alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DC10059.pdf -- Converted by SEC Publisher 4.2, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing








	
Exhibit 10.2







AMENDMENT #1 TO


YAHOO! PUBLISHER NETWORK SERVICE ORDER # 1-9935871


     THIS AMENDMENT #1 (this “Amendment #1”) is entered into as of January 31, 2008 (the
“Amendment #1 Effective Date”) by and among Overture Services, Inc., Overture Search Services (Ireland) Limited, InfoSpace Sales LLC, InfoSpace Europe
Limited and InfoSpace, Inc. (as guarantor under Section 22 of Attachment B to the Agreement), and amends that certain Yahoo! Publisher Network Service Order #1-9935871 by and among the foregoing parties effective as of November 26, 2007 (the
“Original Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Original Agreement, except as amended by this Amendment
#1.

	
1.      		
The Original Agreement is hereby amended such that the Agreement shall terminate as to WhenU on February 6, 2008.	
	 
	
2.      		
Except as amended by this Amendment #1, the Original Agreement will remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Amendment #1 and the Original
Agreement, the terms of this Amendment #1 will govern.	
	 



This Amendment #1 has been executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties as of the Amendment #1 Effective Date.

	
OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., 
		
 		
INFOSPACE SALES LLC 
	
	
 
	
	
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Matt Whiteley 
		
 		
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Michael Glover 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
Name: 
		
 		
Matt Whiteley 
		
 		
Name: 
		
 		
Michael Glover 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
Title: 
		
 		
Director, BD 
		
 		
Title: 
		
 		
VP, Business Dev 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
 
	
	
OVERTURE SEARCH SERVICES 
		
 		
INFOSPACE EUROPE LIMITED 
	
	
(IRELAND) LIMITED 
		
 		
 
		
 		
 
	
	
 
	
	
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Matt Whiteley 
		
 		
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Michael Glover 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
Name: 
		
 		
Matt Whiteley 
		
 		
Name: 
		
 		
Michael Glover 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
Title: 
		
 		
Director, BD 
		
 		
Title: 
		
 		
VP, Business Dev 
	
	
		
		


		
		
		
		


	
	
 
	
	
 
		
 		
 
		
 		
INFOSPACE, INC. (as guarantor under Section 22 
	
	
 
		
 		
 
		
 		
of Attachment B to the Agreement) 
	
	
 
	
	
 
		
 		
 
		
 		
By: 
		
 		
/s/ Michael Glover 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		


	
	
 
		
 		
 
		
 		
Name: 
		
 		
Michael Glover 
	
	
		
		
		
		
		
		


	
	
 
		
 		
 
		
 		
Title: 
		
 		
VP, Business Dev
Order entered December 9, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01499

- CV

IN RE THE HONORABLE SUZANNE WOOTEN, Relator

Original Proceeding from

Collin C ounty, Texas



### O RDER

Before Justices Schenck, Reichek, and Evans

Before the Court are relator’s December 6, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus and

emergency motion for temporary relief . Based on the Court’s memorandum opinion of this date,

we DENY relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK

PRESIDING JUSTICE
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7056

RANDY LEE LASSITER, JR.
,
Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.
SERGEANT KELLY, Sergeant, HRRJ; OFFICER GOVIA, Officer, HRRJ
,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady
, Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv

- 00889

- CO

- TCB )

Submitted : December 21 , 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER , Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Randy Lee Lassiter, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinion s are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7056 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Randy Lee Lassiter, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting Sergeant Kelly
and Officer Govia summary judgment on Lassiter’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. 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 proces s.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-7056 Doc: 13 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-1779)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1779 (PDF - 38.60 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: July 2003 Date Published: September 2003**

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document is a safety evaluation report regarding the application to renew the operating licenses for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, which the Florida Power and Light Company filed by letter dated November 29, 2001, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received on November 30, 2001. The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has reviewed the license renewal application for compliance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, "Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," and prepared this report to document its findings.

In its submittal of November 29, 2001, the Florida Power and Light Company requested renewal of the operating licenses for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (License Numbers DPR-67 and NFP-16, respectively), which were issued under Section 104b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for a period of 20 years beyond the current license expiration dates of March 1, 2016, and April 6, 2023, respectively. Units 1 and 2 of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant are located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. Each unit consists of a Combustion Engineering pressurized-water reactor nuclear steam supply system designed to produce a core thermal power output of 2,700 megawatts or approximately 890 megawatts electric.

The NRC license renewal project manager for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, is Noel Dudley. Mr. Dudley may be contacted by calling 301-415-1154 or by writing to the License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6379
PHILIP SCOTT FURR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2952-4-20BE) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Philip Scott Furr, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Furr v. South Carolina , No. CA-96-2952-4-20BE (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
No. 86-888.

#### Franklin *v.*District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Adsorption and Desorption Behavior of Selected 10 CFR Part 61 Radionuclides From Ion Exchange Resin by Waters of Different Chemical Composition (NUREG/CR-6647)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6647 (PDF - 2.93 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2000**Date Published:** July 2000

**Prepared by:**D.E. Robertson, SJi. Pratt, C.W. Thomas

Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichland, WA 99352

P.R. Reed, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:**Division of Risk Analysis and ApplicationsOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code W6677

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Two sets of laboratory experiments were conducted to determine the sorption and desorption behavior of a selected group of long-lived radionuclides on nuclear grade ion exchange resin in contact with several types of groundwater. The first experiment used a slightly modified version of ASTM Method D 4319-83, "Distribution Ratios by the Short-Term Batch Method" to determine Kd values for 13 radionuclides (14C, 36Cl, 60Co, 63Ni, 90Sr, 99Tc, 129I, 137Cs, and isotopes of Th, U, Np, Pu, and Am) on EPICORE AC-32 mixed-bed ion exchange resin in contact with three different water types; 1) Chalk River groundwater (pH 6.6), 2) Hanford groundwater (pH 7.9), and 3) Soap Lake water (pH 10.1). These measurements gave high Kd values (104 to 105) for the Hanford and Chalk River groundwaters, and much lower Kd values for the Soap Lake water. The relatively high dissolved salt content and high alkalinity of the Soap Lake water either saturated the resin or provided high concentrations of competing ions for the adsorption sites on the resin. The second experiment involved determining the leaching rate and magnitude for nine radionuclides (14C, 36C1, 63Ni, WTc, 129I, and isotopes of U, Np, Pu, and Am) previously sorbed onto the same type of EPICORE AC-32 ion exchange resin. A slightly modified version of the INEEL leaching method described in NUREG/CR5224 was used to determine equilibrium desorption coefficients (1/Kd) of radionuclides leached from the resin by two different water types; 1) Hanford groundwater (pH 7.9), and 2) a "cement water" (pH 12.1) prepared by equilibrating Hanford groundwater with Portland cement. The desorption coefficients were very small (mainly in the range of 10-5  to 10-7), indicating that the radionuclides were very tightly sorbed to the resin and not easily leached during contact with the test groundwater samples. The measurements from these two experiments have provided LLW site performance assessment modelers with empirical data to more effectively estimate the retention fraction, or conversely, the release fraction of radionuclides on ion exchange resin during contact with infiltrating groundwater types.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4534-4535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Establishment of Current River Purchase Unit, Ripley County, 
Missouri

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On September 30, 2014 the Under Secretary of Natural Resources 
and Environment created the Current River Unit. This purchase unit 
comprises 1,868 acres within Ripley County, Missouri. A copy of the 
establishment document, which includes the legal description of the 
lands within the purchase unit, appears at the end of this notice.

DATES: The establishment of this purchase unit was effective September 
30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the map showing the purchase unit is on file and 
available for public inspection in the Office of the Director, Lands 
Staff, 1st Floor-Southeast, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, Forest 
Service, USDA, 201 14th Street SW., Washington, DC 20250, between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on business days. Those wishing to 
inspect the map are encouraged to call ahead to (202) 205-1248 to 
facilitate entry into the building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory C. Smith, Director, Lands 
Staff, Forest Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Mailstop 1124, 
Washington, DC 20250-0003, telephone: (202) 205-1248.
    Individuals who use telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Current River Purchase Unit will 
encompass mostly undeveloped lands adjacent to the Current River. The 
creation of this purchase unit allows for land acquisition of the 
remaining undeveloped parcels to protect the fragile Current River 
system and its many listed species. The Current River Purchase Unit 
will also provide protection and enhancement of watersheds and 
ecological communities, provide additional areas suitable for outdoor 
recreation, and provide public access to National Forest Lands.

    Dated: January 20, 2015.
Gregory Smith,
Director of Lands and Realty Management.
BILLING CODE 3411-15-P

[[Page 4535]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JA15.004

[FR Doc. 2015-01474 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411-15-C
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of CABLE NET INC. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank Marasco,
President of the Company and Maria Marasco, Secretary, Treasurer of the Company
, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





September
17, 2008





/s/ Maria
      Marasco
            
            
            /s/ Frank
      MarascoName:
      Maria Marasco
              Title:
      Secretary Treasurer
            
            
            Name:
      Frank Marasco
              Title:
      President
No: IV-19-013 July 19, 2019

Contact: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Issues Confirmatory Order to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Company

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a Confirmatory Order to the Wolf Creek 

Nuclear Operating Co., documenting mutually agreed-upon actions to implement programs designed to 

prevent willful misconduct by employees.

Following an investigation at the Wolf Creek nuclear power plant in Burlington, Kan., the NRC 

determined that a maintenance worker and a supervisor falsified a record regarding the cleaning and 

inspection of the reactor’s control rod drive mechanisms on Oct. 31, 2016. One apparent violation of 

NRC requirements is described in an April 2 NRC inspection report.

Company officials requested the Alternative Dispute Resolution process with the NRC to

discuss corrective actions. The process uses a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority to 

assist the NRC and its licensees in reaching an agreement.

Following a meeting on May 30 with company officials, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order

documenting actions the company has agreed to take.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsConference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors

# Transactions of the Twenty-Fifth Water ReactorSafety Information Meeting:Held at Bethesda Marriott Hotel, Bethesda, Maryland, October 20–22, 1997(NUREG/CP-0161)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Preface

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CP-0161 (PDF - 6.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**September 1997

**Meeting Sponsored by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

**Transactions****Compiled by:** Susan Monteleone, Meeting Coordinator Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973

C. Bonsby, NRC Project Manager

Availability Notice

## Preface

This report contains summaries of papers on reactor safety research to be presented at the 25th Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting at the Bethesda Marriott Hotel in Bethesda, Maryland, October 20-22, 1997. The summaries briefly describe the programs and results of nuclear safety research sponsored by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC. Summaries of invited papers concerning nuclear safety issues from U.S. government laboratories, the electric utilities, the nuclear industry, and from foreign governments and industry are also included. The summaries have been compiled in one report to provide a basis for meaningful discussion of information exchanged during the course of the meeting, and are given in order of their presentation in each session.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60156 

Summary Calendar

__________________

ARTURO YANEZ-PENALOZA,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order

 of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A35-933-046

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 1995

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mexican citizen Arturo Yanez-Penaloza appeals the Board of

Immigration Appeals's (BIA) deportation order and its denial of

his motion for reconsideration and to reopen his deportation

proceedings seeking readjustment of status pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1255(i) (§ 245(i) of the Act) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (§ 212(c)

of the Act). Yanez-Penaloza argues that the Board erred in

basing its deportation decision on evidence presented during the
No. 95-60156

-2-

relief stage of his proceedings. He also argues that the Board

abused its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider or

reopen by deciding that he was no longer eligible for § 212(c)

relief after the final order of deportation.

This court does not have jurisdiction to review the

underlying deportation order because the petition for review was

not filed within 90 days. See 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(1); Stone v.

I.N.S., 115 S. Ct. 1537, 1542 (1995). Regarding the motion for

reconsideration or to reopen, we have reviewed the record and the

BIA's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we

deny the petition for review.

PETITION DISMISSED.
Exhibit 35.1


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


CAPITAL ONE PRIME AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST 2020-1





Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2020-1


c/o Capital One Auto Receivables, LLC


1600 Capital One Drive, Room 27907-B


McLean, Virginia 22102





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2020-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One, National Association (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:





1. A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement dated as of February 19, 2020 (the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2020-1, as Issuer, the Servicer and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.





2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreements in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 24 th day of March, 2023.





CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


By:/s/ SANJIV YAJNIKName:Sanjiv YajnikTitle:President, Financial Services
#### M. Schulz Company, Respondent, vs. Gether, Appellant: First Wisconsin National Bank and another, Garnishee defendants.

*March 13*

April *8, 1924.*

*Garnishment: Dismissal of main action: Effect on*garnishment. *action: Appeal.*

1. Where a judgment is fair on the record and there is no motion to vacate it nor a bill of exceptions, the refusal of the trial judge to stay execution will not be disturbed, p. 502.

[2. *Qucere:*Pending appeal, what practice should prevail as to a garnishment action after dismissal of the main action. Does sec. 2766, Stats., providing that the garnishment action be dismissed after judgment dismissing the main action, mean final judgment?] p. 502.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county. E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge, and from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: John J. Gregory, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The garnishee defendant had judgment in the principal action, and thereupon, without notice, took a judgment dismissing the garnishee action. The main action was appealed to this court and is decided herewith. That decision affirming the judgment of the circuit court makes a discussion of this case largely academic except for the question of costs.

After the judgment in the circuit court in the garnishee action, the appellant here made a motion to stay execution *502on the judgment for costs, pending appeal in the main action, which motion was denied. Appellant then appealed both from the order denying the stay of execution and from the judgment.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Gticksman, Gold & Corrigan,*attorneys, and *Ray T. McCann,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. McCann.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Michael Levin*of Milwaukee and *Simmons, Walker & Wratien*of Racine, and oral argument by *Mr. Levin*and *Mr. Charles F. Wratten.*

Crownhart, J.

Issues are raised here not raised below. It is claimed that the judgment appealed from is not a judgment in fact but only an order for judgment. That question was not raised before the trial court. The position is inconsistent with the motion to stay execution and the appeal from the judgment. The judgment is somewhat irregular in form, but we deem it sufficient. There was no motion to vacate the judgment and there is no bill of exceptions. The judgment is fair on the record and is sustained on this appeal. Therefore the stay of execution was within the discretion of the trial court and cannot be disturbed.

If properly before us, an important question for construction of the statutes would be involved, which should be cured by legislation. Sec. 2766, Stats., provides that the garnishee action shall be dismissed where the defendant has judgment in the main action. Query. Does this mean final judgment, and, if so, what practice should prevail pending appeal ?

*By the Court.*— The judgment and order of the circuit court are affirmed. .