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

3461 

Federal Register 

Vol. 80, No. 14 

Thursday, January 22, 2015 

Title 3— 

The President 

Notice of January 21, 2015 

Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process 

On January 23, 1995, by Executive Order 12947, the President declared 

a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary 

threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 

States constituted by grave acts of violence committed by foreign terrorists 

that disrupt the Middle East peace process. On August 20, 1998, by Executive 

Order 13099, the President modified the Annex to Executive Order 12947 

to identify four additional persons who threaten to disrupt the Middle 

East peace process. On February 16, 2005, by Executive Order 13372, the 

President clarified the steps taken in Executive Order 12947. 

These terrorist activities continue to threaten the Middle East peace process 

and to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, 

foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For this reason, the 

national emergency declared on January 23, 1995, and the measures adopted 

to deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond January 23, 

2015. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national 

emergency with respect to foreign terrorists who threaten to disrupt the 

Middle East peace process. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to 

the Congress. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

January 21, 2015. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01283 

Filed 1–21–15; 12:15 pm] 

Billing code 3295–F5 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with O1OB#1.EPS</GPH>
Jul 12 2010

Mr. Randy Hansen

Government Relations Director Experimental Aircraft Association

P.O. Box 3086 Oshkosh, WI 54903

Dear Mr. Hansen:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for reconsideration for an exemption from §§ 91.315, 91.319(a)(2), 119.5(g) , 119.21(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot pr ocess your request, gives you some important information about how we have handled sim ilar requests, and tells you what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your September 29, 2009, exemption requ est for the Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. (EAA), but we are unable to proce ss your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requi rements of 14 CFR § 11.101. For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• Significant additional fact(s) and why you did not present it in your original petition;

• Important factual error(s) were made by the FAA in the denial of your original petition; or

• Law(s), regulation(s), or precedent(s) were misinte rpreted by the FAA in the decision to deny your original petition.

How We Have Handled Similar Requests

Your request for exemption concerns permitting the Consolidated PT-3, N31PT, experimental amateur-built aircraft to be used for the purpose o f carrying passengers for compensation or hire on local flights for educational and historica l purposes.2

It is important for you to know that an exemption f rom aviation safety regulations is not routinely granted if the proposed operation can be performed in full compliance with the rules. More specifically, the FAA has determined that the issuance of a living history flight experience exemption applies only when an aircraft’ s certification prohibits compliance with the applicable parts of the CFR and when the propos ed operation cannot be conducted in a standard category aircraft. Unless your proposed o peration could not be conducted in a standard category aircraft, there is little reason to believe that we would grant your petition for

reconsideration.

What You Should Do

• You must tell us how the facts and circumstances of your particular situation are significantly different from the previous facts you provided; and

• Send the information we requested earlier in this l etter that will enable us to process your
request.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without further

consideration.

If you have any questions or need more time, you ma y call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          765,851
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            765,851
<EQUITIES>                                      29,566
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 797,716
<CASH>                                          94,074
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             651,787
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          46,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,975,160
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,304,180
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            208,683
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                107,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                     278,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,975,160
<PREMIUMS>                                     274,820
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             46,721
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 826
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     204,605
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     96,339
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,066
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,540
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,526
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM**





Janel
      World Trade Ltd.


150-14
      132nd Avenue


Jamaica,
      New York 11434





Gentlemen:





We
      have
      issued our report dated December 13, 2007 accompanying the financial statements
      of Janel World Trade Ltd. and subsidiaries contained in the Form 10-K under
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. We consent to the use of the
      aforementioned report in the Form 10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended.




/S/ 
                PARITZ & COMPANY, P.A.Paritz
                & Company, P.A.





Hackensack,
      New Jersey


January
      14, 2007
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.146 

 

 

 October 12, 2010 
 BY US MAIL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL 
 Mr. Joel Legon 

Interim Chief Financial Officer 
 43 Chapin Road

 Barrington, RI 02806 
 Dear Joel,

 This letter confirms that, effective October 10, 2010, you have agreed to serve, and were appointed by the Board of Directors of
Comverse Technology, Inc. (the “Company”), as Senior Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, initially reporting to me. Your annual base salary, effective October 10, 2010, will be $400,000 (“Annual
Base Salary”), payable in accordance with the Company’s payroll practices for similarly situated employees, subject to withholding of Federal and State income taxes, Social Security and other customary deductions. In addition, during the
term of employment, you will be entitled to an annual additional supplemental payment of $14,000 payable as additional salary (but not deemed base salary for other purposes under this offer letter) during the course of the year in accordance with
the regular payroll practices of the Company. 
 You will cease to be eligible to participate in the Comverse Incentive Compensation Plan
effective October 9, 2010. Effective October 10, 2010, your on-target bonus opportunity shall be $200,000 (“Target Bonus”) and your maximum bonus opportunity shall be $300,000, pro-rated to cover the period from and after
October 10, 2010. Any bonus will be payable based upon the achievement of certain performance criteria developed by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and sent under separate cover. Any bonus will be subject to withholding of Federal
and State income taxes, Social Security and other customary deductions. 
 Effective October 10, 2010, in the event that you are terminated
without cause by the Company, you will be entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal to the sum of (i) 50% of Annual Base Salary and (ii) 50% of Target Bonus. 
 Other than as specifically set forth herein, the terms and conditions of your employment as set forth in the offer letter, dated February 12, 2009, remain full force and effect. Please contact me if
you would like to discuss further. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Andre Dahan

	Andre Dahan
	President and Chief Executive Officer


 810 Seventh Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10019  Telephone (212) 739-1000 Facsimile (212) 739-1001 
 www.cmvt.com
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01359]



[[Page 4292]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.
    Date: February 20, 2015.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 3F100, 5601 Fisher 
Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Raymond R. Schleef, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, 
MD 20892-7616, 240-669-5019, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e6d7d76727b7b786c6c5e70777f777a3070777630797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="512232393d3434372323113f383038357f3f38397f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 21, 2015.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-01359 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 07, 2023.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 07, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0150. YATISHA WILLIAMS v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN 

TRUST 2007-4.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

81904
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Interpretation of Bioassay Measurements (NUREG/CR-4884, BNL-NUREG-52063)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4884 (PDF - 38.64 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**June 1987**Date Published:**July 1987 

**Prepared by:** Edward T, Lessard, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York Xia Yihua, Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, People's Republic of China Kenneth W. Skrable, University of Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts George E. Chabot, University of Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts Clayton S. French, University of Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts Thomas R. Labone, University of Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts John R. Johnson, Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory, Ontario, Canada Darrell R. Fisher, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington Richard Belanger, Science Applications International Corporation, San Diego, California Joyce Landmann Lipsztein, Commissao Nacional de Energia Nuclear, Sao Paulo, Brazil

NRC Project Managers – B.G. Brooks and A. Brodsky

**Prepared for:** Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 NRC FIN A-3289

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This is a comprehensive manual describing how to compute intakes from both in-vivo and in-vitro bioassay measurements. To date, interpretations of intake have been inconsistent, particularly in the early phases after an accidental intake. This manual is aimed at completely describing a consistent approach and instructing others on how to compute intakes and committed organ dose equivalents. Tables for the interpretation of bioassay results are compiled for several hundred radionuclides. Measurements which employ a whole-body counter, a thyroid counter, a lung counter, or measurements on excreta can be converted into estimates of intake based on the tables presented in the appendices. The values in the tables were determined by using lung, gastrointestinal tract and systemic retention models published by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP79). In a few cases, pseudo-retention functions, organ retention functions, and excretion functions were used to generate the tabulated values. The biological and radiological input parameters are included in an appendix, and a description of the mathematical approach that was used to derive the tabulated data is included in the methods section. Calculations for various particle sizes are addressed along with methods to interpret multiple or continuous exposures. Examples of use are based on actual bioassay measurements following accidental intakes, including tritium, Mn–54, Co–60, Sr–90, Nb–95, radioiodines, Cs–137, Ce–141, Ce–144, U–233, U–Nat, and Am–241.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 906), Vincent A Wasik and Edward W. Stone, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Velocity Express Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 27, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of Velocity Express Corporation as of the dates presented and the results of operations of Velocity Express Corporation for the periods presented.



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate: November 12, 2008/s/ Edward W. StoneEdward. W. StoneChief Financial OfficerDate: November 12, 2008


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Velocity Express Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Accidental Vapor Phase Explosions on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants: Final Report January – April 1977 (NUREG/CR-0075)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-0075 (PDF - 4.13 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 1977**Date Published:** May 1978

**Prepared by:** T. V. Eichler H. S. Napadensky

IIT Research Institute 10 West 35th Street Chicago, IL 60616

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Standards Office of Standards Development U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Under FIN No. A 20057

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents the results of a study of the potential blast effectiveness of vapor cloud explosions for hydrocarbons released under accident conditions associated with transportation routes near nuclear plants. The objective is to provide a methodology for estimating TNT equivalency of accidents of this type in order that safe standoff distances for nuclear plants can be evaluated.

Results are presented that establish the maximum blast effectiveness that can be attributed to fuel-air explosions on the basis of thermodynamics and experimental data. A review of accidental vapor cloud explosions is included and comparisons are made to determine a realistic basis for evaluating an accident's potential destructiveness. It is hoped that this study contributes toward the resolution of the many inconsistencies that appear on this subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No: II-19-025 April 25, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Public Meeting to Discuss

Safety Performance of Global Nuclear Fuel Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting for May 2 to 

discuss the results of an NRC review of the Global Nuclear Fuel plant’s performance in conducting 

NRC-licensed activities.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Courtyard by Marriott Wilmington 

Downtown/Historic District, 229 North Second St., Wilmington, N.C. The public can observe the 

meeting and the NRC staff will be available to answer questions or provide additional information 

following the business portion of the meeting.

The Global Nuclear Fuel facility is located in Wilmington and produces fuel for commercial 

nuclear power plants.

The NRC review determined that the facility continued to operate safely in 2018. During the 

assessment period, an event involving the shipment of contaminated scrap metal offsite resulted in a 

supplemental NRC inspection and a Confirmatory Order detailing corrective actions agreed to by 

the company.

The review evaluated the areas of safety operations, radiological controls, facility support, 

safeguards, and other areas, identifying no areas needing improvement. The NRC plans to conduct 

the core inspection program for nuclear fuel facilities of this type during the current review period,

which ends Dec. 31, 2020.

The NRC letter discussing the licensee performance review for the Global Nuclear Fuel 

facility is available on the NRC website.
#### In the Matter of Fred Mabery, Appellant, v New York State Board of Parole et al., Respondents.

[631 NYS2d 87]

App*751eal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered November 2, 1994 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent State Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole consideration.

Petitioner, an inmate serving a term of *81h*to 25 years in prison upon a 1974 conviction, challenges the refusal by respondent State Board of Parole to consider him for parole. He contends that the Board misapplied provisions of the Penal Law in calculating his parole eligibility date in that it failed to properly credit him for time he served in prison in North Carolina between 1972 and 1988. Inasmuch as petitioner has unsuccessfully raised this same claim numerous times in other proceedings, we find that he is precluded from raising it again here. In any event, were we to consider the merits, we would find that the Board properly calculated petitioner’s parole eligibility date from the date petitioner was returned to New York in 1988.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Casey, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.