alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2015036EN.01000701.xml

| 12.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 36/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 36/7

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/214

of 10 February 2015

endorsing the Shift2Rail Master Plan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 642/2014 of 16 June 2014 establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, and in particular Article 1(4) of Annex I thereto (1),

1

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Shift2Rail Master Plan should be established and developed by the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, in consultation with the European Railway Agency and the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) Technology Platform, to drive innovation in the rail sector in the long term. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Shift2Rail Master Plan should be established and developed by the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking, in consultation with the European Railway Agency and the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) Technology Platform, to drive innovation in the rail sector in the long term.

| (2) | The Shift2Rail Master Plan should identify the key priorities and the essential operational and technological innovations required from all stakeholders to achieve the objectives of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking outlined in Regulation (EU) No 642/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Shift2Rail Master Plan should identify the key priorities and the essential operational and technological innovations required from all stakeholders to achieve the objectives of the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking outlined in Regulation (EU) No 642/2014.

| (3) | The Shift2Rail Master Plan should be performance driven and structured around a limited number of key thematic areas or Innovation Programmes as identified in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 642/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Shift2Rail Master Plan should be performance driven and structured around a limited number of key thematic areas or Innovation Programmes as identified in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 642/2014.

| (4) | The version of the Shift2Rail Master Plan approved by the Governing Board on 24 September 2014 and integrating major contributions from relevant stakeholders, constitutes the basis for the call for associated members launched by the Commission on 6 October 2014 in accordance with Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 642/2014 and the basis for establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking's work plan, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The version of the Shift2Rail Master Plan approved by the Governing Board on 24 September 2014 and integrating major contributions from relevant stakeholders, constitutes the basis for the call for associated members launched by the Commission on 6 October 2014 in accordance with Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 642/2014 and the basis for establishing the Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking's work plan,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Sole Article

The Shift2Rail strategic Master Plan is hereby endorsed.

Done at Brussels, 10 February 2015.

For the Council

The President

E. RINKĒVIČS

---

(1)  OJ L 177, 17.6.2014, p. 9.

1

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffGeneric  Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants  (NUREG-1437)

# Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 – Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 55)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 55, Final Report (PDF – 38.2 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2015**Date Published:** November 2015

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), to renew the operating license for Braidwood Station (Braidwood), Units 1 and 2, for an additional 20 years.

This SEIS includes the analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include: new nuclear, coal-integrated gasification combined cycle, natural gas combined cycle, combination alternative (wind power, natural gas combined cycle, and solar power), and purchased power.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Braidwood are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This recommendation is based on the following:
        - the analysis and findings in NUREG–1437,  Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ;
        - the Environmental Report submitted by Exelon;
        - consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal government agencies;
        - the NRC staff's environmental review; and
        - consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and received on the draft SEIS.

Side bars indicate updates and changes since the devlopment of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  K HALID M E A L -M OUSA , Petitioner, No. 06-70638

v. Agency No.



#  A79-378-238 M ICHAEL B. M UKASEY , Attorney General, ORDER

Respondent. 

# 
Filed September 22, 2008 Before: Betty B. Fletcher, William C. Canby, Jr., and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.

ORDER The opinion, published at 518 F.3d 738, is WITHDRAWN.It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit.The Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. A memorandum disposition replacing the prior opinion is filed simultaneously with this order. New petitions for rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

13353PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActFOIAs Related to Japan's Emergency

# 2011 FOIAs Related to Japan's Emergency

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
EXHIBIT 99.3





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT





To the Participants of the Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share
Purchase Plan and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Accenture Ltd:





We have audited the
accompanying statement of financial condition of Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share Purchase Plan (the Plan) as of August 31, 2002, and the related statement of operations and changes in plan equity for the year then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Plans management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.





We conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan
and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.
An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.





In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial condition of Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share Purchase Plan as of August 31, 2002, and the changes in its financial status for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America.





/s/    KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois


December 20, 2002
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

** OF THE GENERALPARTNER**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis D. Oklak,Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

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

 

                (2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   |   | /s/ Dennis D. Oklak     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | Dennis D. Oklak         |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | of the General Partner  |
|   |   | Date: November 12, 2004 |

 

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to Matthew A. Cohoat, Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner, and will beretained by Mr. Cohoat and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionupon request.

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests2021

# Recent FOIA Requests – May 2021

This page presents a chronological listing of the subject and reference number of each Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Request submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during May 2021. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

i 2021-000155 was permanently deleted as a duplicate entry of 2021-000154.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - January
          - February
          - March
          - April
          - May
          - June
          - July
          - August
          - September
          - October
          - November
          - December

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, January 11, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,493,645
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  137,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    904,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,621,419
<PP&E>                                       1,129,325
<DEPRECIATION>                               (311,411)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,439,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          777,582
<BONDS>                                         71,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,066
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,574,143
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,439,333
<SALES>                                        255,809
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               277,028
<CGS>                                          204,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               557,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (539,043)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (539,043)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (539,043)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        





</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsEnforcement Petition (2.206)Director's Decisions on Completed 2.206 Petitions

# Director's Decisions on Completed Petitions for 2013

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, April 9, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, April 9, 2020
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 December 16, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-12669

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-08024-TP-DMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

ROBERT COLGIN WILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(December 16, 2005)

Before DUBINA, HULL and HILL, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robin Farnsworth, appointed counsel for Robert Colgin Wilson in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals

that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Wilson’s revocation and

sentence are AFFIRMED.
HomeSite Help

# NRC Site Search: Search All Sites

### Filter by Document Type

 All                   - All
                  - Main Website
                  - Public ADAMS
                  - Enforcement Docs
                  - NUREG-Series Reports
                  - News Releases
                  - Commission Docs
                  - Meetings
                  - Inspection Manual
                  - Inspection Reports
                  - Glossary
                  - Maps & Images
                  - Regulatory Guides
                  - IG Reports
                  - Regulations
                  - Event Reports

### Sort Documents by

Sort by                  - Relevance
                  - Date

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 28, 2023

#### Related Information

                - ADAMS Fielded Search
                - Licensee Event Reports
                - NRC Telephone Directory

Section Navigation

#### Site Help

          - Search All Sites
          - Main Site
          - News Releases
          - Public Documents (ADAMS)
          - Agency Correspondence
          - Commission Documents
          - Commission Papers
          - Commission Speeches
          - Contracts
          - Enforcement
          - Event Reports
          - Facility Locator
          - FOIA
          - Generic Communications
          - Glossary
          - Images
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Reports
          - NSTS Blog
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - Reactor Oversight
          - Regulations (10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

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

FEB 1 1 2022 

IN THE MATTER OF THE AUTHORIZATION 

OF A RETIRED JUDGE TO ADMINISTER 

AN OATH OF OFFICE 

Bowen Greenwood 

CierK of Supreme

Court

O R.. mir( kfinn.,A 

The Honorable Mike Salvagni, Retired District Judge, having retired under the 

judges' retirement system as provided by law and having requested authorization to 

administer the oath of office to incoming Belgrade City Judge Christopher Gregory, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Mike Salvagni is hereby called to duty as a 

district judge to administer the oath of office to Christopher Gregory on February 22, 2022. 

Judge Salvagni shall not be compensated for administering the oath. 

This Order is entered by the Chiefjustice pursuant to Article VII of the Constitution 

of the State of Montana and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation 

thereof. 

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Honorable Mike 

Salvagni. LLN 

DATED this I 1 day of February, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

02/14/2022

Case Number: PR 07-0011
#### Ford Hydro-Electric Company, Appellant, vs. Town of Florence, Respondent.

*December 9, 193*1

January *12, 1932.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Schubring, Ryan, Clarke & Petersen*of Madison, and oral argument by *William Ryan.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Sells & Sells*of Florence, and oral argument by *Arthur M. Sells.*

Wickhem, J.

Both with respect to the facts and the law, this case is identical with *Ford Hydro-Electric Co. v. Aurora,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 489, 240 N. W. 418), differing only as to the amount sought to be recovered. Both cases, were tried together, and it was stipulated at the trial that the evidence should be used for both. It was also stipulated in the action against the town of Florence that the judgment on appeal in that action should abide the result of the judgment in *Ford Hydro-Electric Co. v. Aurora.*The case is governed in all respects by the opinion in that case.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in accordance with the demand of the complaint.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

HANDDOWN LIST OF OCTOBER 7, 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD76309 Sandrio DeJesus-Andujar vs. State of Missouri

WD77092 Clayton Blankenship vs. Hillary Porter

WD77231 Stephenie Sasnett, a Minor by and Through Her Guardian and

Natural Mother, Maria Sasnett, et al. vs. City of Kansas City, 

Missouri

WD77398 In The Interest of A.P.D., A.C.D., and A.M.D. vs. B.D. (Father)

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

NONE
HomeNuclear SecurityDomestic SafeguardsPhysical ProtectionRegulatory Initiatives

# Contact Us About Regulatory Initiatives for Domestic Safeguards

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) welcomes your comments or questions about the Cyber-Security Initiative for Fuel Cycle Facilities and the Security-Related Rulemaking to Update 10 CFR Part 73. You can also Contact Us About Public Meetings on Nuclear Security and Safeguards or Contact Us About Rulemaking and Draft Regulatory Guides (instead of using this form) to ensure that your comments or questions reach the appropriate staff contacts.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 08, 2020