by an act entitled “An act concerning local improvements, ” in force July 1,1897.

The special assessment was confirmed by a judgment entered February 24,1897, under article 9 of the general law for the incorporation of cities and villages, regulating special assessments for local improvements. The court overruled appellant’s objection and entered judgment.

By section 18 of article 6 of the constitution original jurisdiction is conferred upon county courts in proceedings for the collection of taxes and assessments, and in pursuance of that provision of the fundamental law the general Revenue law provides for applications to the county court for judgment and order of sale for taxes and special assessments on delinquent lands and lots.

(Hurd’s Stat. chap. 120, sec. 185.) Of course, the constitution is unaffected by legislation, and it is not claimed that the provision of the general Revenue law has been repealed. The act of 1897, which it is insisted took away the jurisdiction, made changes in the method of originating and lev3ring special assessments and repealed the provisions of article 9 of the act for the incorporation of cities and villages in relation to such methods, except so far as such provisions were saved by the proviso of the repealing section; but there is no inconsistency or antagonism between the two acts in the provisions made for the collection of special assessments. The application for judgment and order of sale is to be made, in each case, in the same manner to the county court, which is invested by the constitution with the power to hear the application and enter judgment. The county court was right in holding that it had not been deprived of jurisdiction.

The judgment is affirmed.

*.Judgment affirmed.*
#### §§ 25.302-25.399 [Reserved]
# 11.702 Construction contracts.

*Construction* contracts *may* authorize a variation in estimated quantities of unit-priced items. When the variation between the estimated quantity and the actual quantity of a unit-priced item is more than plus or minus 15 percent, an equitable adjustment in the contract price *shall* be made upon the demand of either the Government or the contractor. The contractor *may* request an extension of time if the quantity variation is such as to cause an increase in the time necessary for completion. The *contracting officer**must* receive the request *in writing* within 10 days from the beginning of the period of delay. However, the *contracting officer**may* extend this time limit before the date of final settlement of the contract. The *contracting officer**shall* ascertain the facts and make any adjustment for extending the completion date that the findings justify.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 11.7 - Variation in Quantity
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 25, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1956

Lower Tribunal No. F21-19119

________________

Bideau Jean,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.315(a) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian, Judge.

Bideau Jean, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1241 (Fla. 2004) 
2

(reaffirming well-established principles that “habeas corpus may not be used 

as a substitute for an appropriate motion seeking postconviction relief. . . . 

Nor can habeas corpus be used as a means to seek a second appeal or to 

litigate issues that could have been or were raised in a motion under rule 

3.850”) (citation omitted) (quoting Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114, 1115 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2001)); Beiro v. State, 289 So. 3d 511, 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) 

(noting: “The mere incantation of the words ‘manifest injustice’ does not 

make it so.”).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1923

WILLIAM K. AVERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERIOR BANK, FSB, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-3785-AW) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William K. Avery, Appellant Pro Se. Alison E. Goldenberg, GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore, Maryland; Ava Elaine Lias-Booker, David Eugene Ralph, SAUL EWING, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Hugo A. Zia, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William K. Avery filed a complaint alleging race discrimination in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (2000), and related state law claims. The case was tried before a jury and the district court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Defendant as to all counts. Avery appeals. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s statements from the bench. The court properly found that Avery failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that, in any event, the Defendant presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the denial of credit. Accordingly, we affirm. 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.

AFFIRMED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2458 

To terminate any Federal employee who refuses to answer questions or 

gives false testimony in a congressional hearing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 20, 2013 

Mr. BROOKS of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To terminate any Federal employee who refuses to answer 

questions or gives false testimony in a congressional hearing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CAUSE FOR TERMINATION WHEN GRANTED IM4 MUNITY. 

5 Any Federal employee who refuses to answer ques6 tions in a congressional hearing after being granted immu7 nity shall be terminated from employment. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2458 IH

1 SEC. 2. CAUSE FOR TERMINATION WITHOUT WAIVER OF IM2 MUNITY. 

3 Any Federal employee who, in a congressional hear4 ing, refuses to answer questions specifically, directly, and 

5 narrowly relating to the official duties of such employee, 

6 without being required to waive immunity with respect to 

7 the use of answers or the fruits thereof in a criminal pros8 ecution of such employee, shall be terminated from em9 ployment. 

10 SEC. 3. FALSE TESTIMONY CAUSE FOR TERMINATION. 

11 If three-fourths of the congressional body to whom 

12 the testimony was given finds that a Federal employee 

13 willfully or knowingly gave false testimony in a congres14 sional hearing, then such employee shall be terminated 

15 from employment. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# L_2022013EN.01007401.xml

| 20.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 13/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 13/74

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 231 of 30 June 2021
  )

On page 81, in Article 14(4):

for:

‘4.   By way of derogation from point (c) of Article 5(1), the ERDF may support productive investments in enterprises in the outermost regions, irrespective of the size of those enterprises.’,

read:

‘4.   By way of derogation from point (d) of Article 5(1), the ERDF may support productive investments in enterprises in the outermost regions, irrespective of the size of those enterprises.’.

---
----

|   | 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 operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      L. Paul Latham                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| L.      Paul Latham                                |
| President      and Chief Executive Officer         |
| of      Southwest Royalties, Inc., the             |
| Managing      General Partner of                   |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                               |
| March      27, 2009                                |
|                                               |
|                                               |
| /s/      Mel G. Riggs                              |
| Mel      G. Riggs                                  |
| Vice      President and Chief Financial Officer of |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing      General Partner of                   |
| Southwest      Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                               |
| March      27, 2009                                |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Quipp, Inc.
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         148,429
<SECURITIES>                                 8,463,831
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,791,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (715,275)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,595,199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,496,119
<PP&E>                                       3,597,813
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,769,145)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,074,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,841,848
<BONDS>                                      1,150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,658
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,066,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,074,288
<SALES>                                     21,567,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,058,030
<CGS>                                     (13,703,717)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             (18,488,777)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (61,032)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,508,221
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,288,393)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,219,828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,219,828
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and
     is qualified in its entirety by reference to such schedules.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         317,771
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               682,073
<PP&E>                                         11,546,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,332,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,076,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          497,630
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,076,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,076,190
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,799,107
<CGS>                                          490,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,668,067
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               137,937
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             337,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                137,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   137,937
<EPS-BASIC>                                  8.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  8.13



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 3:20cr54/MCR

STEPHEN S. WILSON

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the

Defendant, STEPHEN S. WILSON, to Counts One and Two of the indictment is

hereby ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as

directed.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October 2020. 

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00054-MCR Document 29 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 1