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

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1247 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1247

   To extend the period of availability of the Multinational Species 
      Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2017

 Mr. Donovan (for himself and Mr. Clay) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to 
      be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the period of availability of the Multinational Species 
      Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AVAILABILITY OF THE MULTINATIONAL SPECIES 
              CONSERVATION FUNDS SEMIPOSTAL STAMP.

    Subsection (c) of section 2 of the Multinational Species 
Conservation Funds Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-241; 39 
U.S.C. 416 note) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``6 years'' and inserting 
        ``10 years''; and
            (2) by adding at the end of the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Stamp depictions.--Members of the public shall be 
        offered a choice of two stamps under this section, one 
        depicting an African elephant and another depicting a tiger, 
        respectively.''.
                                 <all>
```
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 MR3 Systems, Inc., on Form
10-QSB (the "Report") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned
officers of MR3 Systems, Inc., 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 and belief:

1.       The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  February 10, 2004               /s/ BRADLEY N. ROTTER
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Bradley N. Rotter
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Date:  February 10, 2004               /s/ GARY K. ABREIM
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Gary K. Abreim
                                       Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7655

TIMOTHY D. CROCKETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY POWERS, Director of the SpartanburgCounty Detention Facility; KAREN FLOYD, Chairperson of Spartanburg County Counsel; OFFICER KLIMBREL, Guard Spartanburg County Jail, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-528-9-17AK) Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 30, 2000 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy D. Crockett, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Turner, Jr., CLARKSON, WALSH, RHENEY & TURNER, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Timothy D. Crockett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Crockett v. Powers , No. CA-99-528-9-17AK (D.S.C. Nov. 15, 1999).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
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# A Short History of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–2009 (NUREG/BR-0175, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0175, Revision 2 (PDF - 1.89 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**September 2010 

**Prepared by:** J. Samuel Walker and Thomas R. Wellock

History Staff Office of the Secretary  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555-0001 

## Preface

"History," automobile maker Henry Ford once said, "is more or less...bunk." Philosopher George Santayana was more charitable in his assessment of this discipline when he declared that "those who fail to study the past are condemned to repeat it." In a sense, both Ford and Santayana were right. Much of the past has little meaning or importance for the present and deservedly remains forgotten in the dustbins of history. However, other parts of the past need to be remembered and studied in order for us to make sense from the present. Today's events are a direct outgrowth of yesterday's events, and understanding the history of any given problem is essential to approaching it knowledgeably. It is the task of the historian to gather evidence, to separate what is important from what is not, and to explain key events and decisions of the past.

This short history of nuclear regulation provides a brief overview of the most significant events in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's past. Space limitations prevent discussion of all the important occurrences, and even the subjects that are included cannot be covered in full detail. The first chapter of this account is taken from George T. Mazuzan and J. Samuel Walker, Controlling the Atom: The Beginnings of Nuclear Regulation, 1946–1962 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984). The second chapter is largely based on J. Samuel Walker, Containing the Atom: Nuclear Regulation in a Changing Environment, 1963–1971 (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1992). The third chapter is adopted in significant part from J. Samuel Walker, Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2004). The findings and conclusions on events that occurred after 1979 should be regarded as preliminary and tentative; they are not based on extensive research in primary sources. However, we hope that this overview will help explain how the past has shaped the present and will illuminate the considerations that have influenced regulatory decisions and procedures over the years. We also hope that this outline will suggest that history should be viewed as something more valuable than mere "bunk."

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
No. 90-6260.

#### Sassower *v.*Thornburgh.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTY L. SMITH,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 697 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 86-987.

#### Haig et al. *v.*Bissonette et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted.
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 the Quarterly Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and
Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel P. Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) 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 Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                      
|---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                 |  |  |  |     |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. 
|                 |  |  |  |     |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY
|                 |  |  |  |    
|                 |  |  |  |     |  | By:                      |  | KESTREL HEAT LLC (General Partner)   
|                 |  |  | 
|February 6, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ DANIEL P. DONOVAN   
|                 |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Daniel P. Donovan                    
|                 |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                 |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.              
|                 |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Star Gas Finance Company
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6812

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEROY BUSH, a/k/a Duke, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Aiken. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR99-118, CA-00-4009-1-19) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Bush seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Bush , Nos. CR-99-118; CA-00-4009-1-19 (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 86-803.

#### Boos et al. *v.*Barry, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari granted.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Zoran Corporation (the Company)
for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Karl Schneider, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                   
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------
|Dated: November 6, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    Karl Schneider             
|                        |  |  |  | Karl Schneider                    
|                        |  |  |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-112735, 333-122016, 333-130402, 333-131060, 333-141226 and333-149759) pertaining to the Anesiva, Inc. 2003 Equity Incentive Plan, the 2003 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, the 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the Non-Plan Option Grants of our reports dated March 25, 2009 with respectto the consolidated financial statements of Anesiva, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Anesiva, Inc., included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Palo Alto,California 

March 25, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Brian Nichols, 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 Act of 1934; and                                
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 12th day of February, 2009                                                                                                                
|   

JOHNBRIAN NICHOLSJohn Brian Nichols 
Chief Executive Officer

















---
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY DON FLIPPO, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. JUSTIN JONES, Director, Respondent-Appellee. No. 10-6081 (D.C. No. 5:09-CV-01240-C) (D. W.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before KELLY , EBEL and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

Jerry Flippo, a pro se litigant, filed a petition unde r 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking

relief from his Oklahoma convictions for atte mpted grand larceny a nd false personation. Magistrate Judge Gary Purcell issued a th orough analysis recommending Mr. Flippo’s petition be denied, and the district court adop ted that recommendation in its entirety. The district court also denied Mr. Flippo’s reques ts to receive a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP ”). Mr. Flippo now renews these

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppe l. It may be cited, howev er, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 20, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 requests. For the reasons that follow, we DENY his request for a COA, but we GRANT his request to proceed IFP

. We will grant a COA “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “To meet this standard, a petitioner must demonstrate that jurists of r eason could disagree with the dist rict court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that ju rists could conclude the issues pr esented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Boutwell v. Keating , 399 F.3d 1203, 1211 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). In this case, we do not th ink reasonable jurists c ould disagree with the thorough analysis of the magistrate judge, nor do we think his clai ms require further analysis. Thus, we deny Mr. Flippo’s COA based on the magi strate judge’s report and recommendation as adopted by the district court. However, unlike the district court, we do not think Mr. Flippo filed his petition in bad faith. Therefore, we grant M r. Flippo’s request to proceed IFP

.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
Exhibit 10.1






Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE




THIS AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is entered into as
of January 14, 2011 by and among BAY CITY CAPITAL FUND IV, L.P. (“Investor”) and VIA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). Investor and the Company are
sometimes referred to in this Amendment, individually, as a “Party” and, collectively, as the
“Parties.”




	1.	 	Amendment of Note. The Parties hereby agree to amend that certain Promissory Note,
dated March 26, 2010, made and issued by the Company to Investor under that certain Note and
Warrant Purchase Agreement dated as of March 26, 2010, which Promissory Notes were amended and
restated on November 15, 2010 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from
time to time, the “Note”), as follows: the phrase “December 31, 2010” in subclause (i) of
Section 4 of the Note is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with “June 30, 2011.”






	2.	 	Survival. Except as expressly modified hereby, all of the provisions of the Note
remain in full force and effect and shall be unaffected by this Amendment.






	3.	 	Execution in Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together will
constitute one and the same instrument. This Amendment or any counterpart may be executed and
delivered by facsimile or email with scan attachment copies or pdf, each of which shall be
deemed an original.





[Signature Page Follows]



 


1









 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	COMPANY:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	VIA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Karen S. Wright
 

Name: Karen S. Wright
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: VP Finance, Controller	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Address:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	VIA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.	 	 
	 	 	750 Battery Street, Suite 330	 	 
	 	 	San Francisco, California 94111	 	 
	 	 	Attention: Vice President, Controller	 	 
	 	 	Facsimile: (415) 283-2214	 	 
	 	 	Electronic mail:	 	 
	 	 	Karen.Wright@viapharmaceuticals.com	 	 






[Signature page to Note Amendment]



 


 









 





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	INVESTOR:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	BAY CITY CAPITAL FUND IV, L.P.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Bay City Capital Management IV LLC, its general partner	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	Bay City Capital LLC, its manager	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Fred Craves	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Fred Craves	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Managing Director

	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Address:



Bay City Capital Fund IV, L.P.	 	 
	 	 	750 Battery Street, Suite 400	 	 
	 	 	San Francisco, California 94111	 	 
	 	 	Attention: Managing Director	 	 
	 	 	Facsimile:	 	 
	 	 	Electronic mail:	 	 





[Signature page to Note Amendment]
#### In the Matter of Rolland Eugene WINDLE and Loretta Marie Windle, Debtors.

Bankruptcy Nos. 76B-4-SW, 76B-5-SW.

United States Bankruptcy Court, W. D. Missouri, Southwestern Division.

Dec. 11, 1981.

*663Duke W. Ponick, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., for bankrupts.

ORDER RELEASING THE SUM OF $95,-653.30 TO THE BANKRUPTS AND DIRECTING TRUSTEE AND CREDITORS, OR ANY OF THEM, TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WITHIN 15 DAYS WHY ALL REMAINING SUMS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS OF CLAIMS, WITHOUT POSTBANKRUPTCY INTEREST, AND COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS OF THE ESTATE AND COSTS AND FEES OF ADMINISTRATION, SHOULD NOT ALSO BE PAID TO THE BANKRUPTS

DENNIS J. STEWART, Bankruptcy Judge.

The trustee in bankruptcy has reported to the court that the estate in bankruptcy now has a total of $210,279.30 in it; that the allowed claims of creditors, without any postbankruptcy interest, total $90,213.25; that, with postbankruptcy interest to December 31, 1981, those claims total $129,-452.31; and that some $24,412.17 in taxes, costs and fees of administration and compensation of officers of the estate.1

It would therefore appear from the foregoing figures that the difference between the total sum now in the estate ($210,279.30) and that of the allowed claims, without potential postbankruptcy interest, plus the taxes, costs and fees of administration ($114,625.42), which difference is the sum of $95,653.30, should be paid to the bankrupts. For that sum appears to be in excess of that which is necessary to satisfy the maximum possible amount of all the claims and expenses of administration.

Moreover, the special circumstances which may warrant the payment of post-bankruptcy interest on unsecured claims, e.g., delay occasioned by the bankrupts in administration of the estate, do not appear to be present in this case. See the standards governing this issue in *Johnson v. Norris,*190 F. 459 (5th Cir. 1911); *Mortgage Loan Co. v. Livingston,*78 F.2d 517 (8th Cir. 1935); *Brown v. Leo,*34 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1929); *Matter of F. P. Newport Corp.,*194 F.Supp. 757 (S.D.Cal.1961); *United States v. Bass,*271 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1959); *Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. United States*247 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1957); *In re Parchem,*166 F.Supp. 724 (N.D.Minn.1958). Therefore unless an interested party or parties contends in writing filed with the court within 15 days, the court proposes to return to the bankrupts the additional sums now being retained for the possible payment of postbankruptcy interest on the unsecured claims.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the trustee in bankruptcy, with reasonable dispatch, return to the bankrupts the sum of $95,653.30. It is further

ORDERED that the trustee and creditors, or any of them, show cause in writing within 15 days of the date of entry of this order why the sums retained for possible payment of postbankruptcy interest to unsecured creditors should not be paid over to the bankrupts.

1

. It appears that this total is comprised of the following:

> tax liability $15,336.00

> maximum trustee’s fee $2,517.79

> referee’s salary & expense fund $6,558.38