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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# 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 Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 477 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents                           ( print page 94779)                        are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-469, K2025-466.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-27936 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2010Page 1 of 103/16/2015 17:38:23

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Palo Verde 3 Docket (050- 00530)

Communication / IR160 - No communication / information not communicated O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

114

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content G - Engineering G - Design 

114

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR142 - Operating experience (OE) review LTA E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 146 - Evaluation LTA G - Engineering G - Design 148 - Action not yet started or untimely G - Engineering G - Design 

343

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 187 - Action implementation LTA G - Engineering G - Design 

229

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 7
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03520

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00498

- CV

MWM HELOTES RANCH, LTD. and Myfe Moore

,

Appellant s

v.

John H. WHITE Jr., Individually; John H. White III, Individually; John H. White Jr., John H. White III, and Molly C. White, in their capacities as Co

- Trustees of the 1983 John H. White Long

- Term Trust F/B/O John H. White Jr., and of the 1 976B Partnership Trust; TCW Helotes Ranch Ltd; and Tuleta White, Appellee s

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11563 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

If Appellees’ brief is filed as anticipated, Appellant s ’ reply brief will be due on February 26, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(c). Before t he due date , Appellant s filed a n unopposed first
motion for a n exten sion of time to file the reply brief.

Appellant s ’ motion is GRANTED

. Appellant s ’ reply brief will be due on March 13

, 2019. See id. R. 38.6(d).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# L_2014271EN.01001501.xml

| 12.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 271/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 271/15

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 963/2014

of 29 August 2014

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Zázrivské vojky (PGI)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Slovakia's application to register the name ‘Zázrivské vojky’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Slovakia's application to register the name ‘Zázrivské vojky’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Zázrivské vojky’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Zázrivské vojky’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Zázrivské vojky’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 August 2014.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Tonio BORG

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 109, 11.4.2014, p. 27.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices1996

# Change Notice 96-020

IM001

NRC INSPECTION MANUAL PIPB

TRAINING: No special training requirements have been identified for any documents issued with this change notice.

REMARKS: 

**IMC 0304** (Plant Performance Review) is issued to provide guidance for periodically conducting a plant performance review (PPR) of nuclear plants and to provide a standard format for the plant issues matrix and PPR acknowledgement letter that is sent to licensees subsequent to each PPR.

**IMC 2681** (Physical Protection and Transport of SNM and Irradiated Fuel Inspections of Fuel Facilities) has been revised to reflect the removal of MC&A related contents. A new up-to-date, IMC 2683 has been prepared for the MC&A safeguards inspections.

**IMC 2683** (MC&A Safeguards Inspection of Fuel Facilities) is issued to incorporate revised text, format, and inspection procedures for this inspection program. In addition, the gaseous diffusion plants will be addressed, with IPs, as part of this inspection program.

**TI 2515/134** (Licensee On-Shift Dose Assessment Capabilities) is issued to gather information on the licensee's capabilities to perform assessments on-shift using real-time effluent monitor and meteorological data in order to identify licensees who do not have on-shift dose assessment capability.

**TI 2800/021** (Revised Inspection Effort for Certain Community Hospitals and Teletherapy Licensees) is deleted. The inspection effort identified in the TI has been completed.

**TI 2800/023** (Departures From Radiopharmaceutical Package Inserts) is deleted. The inspection effort identified in the TI has been completed.

**9900 10 CFR Guidance** (Definition of Leak-Before-Break Analysis and Its Application to Plant Piping Systems) is issued to provide guidance on the definition of Leak-Before-Break analysis and its application for the evaluation of nuclear power plant piping systems.

DISTRIBUTION: Standard

END

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, July 02, 2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00161-CR

Ziyad TAIYM,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002CR8156

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2013

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED

Ziyad Taiym pled guilty to a charge of sexual assault pursuant to a plea agreement and was 

placed on deferred adjudication for a period of six years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate 

guilt, alleging Taiym violated various conditions of his community supervision. After an 

evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Taiym violated some of the conditions of his deferred 

adjudication, adjudicated Taiym guilty, and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. After the 

Court of Criminal Appeals granted Taiym an out-of-time appeal, he filed a motion for new trial, 

which was overruled by operation of law. Taiym then timely filed a notice of appeal.
04-13-00161-CR

Taiym’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which 

he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a professional 

evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Taiym was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was 

informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Taiym has not done so. 

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with 

counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Taiym’s counsel and affirm the 

trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, 

no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).1

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Do not publish

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition 

for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion 

is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.

- 2 -
No. 90-6183.

#### Humphrey *v.*Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Ct. App. Ohio, Franklin County. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO U.S.C. § 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned, Tan Ho Chen, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd. (the
Company), and Hank Han-Chao Wang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



1. The Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (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.



Date: June 23, 2005



By:

/s/  Tan Ho ChenName:

Tan Ho ChenTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/  Hank Han-Chao WangName:

Hank Han-Chao WangTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           11,256,569
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1,019,933
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 11,416,878
<PP&E>                                           12,190,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6,169,465
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23,775,773
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,831,486
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            171,691
<OTHER-SE>                                       20,646,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23,775,773
<SALES>                                              15,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     15,211
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,827,424
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    7,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (1,263,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,263,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1,263,083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.07)

        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Nuclear Power Plant Fire Protection - Fire-Hazards Analysis (Subsystems Study Task 4) (NUREG/CR-0654)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-0654 (PDF - 3.40 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Submitted:** January 1979**Date Published:** September 1979

**Prepared by:**Dennis L. BerryEarl E. Minor

Sandia LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87185operated by Sandia Corporationfor the U.S. Department of Energy

NRC FIN No. A-1080

**Prepared for:**Engineering Methodology Standards BranchOffice of Standards DevelopmentU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Under Interagency Agreement DOE 40-550-75

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report examines the adequacy of existing fire-hazards analysis methodology in the context of nuclear power plant safety. By combining and simplifying a number of available analysis techniques and by demonstrating the technical merit of each technique, this report develops a conservative fire-hazards analysis method which can be easily used by both designers and regulators. As described, a suitable analysis method for nuclear power plants should involve three phases. These are: (1) a deterministic evaluation of passive fire barriers under limiting fuel load and ventilation conditions; (2) a probabilistic evaluation of supplementary fire protection measures (e.g., suppressions systems); and (3) a subjective evaluation of unquantified fire hazard conditions (e.g., cable arrangements). An example of each analysis phase is provided.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
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 on Form 10-Q of Open Text Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, P. Thomas Jenkins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/    P. Thomas Jenkins

P. Thomas Jenkins

Chief Executive Officer



Dated: November 10, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1312

MARVIN ANTONIO OBANDO, a/k/a Marvin Antonio Toledo,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 12, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, Roger Thomas Severino, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Antonio Obando, a native and citizen of El 

Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying reopening and 

rescission of the in absentia order of removal. We deny the 

petition for review. 

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 

of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(iv) (2014); INS v. 

Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales, 445 

F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). We will reverse the denial of a 

motion to reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, 

or contrary to law.” Barry, 445 F.3d at 745 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Because Obando waited twelve years to file his 

motion to reopen and rescind, he must show that he is eligible 

for equitable tolling. See Kuusk v. Holder, 732 F.3d 302, 305 

(4th Cir. 2013) (the principles of equitable tolling apply to 

the time limits for motions to reopen). We conclude that the 

record does not support the finding that it was “impossible” for 

Obando to have acted earlier. Id. We further conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the finding that Obando was not 

diligent in seeking relief from the removal order. See Neves v. 

Holder, 613 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2010) (whether Petitioner was 
3

diligent in seeking relief is reviewed for substantial 

evidence).

Obando also claims he was denied due process because 

the Board did not consider his claim that the IJ erred denying 

sua sponte reopening. We find this claim to be without merit 

because the Board clearly considered the IJ’s decision, albeit 

in a footnote and without the analysis Obando was hoping for. 

Also, Obando’s contention that the IJ’s denial of sua sponte 

reopening was an error as a matter of law is clearly not 

supported by the record. Because the decision to deny sua 

sponte reopening was a matter of discretion, we are without 

jurisdiction to review it. See Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 

400-01 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0452 Directorate ID: 2008-SW-27-AD

Helicopter Model: Agusta Model AB412 Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 0 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the loss of a rescue hoist hook and its 

load.

Costs: no costs of compliance since there are no helicopters of this type design on the U.S. 

Registry.

Parts per Helicopter $##

Labor per Helicopter

(## work-hour x $85/workhour for the required 

action)

$##

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $##

Total US Fleet Cost $##

Executive Order 12866:

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

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

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

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: George Schwab