alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC, Latrobe (Pa.) Testing Firm to Discuss Apparent Violations

----

----

I-98-76

July 1, 1998

**NRC, LATROBE (PA.) TESTING FIRM TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS**

Three apparent violations of Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements by a Pennsylvania industrial testing company will be the subject of an NRC predecisional enforcement conference on Tuesday, July 7. At issue are the storage of licensed radioactive materials and recordkeeping pertaining to those items.

The meeting between agency staff and representatives of Professional Quality Testing Company of Latrobe, Pa., will begin at 10 a.m. in the Public Meeting Room at the NRC Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa. The session, which will be open to the public for observation, will allow Professional Quality Testing to provide its perspective on the apparent violations, discuss their causes and safety significance, and detail any corrective actions it has taken in response.

NRC inspectors identified the apparent infractions during inspections conducted on March 24 and May 27 at Professional Quality Testing, which holds an NRC license allowing it to perform industrial radiography, through the use of a nuclear gauge, at temporary job sites within the agency's jurisdiction.

Specifically, it was found that Professional Quality Testing failed to maintain current utilization logs and documents at the address specified in the license, 409 Saxonburg Boulevard, Saxonburg, Pa. Another apparent violation was a failure to store licensed material at its facility in Saxonburg or as described in its procedures for field site storage. Lastly, the trailer in which the material was stored was not properly anchored to prevent movement.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this conference. That decision will be made by NRC officials at a later time, usually within about 30 days.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
#### In the Matter of COMPTON CORPORATION, Debtor. Walter KELLOGG, Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE QUAIL ENERGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and MBank Abilene, N.A., Appellee.

No. 87-1135.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 29, 1988.

Dean Ferguson, David R. Snodgrass, Dallas, Tex., for Kellogg.

William M. Schur, Theodore Mack, Fort Worth, Tex., for Blue Quail.

J. Maxwell Tucker, Dallas, Tex., for MBank Abilene, N.A.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

(Opinion November 12, 1987, 5th Cir.1987, 831 F.2d 586)

Before BROWN, JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We grant the petition for rehearing for the narrow purpose of remanding one additional matter to the district court.

Our previous decision, *Matter of Compton Corp.,*831 F.2d 586 (5th Cir.1987), remanded this case in order for the district court to determine the amount of interest due on the preference claim. We now hold that on remand the district court needs to make factual findings regarding the amount MBank actually foreclosed on and received from Compton Corp.’s trustee to cover the letter of credit transaction. In addition, the district court needs to determine the amount Blue Quail received from MBank under the letter of credit. The trustee states the amount paid to Blue Quail on June 22, 1982, by MBank totaled *585$569,932.03, rather than $585,443.85, the face amount of the letter of credit and the amount Compton owed Blue Quail. This is a difference of $15,511.82. Whether this amount was paid to Blue Quail on another occasion by MBank under the letter of credit, whether Blue Quail and MBank reached some kind of compromise on the amount, or whether Blue Quail' received this amount directly from Compton Corp. are all factual issues that need to be resolved by the district court on remand.

Overall, the amount of the preference which Blue Quail has to pay over to the trustee, prior to interest adjustments, is limited to the value of the collateral MBank actually foreclosed on to cover the letter of credit transaction. This amount represents the dimunition of the assets in Compton’s estate available to the unsecured creditors. This amount in turn is to be limited by the actual amount Blue Quail received from MBank under the letter of credit transaction.

REHEARING GRANTED.

ADDITIONAL REMAND TO DISTRICT COURT.
No. 90-690.

#### Christy *v.*Christy.

Ct. App. Cal., 5th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDCARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         791,858
<SECURITIES>                                 3,230,972
<RECEIVABLES>                                  399,230
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,422,060
<PP&E>                                         374,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,797,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          350,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,701,338
<COMMON>                                         7,831
<OTHER-SE>                                   (262,825)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,797,144
<SALES>                                      1,376,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,376,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,836,645
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               837,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (112,531)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,185,127)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,185,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,185,127)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
#### Mularkey, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*May 12*

June *18, 1928.*

*401
      *Vincent F. McNamara*of Montello, for the plaintiff in error.

For the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General, J. E.- Messer schmidt,*assistant attorney general, and *Elton J. Morrison,*district attorney of Columbia county, and. oral argument by *Mr. Messer schmidt*and *Mr. Morrison.*

Owen, J.

There was introduced and received in evidence certain liquors, stipulated to be intoxicating, taken from- the defendant’s car, pursuant to a purported search warrant. Prior to the receipt of this evidence it was disclosed that the search warrant was issued upon a complaint made upon information and belief and that there was not any sworn testimony preserved upon which a finding of reasonable cause to believe could be based. The evidence was objected to upon the ground that it was procured pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure. Upon this state of the record the objection was timely made and was sufficient to protect defendant’s constitutional rights. *State v. Warfield,*184 Wis. 56, 59, 198 N. W. 854. That the search warrant was void is definitely ruled by *Glodowski v. State,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 265, 220 N. W. 227). The evidence obtained as a result of the illegal search should not have been received. This calls for a reversal of the judgment.

A further question is raised as to whether the defendant could, under the same act, be convicted of the two offenses, namely, possession and transportation of liquor. In *People v. Cook,*236 Mich. 333, 210 N. W. 296, the supreme court of Michigan held that conviction of transporting- barred a conviction for possessing the same liquor. The supreme court of the United States has held that punishing the same *402person for the distinct offenses of possessing and then selling the same liquor in violation of the prohibition act is not double punishment violating the Fifth amendment. *Albrecht v. U. S.*273 U. S. 1, 47 Sup. Ct. 250. We reserve the decision on this question, trusting that when it is again presented we will bé favored with better briefs upon the subject.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
Exhibit
32.1 CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 Speedus Corp. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Shant S. Hovnanian,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive 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: (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of
  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange of 1934, amended; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly
  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
  operations of the Company.  Date:
May 15, 2007By:
/s/ Shant S. HovnanianName:
Shant S. HovnanianTitle:
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
  Officer 19
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,733-01
EX P ARTE LAURE GIBBONS FIELDS, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 28006CR IN THE 40TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM ELLIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convic t ed of delivery of marihuana

in an amount of five pounds or less but more than one-f ourth ounces, and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant did not appea l her c onviction. Applicant contends that her sentenc e is illega l and that her plea was involuntary
. Applicant
was admonished for, and pled to, a third-deg ree felony
. Howeve r, the offe nse char g ed is not a thirddeg ree felony , but is instead a state jail felony , punishable by 180 day s to two y ear s’ imprisonment2

in a state jail fac ility
. T E X . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C O D E § 481.120(b)( 3); T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 12.35(a)
. The trial court finds that Applicant was admonished for the incorre ct punishment rang e for her char g ed offe nse and that she acc epted a plea barg ain for a punishment outside the proper rang e of punishment for he r off ense. Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 28006CR in the 40 District Cou rt o f Ellis t h County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheri ff o f E l l i s County to
answe r the char g es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench
war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Dep a r tm e nt o f Crim in a l Ju s tic e–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Fe bruar

y 25, 2015 Do not publish
#### In re Debra Diane MITCHELL, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 81-02012-BKC-TCB.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S. D. Florida.

March 1, 1982.

*190Martin L. Hoffman, Tamarac, Fla., for debtor.

Arthur H. Rice, Miami, Fla., for trustee.

William Roemelmeyer, Miami, Fla., Trustee.

ORDER ALLOWING EXEMPTION

THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This debtor has claimed exemptions as “the head of a family” under Article X, § 4, Florida Constitution. The claimed exemptions include a homestead at 20445 N.W. 45 Avenue in Miami. The trustee objects to the claimed exemption of the real property. The matter was heard on February 24.

The facts are not disputed. The debtor is not married. She has maintained a household with her unmarried younger sister and her sister’s two minor children since 1978. The home claimed as exempt is owned by the debtor and her sister as tenants in common. The debtor works to support this family unit of the three individuals. The debtor has testified on the record before me that she makes the decisions for the family concerning all matters relating to their welfare. This communal arrangement was agreed to by the sisters. The debtor promised to support the family while her sister would be responsible for the home.

The debtor’s entitlement to claim “head of family” status to exempt this property under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b) is determined by Florida law. The rule which has been uniformly followed in this state is:

> “When the natural relation of husband and wife or parent and child, or that of being in loco parentis, does not exist, the relation should be one in which an *established and continuing personal authority, responsibility, and obligation*actually rests upon one as the ‘head of a family’ for the welfare of the others who, in law, should, or in fact, do, recognize and observe a family relation to the one as ‘the head of a family’.” *In re Kionka’s Estate,*Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 603, 606, *aff’d,*Fla.1960, 121 So.2d 644.

The debtor’s communal living arrangement with her family is under such circumstances that the debtor is the one who is recognized as “the person in charge.” *Solomon v. Davis,*Fla.1958, 100 So.2d 177, 178. The blood relationship has been recognized as a basis for creating a moral obligation to support. *Smith v. Stewart,*Fla.App.1980, 390 So.2d 178, 180. I view the circumstances here as more than a mere collection of individuals living together.

The trustee’s objection is overruled and the debtor’s claimed exemption is allowed.
LADON M. GREEN,

Appellant,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-581

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 25, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

Ladon M. Green, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant Attorney 

General, and Kenneth S. Steely, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 30 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Fred y Ren e Pal m a-Es pi na l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.
Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: May 29, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Ju ne 3, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, SMITH, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Fred y Ren e Pal m a-Es pi na l, a na t i ve an d ci ti zen of Hon du ras , pe ti ti on s fo r
rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s, w hi ch affi rm ed an im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s de ni al of hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r d e f e r ral of rem ov al un de r th e Co nv en ti on Aga in st Tort ur e. W e la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Pal m a-Es pi na l’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w be cau se he was fou nd to be rem ov ab le as a n a li en who was con vi ct ed ofa n ag gr av at ed fel on y an d he do es no t rai se in hi s br ie f an y le ga l qu es ti on or

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m to ch al le ng e th at fin di ng

. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (C) (n o co ur t sh al l ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w f i n a l o r d e r of rem ov al ag ai ns t al ie n who is

rem ov a b l e by reas on of co m m it ti ng cri m in al of

fen se co ve red un de r, in te r al ia , 8 U.S.C. § 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i ii ) (al ie n who is co n v i c t ed of ag gr av at ed fel on y is

rem ov ab le )); Doe v. Hol de r, 65 1 F.3 d 82 4, 82 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (wh ere al ie n ha s be en
co nv ic te d of ag gr av at ed fel on y , a pp eal s co ur t ha s juri sd ic ti on to re v i e w fin al or de r of rem ov al on ly to ex te nt th at al ie n’s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w pr es en ts co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s o r qu es ti on s o f la w).

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s t he pe ti ti on for rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-28037]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-154]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed November 18, 2024 10 a.m. EST Through November 22, 2024 10 a.m. 
EST.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxapps.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-II/public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20240222, Draft, FERC, AL, R.L. Harris Hydroelectric Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 01/21/2025, Contact: Office of External Affairs 
866-208-3372.
EIS No. 20240223, Draft, BLM, OR, Louse Canyon Geographic Management 
Area, Comment Period Ends: 01/13/2025, Contact: Michele McDaniel 541-
473-3144.
EIS No. 20240224, Final, USACE, MS, Yazoo Backwater Area Water 
Management Project, Review Period Ends: 12/30/2024, Contact: George 
Renacker 601-631-5842.

    Dated: November 22, 2024
Mark Austin,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2024-28037 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94777]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27899]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 754 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-443, K2025-440.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27899 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Block Flow Handling of NCS by Formulators10 (c)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KYLE LAMAR BLACK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 227 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12th day of October, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,037
<SECURITIES>                                    29,964
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,667
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (868)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,577
<PP&E>                                           4,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,583
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        50,513
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,511
<SALES>                                         38,418
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,418
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,129
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,456
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,518
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,518
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21.1

This schedule includes a listing of our subsidiaries and jurisdiction of
incorporation.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Entity                              Jurisdiction of Formation     Type of Entity
--------------                              -------------------------     --------------
<S>                                         <C>                           <C>
DPC Investment Corp.                        Delaware                      Corporation
Doane Pet Care (Europe) ApS                 Denmark                       Corporation
A/S Arovit Petfood                          Denmark                       Corporation
DPC International Limited                   United Kingdom                Corporation
Doane Pet Care (UK) Limited                 United Kingdom                Corporation
Ipes Iberica S.A.                           Spain                         Corporation
Doane/Windy Hill Joint Venture L.L.C.       Texas                         Limited Liability Company
</TABLE>