alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 38.90 Corrective or remedial action that may be imposed when the Director finds a violation. ( a ) A Letter of Findings, Notice to Show Cause, or Initial Determination, issued under § 38.62 or § 38.64, §§ 38.66 and 38.67, or § 38.87, respectively, must include the specific steps the grant applicant or recipient, as applicable, must take within a stated period of time in order to achieve voluntary compliance.
( b ) Such steps may include: ( 1 ) Actions to end and/or redress the violation of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of WIOA or this part;
( 2 ) Make-whole relief where discrimination has been identified, including, as appropriate, back pay (which must not accrue from a date more than 2 years before the filing of the complaint or the initiation of a compliance review), or other monetary relief; hire or reinstatement; retroactive seniority; promotion; benefits or other services discriminatorily denied; and
( 3 ) Such other remedial or affirmative relief as the Director deems necessary, including but not limited to outreach, recruitment and training designed to ensure equal opportunity.
( c ) Monetary relief may not be paid from Federal funds.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1302]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


NUREG-1717, Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for 
Source and Byproduct Materials

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued draft NUREG-1717, 
``Systematic Radiological Assessment of Exemptions for Source and 
Byproduct Materials.'' This report is an assessment of potential 
radiation doses associated with the current exemptions for byproduct 
and source material in Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR). Doses were estimated for the normal life cycle of a particular 
product or material, covering distribution and transport, intended or 
expected routine use, and disposal using dose assessment methods 
consistent with the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 20. In 
addition, assessments of potential doses due to accidents and misuse 
were estimated. Also presented is an assessment of potential 
radiological impacts associated with selected products containing 
byproduct material that currently may only be used under a general 
license and may be potential candidates for exemption from licensing 
requirements.
    Licensees, Agreement States and all other interested parties are 
encouraged to submit comments and relevant data on this report. 
Comments and suggestions on this NUREG should be submitted by June 30, 
2000, to assist the staff in developing the final NUREG-1717. Comments 
may be submitted in writing directly to David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, T-6 D-59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or hand-
delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Comments may also be submitted while 
viewing this report on the Internet at the following URL: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1717/DRAFT/index.html.
    Issued NUREGs may be purchased from both the Government Printing 
Office (GPO) and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). 
Details on this service may be obtained by writing either the GPO at 
The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. 
Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328 or the NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, VA 22161. NUREGs are not copyrighted, and Commission 
approval is not required to reproduce them.


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of January 2000.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas L. King,
Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 00-1302 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLIING CODE 7590-01-P
§ 4000.29 What if I use electronic delivery? ( a ) *In general.* Your filing or issuance date is the date you electronically transmit your submission or issuance to the proper address if you meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. Note that we always treat an advance notice of reportable event and a Form 200 (notice of certain missed contributions) as filed when received. A submission made through our Web site is considered to have been transmitted when you perform the last act necessary to indicate that your submission is filed and cannot be further edited or withdrawn. You do not have to address electronic submissions made through our Web site. We are responsible for ensuring that such submissions go to the proper place. ( 1 ) *Filings.* For electronic filings, if you fail to meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) or (b)(3) of this section, we may treat your submission as invalid.
( 2 ) *Issuances.* For electronic issuances, we may treat your issuance as invalid if— ( i ) You fail to meet the requirements (“using measures reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt”) of § 4000.13(a), or
( ii ) You fail to meet the contact information requirements of paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
( b ) *Requirements.* To get the filing date under paragraph (a) of this section, you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3). To get the issuance date under paragraph (a), you must meet the requirement of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3). ( 1 ) *Technical requirements for filings.* For filings, your electronic submission must comply with any technical requirements for that type of submission (our Web site, *http://www.pbgc.gov ,* identifies the technical requirements for each type of filing).
( 2 ) *Technical requirements for issuances.* For issuances, you must comply with the safe-harbor method under § 4000.14.
( 3 ) *Identify contact person.* For an e-mail submission or issuance with an attachment, you must include, in the body of your e-mail, the name and telephone number of the person to contact if we or the intended recipient needs you to resubmit your filing or issuance.
( c ) *Failure to meet address requirement.* If you send your electronic submission or issuance to the wrong address (but you meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section), your filing or issuance date is the date of receipt at the proper address.
[68 FR 61347, Oct. 28, 2003, as amended at 70 FR 11544, Mar. 9, 2005]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,200
<INVENTORY>                                     14,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,400
<PP&E>                                         467,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 183,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 428,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           53,000
<BONDS>                                        258,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           300
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   428,600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               262,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  144,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                19,400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17<F2>
<FN>
<F1>EPS - Basic per SFAS No. 128
<F2>EPS - Diluted per SFAS No. 128
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.5

                          Signal Technology Corporation
                               222 Rosewood Drive
                                Danvers, MA 01923


                                February 17, 2000

LogiMetrics, Inc.
50 Orville Drive
Bohemia, NY 11716

Gentlemen:

          Signal Technology Corporation,  a Delaware corporation ("Signal"), and
LogiMetrics,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  are simultaneously
executing and delivering a letter of intent (the "LOI"), providing certain terms
upon which Signal would acquire the Company.

          Section 6 of the LOI provides that Signal is committing to loan to the
Company $2,000,000.  The parties hereby agree that,  notwithstanding the absence
of the following  conditions from the LOI, the loan by Signal is also contingent
upon Signal's prior receipt of (i) the consent from its bank lender, Fleet Bank,
N.A. to the transactions  contemplated by the LOI and (ii) the consent,  in form
reasonably  satisfactory to Signal,  from the Company's bank lender,  North Fork
Bank, to the transactions contemplated by the LOI and the Loan Agreement and the
Management Agreement referred to therein.  Further,  notwithstanding anything in
the LOI to the contrary,  the parties agree that the Exclusivity Period referred
to in Section 10(a) of the LOI shall not commence until such time as clause (ii)
above is satisfied.

          This letter shall be  considered  to be a part of the LOI and shall be
binding  against both parties.  Please  indicate your  agreement  with the terms
hereof by executing and delivering a copy of this letter to the undersigned.

                                           Very truly yours,

                                           Signal Technology Corporation


                                           By:/s/George E. Lombard
                                              __________________________________
                                              George E. Lombard, Chairman and
                                              Chief Executive Officer

                                              Agreed and Assented:

                                              LogiMetrics, Inc.


                                              By:/s/Norman M. Phipps
                                                 _______________________________
                                                 Norman M. Phipps, President
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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 Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp

DATE:  April 6, 2010

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 4044.15 Priority category 5 benefits.

The benefits assigned to priority category 5 with respect to each participant are all of the participant's nonforfeitable benefits under the plan.
No. 95-11069

-1-

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-11069

Conference Calendar

 

DONNA TOERPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FRANK D. TROTTER; H. JENNINGS, Sheriff;

DALLAS COUNTY; DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEP’T; 

CITY OF CEDAR HILL; JOHN DOE 1-10; JANE DOE 

1-10; CITY OF CEDAR HILL POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-2356-G

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Donna Toerper appeals from the district court’s

order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Toerper contends that the district court

erred in finding that the allegations of her complaint were

duplicative of a complaint she filed earlier in 1995, which was 

dismissed by this court on appeal for failure to prosecute. We

have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s findings, and
No. 95-11069

-2-

the district court’s order and find no abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the

magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. Toerper v.

Trotter, No. 3:95-CV-2356-G (N.D. Tex. October 26, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Kyocera Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers
knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: September 16, 2005



/s/ Yasuo NishiguchiName:

Yasuo NishiguchiTitle:

Chairman and Representative Director(Principal Executive Officer)




- 1 -
### Fluvial sediment in Kiowa Creek basin, Colorado

By: J. C. Mundorff

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1798A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 222 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 222

 Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2007

 Mrs. Clinton (for herself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
 Sanders, and Mr. Brown) submitted the following resolution; which was 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

                           September 10, 2007

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Supporting the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.

Whereas over 37,170 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year in 
        the United States;
Whereas pancreatic cancer is the 4th most common cause of cancer death in the 
        United States;
Whereas 75 percent of pancreatic cancer patients die within the first year of 
        their diagnosis and only 5 percent survive more than 5 years, making 
        pancreatic cancer the deadliest of any cancer;
Whereas there has been no significant improvement in survival rates in the last 
        25 years and pancreatic cancer research is still in the earliest 
        scientific stages;
Whereas there are no early detection methods and minimal treatment options for 
        pancreatic cancer;
Whereas when symptoms of pancreatic cancer generally present themselves, it is 
        too late for an optimistic prognosis, and the average survival rate of 
        those diagnosed with metastasis of the disease is only 3 to 6 months;
Whereas the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is 40 to 50 percent higher in 
        African Americans than in other ethnic groups; and
Whereas it would be appropriate to observe November as Pancreatic Cancer 
        Awareness Month to educate communities across the Nation about 
        pancreatic cancer and the need for research funding, early detection 
        methods, effective treatments, and treatment programs: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate supports the goals and ideals of 
Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059593
<NAME> LINDBERG CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          51,992
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,419,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                   433,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,021,508
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,028,998
<PP&E>                                     104,100,559
<DEPRECIATION>                              59,137,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              78,094,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,612,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    14,183,493
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,493,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                78,094,532
<SALES>                                    114,020,042
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           114,020,042
<CGS>                                       90,787,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               90,787,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,158,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,535,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,430,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,414,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,016,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,016,392
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03
        

</TABLE>
#### MORRIS *v.*KUHN. (MORRIS *v.*VYSE.)

1. Appeal and Error — Plea.

An appeal does not lie from an order overruling a plea, not to tbe merits, but of a dilatory nature.

' 2. Equity — Multifariousness—Demurrer.

Tbe point that plaintiff’s bill is multifarious cannot be raised by a plea; it is properly presented by demurrer, only.

Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J.

Submitted January 6, 1916.

(Docket No. 42.)

Decided March 30, 1916.

Bill by Joseph C. Morris, administrator *de bonis non*of the estate of Charles L. Fish, deceased, against Maud A. Kuhn, Tillie Vyse and Mary A. Richards to impress a trust upon certain real estate and for an accounting. From an order overruling the plea of defendants Kuhn and Richards, they appeal.

Affirmed.

*420
      *William E. Henze,*for complainant.

*Wilkinson, Boutier & Hinkley,*for defendants.

Brooke, J.

This case was before the court on a former occasion. *Morris*v. *Vyse,*154 Mich. 253 (117 N. W. 639, 129 Am. St. Rep. 472). A sufficient statement of the facts involved will be found in that opinion. We there overruled defendants’ demurrer, and granted to them the usual time in which to answer. Instead of answering simply, they filed a plea and answer. The plea is based primarily upon the ground that the petitions filed in the probate court for the county of Wayne for the appointment of Ruggles as administrator, or for the appointment of Morris (complainant) as administrator *de bonis non*of the estate of Fish, did not set forth sufficient facts to warrant the appointment of either of said persons as administrators, in that they did not allege that defendant Vyse was insolvent, or that defendants Richards and Kuhn were in any way concerned in the fraud alleged to have been perpetrated against Fish, or that it was necessary for the preservation of the estate to impress a trust upon the property in Wayne county, and that said petition did not state that defendants Kuhn and Richards are holding the property, for the use and benefit of the said Vyse, and in furtherance of the perpetration of the fraud practiced by defendant Vyse upon Fish, by means of which she obtained the money in question. The second ground of the plea is based upon the alleged fact that the bill is multifarious. The plea raises no issue of fact. Arguments were had upon the plea, and the same was overruled by the trial court. Defendants have removed the case to this court for review.

We have lately held that a plea which does not affect the merits of the entire controversy is not a final order, and therefore not appealable. All the cases bearing *421upon this question are examined and harmonized in the case of *Hagar*v. *Schliess,*183 Mich. 610 (149 N. W. 1058).

With reference to the alleged fact that the bill is multifarious, We need only say that under our own decisions this point can be raised only by demurrer. *Snook*v. *Pearsall,*95 Mich. 534 (55 N. W. 459); *Burnham*v. *Dillon,*100 Mich. 352 (59 N. W. 176); *Miner*v. *Wilson,*107 Mich. 57 (64 N. W. 874). .

The order overruling defendants’ plea is affirmed;

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Ostrander, Bird, Moore,Steere, and Person, JJ., concurred.