alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4572]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-271]


Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation; Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Power Station; Receipt of Petition for Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 
2.206

    Notice is hereby given that on December 6, 1996, the Citizens 
Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN or Petitioner) filed a Petition pursuant 
to 10 CFR 2.206 with the Secretary of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) requesting evaluation of certain documents relating to 
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station operated by the Vermont Yankee 
Nuclear Power Corporation (Licensee) to determine whether enforcement 
action was warranted.
    The first document included in the Petition is a CAN memorandum 
dated December 5, 1996, that reviews information presented by the 
Licensee at an enforcement conference held on July 23, 1996, involving 
the Vermont Yankee residual heat removal system minimum flow valves. 
CAN raises a concern that the corrective action taken by the Licensee 
in opening these valves may have introduced an unreviewed safety 
question with regard to containment isolation.
    The second document included in the Petition is a CAN memorandum 
dated December 6, 1996, that reviews certain licensee event reports 
(LERs) submitted by the Licensee in the latter part of 1996. A variety 
of issues are discussed including fire protection, tornado protection, 
thermal protection for piping lines, equipment operability, and 
equipment testing. On the basis of its analysis of the LERs, CAN 
reaches certain conclusions regarding the performance of the Licensee 
and actions that should be taken.
    On the basis of these documents, CAN requests that the NRC 
determine whether enforcement action is warranted pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.206.
    The issues in the Petition are being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 
2.206 of the Commission's regulations. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, 
appropriate action with regard to these issues will be taken within a 
reasonable time. By letter dated February 12, 1997, the Acting Director 
acknowledged receipt of the Petition.
    A copy of the Petition is available for inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20555-0001, and at the local public document room located at 
Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of February 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank J. Miraglia,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-4572 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### GLASS CONTAINERS CORPORATION v. Willie Paul BEESON.

No. 50629.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 20, 1978.

Daniel, Coker, Horton, Bell & Dukes, James F. Steel, Jackson, for appellant.

Dixon L. Pyles, Jackson, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and WALKER and BOWLING, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rankin County; Rufus H. Broome, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON, C. J., ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE and COFER, JJ., concur.
#### Samuel C. STROXTILE, Jr. v. STATE.

No. 37693.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Habeas Corpus discharged without opinion. 204 So.2d 268.
Exhibit 32

                          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 Northeast Utilities (the registrant)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Charles W. Shivery, Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant and John H. Forsgren,
Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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 registrant.

/s/ Charles W. Shivery
    (Signature)
    Charles W. Shivery
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ John H. Forsgren
    (Signature)
    John H. Forsgren
    Vice Chairman, Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer

August 6, 2004


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 the registrant and
will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10354.

#### Detwiler et al. *v.*Ireland.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of *404Morrow county.

*Mr. T. A. Gruber*and *Mr. L. K. Powell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Mitchell & Bruce*and *Mr. W. M. Kaufman,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
2013 10K Exhibit 10.26




Exhibit 10.26
COMPENSATION OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
Cash Compensation
Each Nanometrics non-employee director receives an annual retainer for services as a non-employee director of $50,000.  In addition, each Nanometrics non-employee director receives the following additional annual retainers for the following services rendered:
For service as Chairman of the Board:  $30,000
For service as Audit Committee Chairman:  $20,000
For service as Compensation Committee Chairman:  $20,000
For service as Nominating and Governance Committee Chairman:  $10,000
For service as Audit Committee member (other than the Chairman):  $10,000
For service as Compensation Committee member (other than the Chairman):  $10,000   
For service as Nominating and Governance 
Committee member (other than the Chairman):  $7,500
All retainer fees are paid annually, as of the date of our annual stockholders meeting and in advance of the provision of services to which the retainer relates. 
Equity Compensation
Each non-employee director also receives annually equity incentives, issued in restricted stock units, valued at $100,000. We calculated the value of such equity incentives using the closing market price of our stock on the NASDAQ Stock Market as of the date of our annual stockholders meeting. These awards vest on the earlier of the first anniversary date of the grant or the date of the next annual meeting of stockholders. 
Any new non-employee director will receive equity incentives valued at $100,000 issued in restricted stock units and pro rated to reflect the amount of time served before the next annual meeting of stockholders. 
If a director ceases to serve as a member of Nanometrics’ Board, a portion of the fees shall be refunded and equity awards shall be forfeited on a pro-rated basis. 
Non-employee directors are eligible to participate in Nanometrics self-funded Executive Reimbursement Plan, which is intended to supplement our basic health plan by reimbursing expenses that are not covered by our health plan. All such reimbursements are considered taxable income to our non-employee directors.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,566
<SECURITIES>                                     7,747
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,876)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,983
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,662
<PP&E>                                           1,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,407)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       158,338
<OTHER-SE>                                       (541)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,019
<SALES>                                         25,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,324
<CGS>                                           10,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,671
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (64)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,333)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)



</TABLE>
No. D-2248.

#### In re Disbarment of Morrissey.

Joseph Dee Morrissey, of Richmond, Va., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-51026

Summary Calendar

TATE CLARK,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CV-910

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Tate Clark appeals the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment dismissing with prejudice his retaliation action against his 

former employer, Defendant-Appellee Southwest Airlines Company. At the 

time that Southwest fired Clark from his job as a customer service agent, he

had been taking time off from work under the FMLA because of chronic 

migraine headaches. The parties do not dispute that Clark was engaged in a 

 

* 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

April 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-51026 Document: 00514435330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2018
No. 17-51026

2

protected activity and that his firing by Southwest was a materially adverse 

action against him. They do not agree, however, that there was a causal link 

between Clark’s protected activity and Southwest’s adverse action in firing 

him, even though for years he had never been denied FMLA leave. Southwest 

contends that Clark’s termination had nothing to do with his FMLA absences, 

but was based solely on Clark’s comments to a co-worker that he wished he 

could order a black trench coat so that he could bring his shotgun to work, a 

violation of Southwest’s Zero Tolerance Workplace Violence Policy.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and Clark’s record excerpts, 

including the district court’s detailed and extensive October 26, 2017 Order, 

fully and accurately explicating (1) the background of this case, (2) its 

framework under the FMLA, (3) Clark’s prima facie case of retaliation, (4) 

Southwest’s reasons, unrelated to the FMLA, for firing Clark, and (5) Clark’s 

failure to establish pretext in the reasons given by Southwest despite the

proximity between his last FMLA absence and the date he was fired. 

Regardless of the cogent and highly professional argument advanced in the 

brief filed herein by Clark’s counsel, we are satisfied beyond cavil that the 

district court properly dismissed Clark’s action with prejudice for essentially 

the reasons set forth in its above said Order.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-51026 Document: 00514435330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2018
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 Quarterly Report of 1st Source Corporation (1st Source)
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry
      E. Lentych, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:








(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or
                15(d) of
                the Securities and 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 1st
                Source.








By:








/s/LARRY
      E. LENTYCH


Larry
      E.
      Lentych


Chief
      Financial Officer


October
      25, 2007
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas November 10, 2021 No. 04-20-00611-CV INTEREST OF L.J.L. AND J.W.L., MINOR CHILDREN From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08129 Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice On October 27, 2021, Appellant filed his reply brief. On October 29, 2021, Appellee requested leave to file a sur-reply brief. Sur-replies may be permitted “whenever justice requires.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.7. As Appellee argues, justice requires a sur-reply because Appellant’s reply raised a new issue. But as Appellant argues, the new issue has not been identified; the need for a sur-reply has not been established. Without a clear need for a sur-reply, we decline to grant leave to file one. See In re Estate of Washington , 289 S.W.3d 362, 370 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. denied). Appellee’s motion is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED November 10, 2021.
PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
No. D-2245.

#### In re Disbarment of Green.

Gary Kenneth Green, of San Diego, Cal., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Edward W. TROWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-675.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 15, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7557 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to extend the coverage of 

Coronavirus Relief Fund payments to Tribal Governments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2020 

Mr. O’HALLERAN (for himself and Mr. COOK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title VI of the Social Security Act to extend 

the coverage of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments to 

Tribal Governments. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF COVERAGE OF CORONAVIRUS 

4 RELIEF FUND PAYMENTS TO TRIBAL GOV5 ERNMENTS. 

6 Section 601(d)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 801(d)(3)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(or, in the 

8 case of a Tribal Government, December 30, 2022)’’ after 

9 ‘‘December 30, 2020’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.333-30655, 333-74747, 333-74715, 333-78521, 333-78567, 333-83725, 333-35806,333-62502, 333-84010, 333-90986, 333-91002 and 333-117334 on Form S-8 andRegistration Statement Nos. 333-32221, 333-60277, 333-70335, 333-85269,333-92361, 333-32526, 333-40698, 333-47914, 333-67978, 333-73274, 333-81170,and 333-84932 on Form S-3 of our reports dated June 6, 2006, relating to thefinancial statements of THQ Inc., and management’s report on the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of THQ Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2006.

 

 

DELOITTE& TOUCHE LLP

 

LosAngeles, California

June6, 2006

 

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The
undersigned, Gary W. Douglass, Executive Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of CPI Corp. (the Company), has executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended July 19, 2003
(the Report).

The
undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 27th day of
August, 2003.

| | /s/ Gary W. Douglass                                                          
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Gary W. Douglass
Executive Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CPI
Corp. and will be retained by CPI Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Harold YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 20, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. *Spel*
      *697
      *ler v. State,*305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
#### Johnnie Lee JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1393.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

*84Johnnie Lee Jones, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted for first degree murder and tried before a jury. At the trial, appellant was represented by a court-appointed attorney. Appellant was found guilty with recommendation of mercy and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Appellant was sentenced on July 9, *1971.*He immediately began filing a series of motions claiming violation of constitutional rights. On October 30, 1972, appellant filed the motion to vacate judgment and sentence with which we are here concerned. The motion was considered by the trial court and denied. The trial court found:

> * * * * * *

> “Defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced by this Court. He appealed and the trial court was affirmed. His Motions are based upon the allegation and ground that the jury panel from which the trial jury was selected was illegal. Petitioner has asked for a testimentary [sic] hearing on this question.

> “The Court has examined the court file and finds that no appropriate challenge to the panel was made by the Defendant. Accordingly, the jury was selected in the process of which Defendant did not exercise all of the available peremtory [sic] challenges.

> “It is the finding of the Court that by going to trial before a jury without any objections, a defendant waives all irregularities in drawing, summoning and empaneling of such jurors. 33 F.S.A. Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.300. State vs. Silva [Fla.] 259 So.2nd 153; . . ".

> * * * * * *

Appellant has appealed and we have reviewed the record in the light of the arguments presented on appeal. We hold that the findings of the trial court are fully substantiated by the record and the law.

Affirmed.