alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16083]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Facility Operating License 
Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5; Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision 
Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated May 3, 2000, Mr. 
David A. Lochbaum, on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists, has 
requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action 
with regard to Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Hatch), 
owned and operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al. 
(the licensee). The Petitioner requested that the NRC ask questions, 
via a demand for information, of the licensee concerning the liquid and 
gaseous radwaste systems at Hatch. As the basis for the request, the 
Petitioner contended that Hatch is being operated outside its design 
and licensing bases because the material condition of piping, tanks, 
and other components of the liquid and gaseous radwaste systems is not 
being properly inspected and maintained.
    A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street 
NW., Washington, DC, and is accessible electronically through the ADAMS 
Public Electronics Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www/
nrc.gov).

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June 2000.
Roy P. Zimmerman,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-16083 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### § 302-5.8 How many househunting trips may my agency authorize in connection with a particular transfer?

Your agency may authorize only one round trip for you and/or your spouse in connection with a particular transfer.
No. 10-1536.

#### Bowoto et al. *v.*Chevron Corp. et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 806 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 806

     To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to increase the 
allotments for territories under the State Children's Health Insurance 
                                Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1999

   Mr. Romero-Barcelo (for himself, Mrs. Christian-Christensen, Mr. 
 Underwood, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr. Waxman) introduced the following 
         bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to increase the 
allotments for territories under the State Children's Health Insurance 
                                Program.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASED ALLOTMENTS FOR TERRITORIES UNDER THE STATE 
              CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM.

    Section 2104(c)(4)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1397dd(c)(4)(B)), as added by section 706(a) of the Departments of 
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(f) of division A 
of Public Law 105-277), is amended by inserting ``, $34,200,000 for 
each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $25,200,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2002 through 2004, $32,400,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 
2006, and $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2007'' before the period at the 
end.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 302-17.6 Is there any circumstance under which the WTA and the RITA are not paid even though I would otherwise be eligible?

If you violate the 12-month service agreement under which you are relocated, your agency will not pay the WTA or the RITA to you, and you must repay any relocation benefits paid prior to the violation.

[FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49645, Aug. 21, 2014. Redesignated at 86 FR 73684, Dec. 28, 2021]
Exhibit 4.1 













	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
           THE
 CORPORATION WILL FURNISH TO ANY SHAREHOLDER, UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE,
 A FULL STATEMENT OF THE DESIGNATIONS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND RELATIVE
 RIGHTS OF THE SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR
 SERIES AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED, SO FAR AS THEY HAVE BEEN DETERMINED, AND THE
 AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DETERMINE THE RELATIVE RIGHTS AND
 PREFERENCES OF SUBSEQUENT CLASSES OR SERIES.

 
	
  

 	
  



 	
  

 
	
  

 
	
           The
 following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
 certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
 regulations:

 






	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 	
  

 
	
 TEN COM

 	
 – as tenants in common

 	
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT– 

 	
 _________ Custodian _________

 
	
 TEN ENT

 	
 – as tenants
 by the entireties

 	
  

 	
      (Cust)

 	
         (Minor)

 
	
 JT TEN

 	
 – as joint
 tenants with right of

 	
  

 	
 under Uniform
 Gifts to Minors

 
	
  

 	
    survivorship and not as tenants

 	
  

 	
 Act ________________________

 
	
  

 	
    in common

 	
  

 	
 (State)

 


Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the
above list.






	
  

 	
  



 	
  



 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  



 
	
  

 	
 THE SIGNATURE(S) TO
 THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF
 THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
 WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT
 OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED:

 	
  

 
	
  

 	
  

 
	
 By

 	
  

 
	
  



 	
  

 
	
 ALL GUARANTEES MUST BE
 MADE BY A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (SUCH AS A BANK OR BROKER) WHICH IS A
 PARTICIPANT IN THE SECURITIES TRANSFER AGENTS MEDALLION PROGRAM (“STAMP”),
 THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. MEDALLION SIGNATURE PROGRAM (“MSP”), OR THE STOCK EXCHANGES MEDALLION PROGRAM (“SEMP”)
 AND MUST NOT BE DATED. GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
286P15

#### State v. Crystal Gail Mangum

1. Defs *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA14-909)

1. Denied

2. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2.-

3. Def’s Motion to Withdraw PDR

3. Allowed
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1577]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than February 7, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Philip Jackson, Applications 
Officer), 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Horizon Bancorp Employees' Stock Bonus Plan Trust, Michigan 
City, Indiana; to acquire voting shares of Horizon Bancorp, and thereby 
indirectly acquire Horizon Bank, N.A., both of Michigan City, Indiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 18, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-1577 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### § 109-42.1100.50 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth policies and procedures for the utilization and disposal outside of DOE of excess and surplus personal property which has been radioactively or chemically contaminated.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: 12/1/14

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Madonna Narvaez, R10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics

SUBJECT: Various State Hub calls and Industry calls on the Proposed Plan

SUMMARY

Over the period of July through September 30, 2014, R10 held and or participated in 

several calls with R10 states and industry to get technical clarification on the proposed plan. 

Prior to those calls, the states, etc. submitted lists of questions to be discussed with the technical 

staff.

DATES OF CALLS

07/07/14: Discussion with Oregon PUC and ODEQ on 111(d)

07/23/14: Discussion with Oregon Energy Office on Block 3 RE questions

08/07/14: R10 Hub call with Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington

09/03/14: Call with Idaho

09/08/14: Follow up call with Alaska

09/19/14: Oregon call re: Compliance 111(d)

09/22/14: Follow up technical call with Washington

09/29/14: Bonneville Power Administration met with Joe Goffman in DC

ATTENDEES

07/07/14: Oregon Dept of Energy, DEQ, and PUC

07/23/14: Oregon PUC, ODEQ

08/07/14: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington

09/03/14: Idaho Energy Office, IDEQ, PUC (Mike Louis, Carl Brown, Matt Wiggs)

09/19/14: Oregon PUC, ODEQ

09/22/14: Bradley Cebulko, Deborah Reynolds, Tony Usibelli, Bill Drumheller, Al 

Newman, Stu Clark Joanna Ekrem

09/29/14: HQ has List of attendees
#### In the Matter of Robert J. Woeppel et al., as Coexecutors of Charles J. Woeppel, Deceased, Respondents, v Robert Abrams, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 918]

—Amended judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Laureen Fortunato commenced a medical malpractice action for alleged negligent treatment provided during August 1986 by petitioners’ decedent, Charles J. Woeppel, M.D. Because Woeppel was engaged in patient care and teaching duties during that treatment and was acting within the course of his State employment, he was entitled to a defense and indemnification by the State pursuant to Public Officers Law § 17. Thus, Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of petitioners *(see, Matter of Munabi v Abrams,*199 AD2d 1037; *Frontier Ins. Co. v State of New York,*172 AD2d 13).

We conclude that the 1992 amendment to Public Officers Law § 17 cannot be applied to the underlying malpractice action, which was commenced in 1988. Such application "would result in retroactive application beyond that contemplated by the Legislature and in derogation of legislative intent to the contrary” *(Matter of Munabi v Abrams,*supra, at 1038).

We reject the contention that the court acted prematurely in declaring that the State must indemnify petitioners for any judgment or settlement in the underlying action. There are no material issues of fact affecting the duty to indemnify left for resolution at trial. (Appeal from Amended Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolf, Jr., J.—CPLR art 78.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
1

EPA Docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398

Addendum 2

Additional Documents Referenced in

EPA’s Proposed Action on the Conflict of Interest Provisions for 

the Arizona Infrastructure SIP for the

1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS):

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Arizona; State Board Requirements for Ozone and Fine 

Particulate Matter

CATEGORY XI. RULEMAKING DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

PROPOSAL

A. Proposed Rule, “Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; State Board 

Requirements for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter,” signed 

July 20, 2012 (prepublication version).

B. Technical Support Document for EPA’s Proposed Action on the 

2009 Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (Conflict of 

Interest) for the State of Arizona, July 2012.

C. Reserved for published version of conflict of interest 

notice.

CATEGORY XII. OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CONFLICT OF 

INTEREST PROPOSAL

[Reserved]

CATEGORY XIII. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

PROPOSAL

A. A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 

1977, 95th Congress 2d Session, Volume 3 (August 1978).

B. Memorandum from David O. Bickart to Regional Air Directors, 

“Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128,” Suggested Definitions, March 

2, 1978.

CATEGORY XIV. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES FOR THE 
2

CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROPOSAL

A. 77 FR 21913 “Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and 1997 and 2006 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards” 

April 12, 2012.
# Comments on: 22-2019: JONES-BEY v. CHEN [ORDER], Nonprecedential
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             842
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,504
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,949
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         25,798
<ALLOWANCE>                                        169
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,289
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,330
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                587
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,810
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  42,289
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,412
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  948
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,360
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 915
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,189
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,171
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       22
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  28
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    938
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.23
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   147
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  169
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            169
        

</TABLE>
§ 302-16.202 Are there any restrictions to the types of costs we may cover? Yes, a MEA cannot be used to reimburse: ( a ) Costs or expenses incurred which exceed maximums provided by statute or in this subtitle;
( b ) Costs or expenses incurred but which are disallowed elsewhere in this subtitle;
( c ) Costs reimbursed under other provisions of law or regulations;
( d ) Costs or expenses incurred for reasons of personal taste or preference and not required because of the move;
( e ) Losses covered by insurance;
( f ) Fines or other penalties imposed upon the employee or members of the employee's immediate family;
( g ) Judgements, court costs, and similar expenses growing out of civil actions; or
( h ) Any other expenses brought about by circumstances, factors, or actions in which the move to a new duty station was not the proximate cause.
[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001, as amended by FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12256, Feb. 16, 2024]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsShuttle-tethered satellite system definition study extensionA system requirements definition and configuration study (Phase B) of the Tethered Satellite System (TSS) was conducted during the period 14 November 1977 to 27 February 1979. Subsequently a study extension was conducted during the period 13 June 1979 to 30 June 1980, for the purpose of refining the requirements identified during the main phase of the study, and studying in some detail the implications of accommodating various types of scientific experiments on the initial verification flight mission. An executive overview is given of the Tethered Satellite System definition developed during the study. The results of specific study tasks undertaken in the extension phase of the study are reported. Feasibility of the Tethered Satellite System has been established with reasonable confidence and the groundwork laid for proceeding with hardware design for the verification mission.Document ID19850019611Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateJune 30, 1980Subject CategoryAstronautics (General)Report/Patent NumberF80-10NAS 1.26:171473NASA-CR-171473Accession Number85N27923Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-32853Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850019611.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
§ 102-5.120 What are our responsibilities for documenting use of home-to-work transportation? Your responsibilities for documenting use of home-to-work transportation are that you must maintain logs or other records necessary to verify that any home-to-work transportation was for official purposes. Each agency may decide the organizational level at which the logs should be maintained and kept. The logs or other records should be easily accessible for audit and should contain: ( a ) Name and title of employee (or other identification, if confidential) using the passenger carrier;
( b ) Name and title of person authorizing use;
( c ) Passenger carrier identification;
( d ) Date(s) home-to-work transportation is authorized;
( e ) Location of residence;
( f ) Duration; and
( g ) Circumstances requiring home-to-work transportation.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                               HINES HORTICULTURE

                            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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Hines Horticulture,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert A. Ferguson, President and Chief Operating Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


                                       By: /s/ Robert A. Ferguson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Robert A. Ferguson
                                           ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                                           PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
                                           (PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER)


August 29, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Hines Horticulture, Inc. and will be retained by Hines Horticulture,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6370

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RANDY SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-327-4, CA-00-3658-8-13)

Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 29, 2001

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Randy Smith appeals from the district court’s orders: (1)

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000) motion for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000); and (2) denying his

motion for reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Smith

v. United States, Nos. CR-96-327-4; CA-00-3658-8-13 (D.S.C. Jan. 19

& Feb. 14, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED