alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart W Stakeholders Conference Call 

July 11, 2013

ATTENDEES

EPA: Reid Rosnick, Susan Stahle, Angelique Diaz 

Environmental Groups: Sharyn Cunningham, CCAT; Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch; Jennifer 

Thurston, INFORM 

Uranium Industry/Other: Oscar Paulson, Kennecott; Mike Griffin, Strata; Dawn Coleman, 

Uranerz; Josh Leftwich, Cameco; Katie Sweeney, National Mining Association; Darryl Liles, 

SENES 

UPDATE 

Reid began the call with a welcome and by taking attendance. Reid had one item to share. The 

Subpart W rulemaking package was sent to, and accepted by OMB on June 6, 2013. We received 

a preliminary set of comments this past Tuesday, July 9. We are currently reviewing the 

comments. We continue to be on track for a proposed rule this Fall. 

DISCUSSION 

Katie Sweeney: Why hasn’t the rule been shown as “received” by OMB on their website. 

Reid: Will follow up with OMB and get an answer. 

UPDATE: If you go to Reginfo.gov, and click on “Regulations under EO 12866 Review,” it’s 

listed as being under review since 6/10/2013.

Sarah Fields: Has put together a memo she will forward to EPA and Utah DAQ over White Mesa 

mill and impoundments in operation. Says there is no real regulatory clarification for when the 

first day of closure begins. Feels the Subpart W rulemaking must address when an impoundment 

is no longer subject to Subpart W. What does “until the day closure begins” mean? This needs 

clarification. 

Reid: Thank you, Sarah. We have tried to address this in the proposed rule and you will have an 

opportunity to comment. 

Jennifer Thurston: Can you shed any light on preliminary comments from OMB and will you 

post online? 

Reid: Hasn’t had a chance to look at them yet. Doesn’t think it is anything major. When we are 

ready to publish the proposal, we will post OMB’s comments, and they will be in the docket. 

Next call: Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 11 AM Eastern Time.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Sandor Grosz, the Chief Financial Officer of Technology Solutions Company, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Technology Solutions Company;
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;
4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b.  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c.  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a.  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 11, 2005 By:  /s/ SANDOR GROSZ    Sandor Grosz    Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Chisen Electric Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”), the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date: February 28, 2011
By:
/s/ Xu KechengName:
Xu KechengTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive

Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chisen Electric Corporation will be retained by Chisen Electric Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 65333.

#### Metasco, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/12546 (Tampa).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the *388subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), tbe claim of tbe plaintiff was sustained.
No. 57568.

#### American & Oriental Fur & Hides Export Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 977490-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

*274Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JACKSON ESSIM, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 01-2246

SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.

(CA-00-2048-A)

Submitted: March 7, 2002

Decided: March 28, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

David Paul Murphy, KOORITZKY & ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles B. Wayne, Elisha A. King, PIPER,

MARBURY, RUDNICK & WOLFE, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Jackson Essim appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sears Roebuck & Co. on his discrimination

claims filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.

2001), and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 (West Supp. 2001); and his state law

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. We affirm. 

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the

district court’s order. The court properly found that Essim failed to

establish a hostile work environment claim. See Causey v. Balog, 162

F.3d 795, 804 (4th Cir. 1998). The district court also properly analyzed his retaliation claim under the burden-shifting framework in

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and determined that Essim failed to show the legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons Sears offered for terminating him were pretextual. See Reeves

v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 137-39 (2000).

Furthermore, we find no error in the district court’s ruling on Essim’s

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Essim v. Sears Roebuck

& Co., No. CA-00-2048-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 20, 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.

AFFIRMED

2 ESSIM v. SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO.
Before the Third Division,

February 20, 1968

No. P68/77.

protests 65/353, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Hosoda Bros. and Hoyt, Shepston & Sciaroni *v.*United States,

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of Ramen and similar styled alimentary pastes containing eggs or egg products similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fujii Junichi Shoten, Ltd., et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 277, C.D. 2544), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1



                     SHOPKO STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON AND
                           COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          First Quarters as of                       Fiscal years Ended
                                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        June 14         June 15         February 22,    February 24,    February 25,
                                         1997            1996              1997             1996            1995
                                      (16 Weeks)      (16 Weeks)         (52 Weeks)      (52 Weeks)      (52 Weeks)
                                     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>            <C>              <C>             <C>             <C>
BASIC:
Net earnings                            $  7,238       $   5,759        $  44,946       $   38,439      $  37,790
                                        ========       =========        =========       ==========      =========

Weighted average number of
 outstanding common shares                32,240          32,020           32,092           32,005         32,014
                                        ========       =========        =========       ==========       ========       

Net earnings per common
 share - basic (1)                      $   0.22       $    0.18        $    1.40       $     1.20      $    1.18
                                        ========       =========        =========       ==========      =========

DILUTED:
Net earnings                            $  7,238       $   5,759        $  44,946       $   38,439      $  37,790
                                        ========       =========        =========       ==========      =========

Weighted average number of
 outstanding common shares                32,240          32,020           32,092           32,005         32,014

Number of common shares
 issuable assuming exercise
 of stock options                            527             411              278               51              4
                                        --------       ---------        ---------       ----------      ---------

Weighted average number of
 outstanding common and
 common equivalent shares -
 assuming full dilution                   32,767          32,431           32,370           32,056         32,018
                                       =========       =========        =========       ==========      =========

Net earnings per common
 share - diluted (1)                   $    0.22       $    0.18        $    1.39       $     1.20      $    1.18
                                       =========       =========        =========       ==========      =========
</TABLE>

(1) Earnings per share are computed by dividing net earnings by the weighted
average number of outstanding common and common equivalent shares.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014-1058 Directorate ID: 2014-SW-065-AD

Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Model EC155B1 and AS 365 N3 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 16 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended prevent unpredictable and unexpected roll 

oscillations during coupled Localizer/Instrument Landing System or Very High Frequency

Omnidirectional Range approaches.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter None

Labor per Helicopter

(One Half work-hour x 

$85/work-hour for the penand-ink changes to the flight 

manual.)

$43

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $43

Total US Fleet Cost $688

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: George Schwab
March 13, 1958

No. 61687.

Suit 4909.

#### United States *v.*Compañia Azucarera Del Camuy, Inc.

C. D. 1823 affirmed November 22, 1957. C. A. D. 664.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 and may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 (the “Report”) of Highbury Financial Inc. (the “Registrant”),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of the undersigned’s knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the
period certified.





Date:
March 26, 2010




By:
                    /s/
      Richard S. FooteRichard
      S. FootePresident
      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)By:
                    /s/
      R. Bradley ForthR.
      Bradley ForthExecutive
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial
Officer)





A signed
original of this statement has been provided to Highbury Financial Inc. and will
be retained by Highbury Financial Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41620

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO CORTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-2511-4

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

Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Cortez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following

his plea of guilty to conspiracy with intent to distribute more

than 100 kilograms of marijuana. He argues that the district

court erred by refusing to reduce his advisory guidelines offense

level for a minor or minimal role in the offense. 

Although Cortez may have had the status of a “hired hand,”

he was apprehended while loading 363 kilograms of marijuana, and

he accompanied a shipment to its destination. Cortez knew the

leader of the drug conspiracy, knew that person to be a marijuana
No. 05-41620

-2-

distributor, and resumed his association with that person as soon

as he was released from prison. The record shows that Cortez was

involved with more than 700 kilograms of marijuana; he assisted

with the transportation of at least two loads; and he did

whatever the leader told him to do. The district court did not

commit clear error by refusing to reduce Cortez’s offense level

for his role in the offense. See United States v. Garcia, 242

F.3d 593, 598 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d

1254, 1261 (5th Cir. 1994). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 e-VideoTV, Inc.,. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the three month period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Dinning, Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 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 the
Company.




May  15, 2003                /s/ Robert Dinning
-------------------              --------------------------------------------
                                 Robert Dinning
                                 Chairman and
                                 Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50627 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESUS CASTILLO, also known as Jorge Adolfo DeLeon, also known as Jesus Garcia,
Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-415-1-DB

- - - - - - - - - - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jesus Castillo appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Castillo argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Castillo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 00-50627 - 2 - Castillo’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
S02A1215.

#### ELEAZER v. ELEAZER.

(569 SE2d 521)

Hunstein, Justice.

We granted appellant Reginald Eléazer’s application for a discretionary appeal in this divorce action to determine whether the trial court’s failure to make the written findings required by OCGA § 19-6-15 (a) for child support awards was reversible error. Because written findings are required under OCGA § 19-6-15 (a), we vacate the trial court’s child support award and remand the case to the trial court.

Reginald and Sonya Eleazer were divorced in August 2001 after a bench trial. The final judgment awarded Sonya legal and physical custody of the parties’ two minor children and directed Reginald to pay child support in the amount of $2,500 per month for each of their two children. The final judgment did not include written findings as to the parties’ gross incomes, calculations as to the application of the statutory child support guidelines, or written findings as to the spe*483cial circumstances justifying departure from the guidelines’ applicable range. Reginald contends that the trial court erred by failing to enter written findings of the parties’ gross incomes and the presence or absence of special circumstances concerning the child support award in accordance with OCGA § 19-6-15 (a).

Decided September 16, 2002.

*Daryl G. Lecroy,*for appellant.

*Clabron A. Powell,*for appellee.

OCGA § 19-6-15 (a) requires that a decree awarding child support “include a written finding of the gross income of the father and the mother and the presence or absence of special circumstances in accordance with subsection (c) of this Code section.” OCGA § 19-6-15 (c) authorizes a departure from the range of child support award established by the guidelines “upon a written finding that the presence of one or more of the [enumerated] special circumstances makes the presumptive amount of support either excessive or inadequate . . . .” Here, the trial court awarded child support without making the required written findings as to the parties’ gross incomes and without making written findings of the presence or absence of special circumstances justifying a departure from the guidelines’ applicable range. Accordingly, the child support award is vacated and the case remanded to the trial court with direction that an order consistent with the requirements of OCGA § 19-6-15 be entered. See *Urquhart v. Urquhart,*272 Ga. 548 (2) (533 SE2d 80) (2000).

*Judgment vacated and case remanded.*

*All the Justices concur.*