alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE

DATE: March 5, 2012

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660

FROM: Mary Johnson

SUBJECT: Summary of Early Outreach to Small Entities

Standards of Performance for GHG Emissions for New Stationary Sources: EGUs: Proposed Rule

The EPA’s outreach to small entities regarded planned actions for new and existing sources, but only 

new sources would be affected by the currently proposed action. At that time, the EPA believed it likely

that proposed regulations for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric utility generating units

(EGUs) (new sources as well as existing sources) would not result in a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE). However, because the EPA believes that outreach to 

small entities is an important element in the development of these regulations, the EPA requested that a 

Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel be convened to allow that outreach to occur.

It has since been determined that new source performance standards (NSPS) for emissions of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) for new affected fossil-fuel-fired EGUs will be proposed at this time. At a future date, the 

EPA intends to promulgate emission guidelines for states to develop plans reducing CO2 emissions from 

existing fossil-fuel-fired EGUs.

Summary of April 6, 2011 Call with Small Entities

When conducted, this conference call with small entity representatives was referred to as Pre-Panel 

Outreach (i.e., informal outreach prior to beginning the formal SBAR Panel process). The purpose of 

the meeting was to provide small entity representatives with an overview of recent EPA proposals 

impacting the power sector. Specifically, overviews of the Transport Rule, the Toxics Rule, and the 

316(b) Rule proposals were presented. A list of conference call participants is attached to this note. 

Copies of the three presentations are included as attachments to the docket entry Conference Call with 

Small Entities_04-2011_email.

Summary of February and March 2011 Listening Sessions

The EPA also engaged in outreach with entities that would potentially be affected by GHG standards for 

EGUs. Small entities and organizations that represent and include small entities were included in the 

outreach. The outreach consisted of the Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation 

holding four listening sessions with various types of stakeholders during February and March 2011. 

Specifically, listening sessions were held with (1) the electric power industry, (2) environmental and 

environmental justice groups, (3) State and Tribal representatives, and (4) coalition groups. Stakeholder 

input received during the listening sessions and as part of the public comment process associated with 

the proposed settlement agreement requiring that the EPA establish NSPS and emission guidelines for 

fossil fuel-fired EGUs is located in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0090.

Attachment
Exhibit 31.1



I, Jeffrey A. Hawthorne, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Photon Dynamics, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|                                                          
|/s/ JEFFREY A. HAWTHORNE                                  
|                                                          
|Jeffrey A. Hawthorne President and Chief
Executive Officer
|Date: May 14, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0644

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

KAITLYN DAWN POLICH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 21, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 14 2022

11/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0644
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2023

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 8, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 8, 2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInterim Staff Guidance

# Interim Staff Guidance Associated with Operating Reactors

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, September 30, 2021
#### City of Appleton, Appellant, vs. Greenspon, Respondent.

*September 20*

October *14, 1930.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Alfred C. Bosser*of Appleton, and for the respondent on that of *John Morgan*of Appleton.

Fowler, J.

The appeal is from an order entered June 7, 1929, removing the case from the court to the jury calendar. Sec. 274.33, Stats., provides what orders are appealable. Sub. (1) provides that an order affecting a substantial right that prevents a judgment from which an appeal may *323be taken is appealable. The order involved does not prevent final judgment; therefore it does not fall within this provision. No order is appealable that does not fall within this provision. No case is cited or found which involved an attempt to appeal from such an order. The cases most similar are appeals from orders on motions for reference under sec. 270.34. Such orders in effect if granted deny, and if refused, grant a jury trial. They are held not appealable. *Wilt v. Neenah Cold Storage Co.*130 Wis. 398, 110 N. W. 177; *Gill v. Hermann,*168 Wis. 589, 171 N. W. 76. If an order is not appealable .this court has no jurisdiction and an appeal in form must be dismissed. *Wilt v. Neenah Cold Storage Co., supra.*

*By the Court.*— The appeal is dismissed.
#### In re Arthur L. PAQUETTE and Elizabeth J. Paquette, Debtors. Arthur L. PAQUETTE and Elizabeth J. Paquette, Plaintiffs, v. PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION OF FARIBAULT, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 3-83-1298.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

April 2, 1984.

*43William Kampf, St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiffs.

James R. Keating, Faribault, Minn., for defendant.

ORDER

DENNIS O’BRIEN, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came before the Court on the motion of Production Credit Association of Faribault (“PCA”) for relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 to allow it to foreclose its security interest in the debtors’ livestock, grain, and equipment. The debtors were represented by William I. Kampf. PCA was represented by James Keating.

Now, based upon the file and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following order pursuant to the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

I

The debtors filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on July 29, 1983 and immediately filed a complaint for the use of cash collateral pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(c)(2). On August 3, 1983 the Court entered an order allowing the debtors the use of cash collateral on a limited basis and ordered the debtors to make certain monthly payments to adequately protect PCA’s interest.

On January 20, 1984 PCA filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay, alleging, inter alia, lack of adequate protection by the debtors’ use of hay, silage, and corn, as well as the disappearance of certain livestock. The debtors admitted their use of PCA’s collateral. The debtors offered, as adequate protection, monthly payments in the sum of $2,000.00 to be secured by assignment of one month’s milk proceeds.

11 U.S.C. § 363(e) gives the Court the power to prohibit or condition the use of cash collateral as the Court finds it necessary to provide adequate protection of an interest. The Court finds that PCA’s collateral position is being diminished and it is entitled to adequate protection of its interest. Section 361 describes various forms of adequate protection which include periodic cash payments and “such other relief ... as will result in the realization ... of the indubitable equivalent.” PCA is entitled to protection beyond what the debtors have offered.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Debtors are to pay PCA $2,000.00 per month commencing immediately;

2. Debtors are to assign one month’s milk proceeds to PCA to secure the monthly adequate protection payments of $2,000.00;

3. Debtors are to maintain milk production at a level of approximately $14,000.00 per month;

4. Debtors are to allow a full inspection and inventory of all remaining collateral;

5. Debtors are to file a complete appraisal of all assets within one week.

6. This matter is continued generally to the date of the hearing on the debtors’ disclosure statement *provided*the aforede-scribed conditions are met.
EXHIBIT 99.2

 

**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 Extended Stay America, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Financeof the Company, 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: 

 

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

 

theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Dated: May 5, 2003 

/s/ GREGORY R. MOXLEY 

Gregory R. Moxley

Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Finance
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                           THERMACELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                                   For the Three Months     For the Six Months
                                          Ended                   Ended
                                         May 31,                 May 31,
                                 ----------------------  ----------------------
                                    1997         1996       1997         1996
                                 ---------    ---------  ---------    ---------

Shares outstanding:              2,859,551     919,013   2,859,551     919,013
Weighted average shares
outstanding                      2,439,515     742,190   1,654,706     711,872
Net loss                         $(288,479)  $(253,866)   (475,391)  $(380,036)
                                 ---------    ---------  ---------    ---------
                                 ---------    ---------  ---------    ---------
Net loss per share                  $(0.12)     $(0.34)     $(0.29)     $(0.53)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isaiah Brown, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 828]

Judgment, Supreme *562Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered June 8, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to two concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years and a lesser concurrent prison term, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that his rights under *Brady v Maryland*(373 US 83) were violated because the police failed to impound the vehicle is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, it lacks merit since the police had no affirmative obligation to take this evidence into their custody (see, *People v Alvarez,*70 NY2d 375).

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine defendant with regard to his use of aliases was not an improvident exercise of discretion *(People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455). The aliases concerned crimes about which the court, in its *Sandoval*ruling, allowed the People to question defendant. Furthermore, the court’s *Sandoval*ruling struck an appropriate balance: the prosecutor was precluded from asking about the underlying facts of defendant’s convictions, but allowed to explore, *inter alia,*defendant’s willingness to provide false information.

Defendant’s argument that the People failed to prove that the value of the car exceeded the statutory threshold of $3,000 is unpreserved as defendant never raised this issue at trial *(People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10). In any event, the complainant’s testimony with respect to the purchase price of the car, $14,000, which exceeded the statutory threshold by $11,000, combined with his testimony that the car was well-maintained, had never been in an accident, had been driven approximately 69,000 miles and was priced by used car books at $7,500 to $8,000, constituted sufficient evidence for the jury to infer that the value of the car exceeded $3,000 *(People v White,*167 AD2d 256, *lv denied*77 NY2d 912).

Finally, the record demonstrates that trial counsel competently represented defendant and that defendant’s present complaints pertain to a legitimate, but failed, trial strategy *(People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Harland, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Sugar Company, Appellant.

*February 6*

March *17, 1914.*

Appeal from a judgment of tide county court of Waukesha county: David W. Agnew, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to recover on contract. Judgment was in due form for $344.71.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Frame <£ Blaekstone,*and oral argument by *A. L. Blaekstone.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Merton, Newbury & Jacobson,*and oral argument by *M. A. Jacobson.*

Marshall, J.

The same questions are presented in this case as in *Grogan v. Wisconsin S. Co., ante,*p. 406, 146 N. W. 491, and following the rule of that case the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2753

___________ Robert DeRue Mawhiney, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Warren Distribution, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 27, 2008 Filed: July 10, 2008

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Mawhiney appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action against his former em ployer, Warren Distribution, Inc. After carefully reviewing the record and Mawhin ey’s arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Hervey v. County of Koochiching , No. 06-3891, 2008 WL 2330900, at *4 (8th Cir. June 9, 2008) (standard of review). We al so conclude that the district court properly denied as moot Mawhiney’s motions related to the pretrial conference. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Amendment No. 1 to the Employment Agreement  - William Park



 Exhibit 10.35 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment is
effective as of December 31, 2010 and extends and amends an Employment Agreement among the employee listed on the signature page attached hereto (“Employee”) and Aveon Management L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
(the “Company”) dated as of November 24, 2010 (the “Employment Agreement”). 
 RECITALS

 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Employment Agreement, if a “Capitalization Transaction” (as defined in the Employment
Agreement) has not closed on or prior to December 31, 2010, then the Employment Agreement is void and of no further force and effect; and 
 WHEREAS, in order to secure Employee’s further services, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the period during which a Capitalization Transaction may occur before the
Employment Agreement becomes void and of no further force or effect. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Company and Employee agree as follows: 
 1.    Effective December 31, 2010, Section IA. of the Employment Agreement is amended to replace December 31, 2010, each place it occurs therein with “February 15,
2011”. 
 2.    The Company and Employee hereby reaffirm all terms and conditions of the Employment
Agreement not expressly amended herein and agree that such terms and conditions shall otherwise remain in place. 

3.    The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
among the Company and Employee concerning the matters addressed by the Employment Agreement, and supersedes any and all previous agreements or understandings, whether written or oral, between or among the Company and Employee concerning the same.
The Company and Employee agree and acknowledge that there are no restrictions, promises, representations, warranties, covenants or undertakings, other than those expressly set forth or referred to herein or therein. 

4.    This Amendment is effective December 31, 2010. 

5.    This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be deemed one and the same
agreement and shall be deemed delivered by the Company and Employee when one or more counterparts have been signed by each of the Company and Employee. 







 6.    This amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Delaware, without regard to its conflict of laws provisions or the conflict of laws provisions of any other jurisdiction which would cause the application of any law other than that of the State of Delaware. 

[signature page follows] 

  
 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has executed this Amendment as of December 31,
2010. 
  

					
	EMPLOYEE
		
	 /s/ William Park
	 	
	William Park	 	
	
	AVEON MANAGEMENT L.L.C.
			
	 By:
	 	 /s/ John J. Hassett
	 	
		 	        Name: John J. Hassett
		 	        Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



  
 3
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices

# Change Notices for 2002

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020