alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1624 

AN ACT 

To require the appropriate Federal banking agencies to treat 

certain municipal obligations as no lower than level 2B 

liquid assets, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1624 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Municipal Finance 

3 Support Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OBLIGA5 TIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 18 of the Federal Deposit 

7 Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828) is amended— 

8 (1) by moving subsection (z) so that it appears 

9 after subsection (y); and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(aa) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN MUNICIPAL OBLIGA12 TIONS.— 

13 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the final 

14 rule titled ‘Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk 

15 Measurement Standards; Final Rule’ (79 Fed. Reg. 

16 61439; published October 10, 2014) (the ‘Final 

17 Rule’) and any other regulation which incorporates 

18 a definition of the term ‘high-quality liquid asset’, 

19 the appropriate Federal banking agencies shall treat 

20 a municipal obligation that is both liquid and readily 

21 marketable (as defined in the Final Rule) and in22 vestment grade as of the calculation date as a high23 quality liquid asset that is no lower than a level 2B 

24 liquid asset. 

25 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub26 section: 
3 

•HR 1624 EH

1 ‘‘(A) INVESTMENT GRADE.—With respect 

2 to an obligation, the term ‘investment grade’ 

3 has the meaning given that term under part 1 

4 of title 12, Code of Federal Regulations. 

5 ‘‘(B) MUNICIPAL OBLIGATION.—The term 

6 ‘municipal obligation’ means an obligation of a 

7 State or any political subdivision thereof, or any 

8 agency or instrumentality of a State or any po9 litical subdivision thereof.’’. 

10 (b) AMENDMENT TO LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO

11 REGULATIONS.—Not later than the end of the 3-month 

12 period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

13 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of 

14 Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Comp15 troller of the Currency shall amend the final rule titled 

16 ‘‘Liquidity Coverage Ratio: Liquidity Risk Measurement 

17 Standards; Final Rule’’ (79 Fed. Reg. 61439; published 

18 October 10, 2014) to implement the amendments made 

19 by this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 3, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1624 

AN ACT 

To require the appropriate Federal banking agenpurposes. lower than level 2B liquid assets, and for other cies to treat certain municipal obligations as no
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 Annual Report of Prevention Insurance.com (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan P. Donenfeld,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





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





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








August
      13, 2009
            By:
            /s/ ALAN
      P. DONENFELDAlan
      P. DonenfeldPresident
      and Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer
              and
      Principal Financial Officer)
No. 86-988.

#### Jameson *v.*Bethlehem Steel Corporation Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corporation et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
|   | (1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

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

|           | /s/ Kevin Sherman       |   |
|----------------|-------------------------|--------|
|           | Kevin Sherman           |
|           | Chief Executive Officer |
|           |                    |
| March 31, 2011 |                    |
No: I-19-022 July 30, 2019

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss Ginna Nuclear Power Plant

2018 Safety Performance

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss the 2018 safety performance of the Ginna 

nuclear power plant, operated by Exelon, during an open house on Aug. 6 in Ontario, N.Y.

The open house at the plant’s training center, at 1503 Lake Road, will be held from 4-7 p.m. 

It will be conducted in conjunction with the plant’s annual Community Information Night. NRC 

staff responsible for inspections, including the resident inspectors assigned to Ginna on a full-time 

basis, will be available to discuss the plant’s performance.

Ginna operated safely during 2018. At the end of last year, all inspection findings and

performance indicators for the plant were green, or of very low safety significance. As a result, the 

plant will receive the normal level of oversight in 2019, which entails thousands of hours of 

inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight.

Inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from 

the agency’s Region I Office.

The annual assessment letter, as well as the notice for the open house, are available on the 

NRC website. Current plant performance information for Ginna is also available.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, 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, Development of Novel Therapeutics for Select Anaerobic Protozoa.                    

*Date:*                         February 24-25, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Room 9H200 A/B, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Annie Walker-Abbey, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E70A, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-627-3390,                         *aabbey@niaid.nih.gov.*

(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 26, 2015.

David Clary, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-01716 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Workload, Situation Awareness, and Teamwork (NUREG/CR-7190)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7190 (PDF - 6.77 MB)
        - Generic Metrics Catalog (GMC) and Decision Making Wizard (DMW) (Microsoft Excel - 1.86 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 2015**Date Published:**March 2015

**Prepared by:** Lauren Reinerman-Jones, Svyatoslav Guznov, and James Tyson

University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation and Training 3100 Technology Parkway Orlando, Florida 32726

Amy D’Agostino and Niav Hughes

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Many of the twelve review elements contained in the NRC’s Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model, NUREG-0711, Rev. 3 (NRC, 2012) highlight the importance of workload (WL), situation awareness (SA) and teamwork (TW). The primary purpose of this NUREG/CR is to enhance NRC staff knowledge of the human performance metrics used to measure WL, SA, and TW, and, to provide a tool for evaluating the use of such metrics in applications (e.g., design certification) and proposed license amendments. This report summarizes the most widely used definitions and theories of each of the three constructs (i.e., WL, SA and TW) along with discussing factors that contribute to each. In addition, it describes the psychometric criteria used to evaluate metrics and specifically discusses the measurement and associated metrics of WL, SA and TW. This report also introduces a database of human performance metrics and a tool to assist NRC technical staff in evaluating their use in license applications and proposed amendments. The tool is available on the CD "Workload, Situation Awareness and Teamwork Generic Metrics Catalog (GMC) and Decision Making Wizard (DMW)" located in the back of this report. A user guide to instruct and train NRC technical staff (reviewers) on the organization, capabilities, and applications of the tool can be found in an appendix to this report. For those who are unfamiliar with the NRC’s Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model, an additional appendix includes a review of the NUREG-0711 general activities with an emphasis on the role that WL, SA, and TW measurement plays in the process.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
#### STATE v. JOHN C. MURRAY.

*Appeal*— Practice—New *Trial.*

1 Whore there is no statement of the case and no error appears on the record in criminal actions, this court will, on appqal, affirm the judgment.

2. A new trial will not be granted where the judge who-tried the cause went out of office without making up a case of appeal, unless it sufficiently appears that the appellant was guilty of no laches.

*(Siaiev.*Orrell, Busb., 217; *Isler*v. *Raddoch,*72 N. C., 119, cited and approved.)

Indictment for an Affray, tried at Spring Term, 1878, of Buncombe Superior Court, before *Cloud, J.*

The facts are sufficiently stated by Mr. Justice Ashe in delivering the opinion. Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Mr. C. M. McLoud,*for the defendant.

*365Ashe, J.

This is an indictment against the defendant for making an affray with one Elbert Murrell. He was (tried and convicted at the spring term, 1878, of Buncombe superior court and upon the judgment being pronounced against him, he appealed to this court.

As there is no bill of exceptions or statement of that nature accompanying the record, according to the settled practice and long established rule of this court in criminal cases, the judgment below must be affirmed, unless upon looking into the record some error may be found therein ; but upon inspection of this record we find no error. The judgment is affirmed. *State*v. *Orrell,*Busb., 217.

It wTas stated by counsel at the bar as an excuse why a statement of the case did not accompany the record, that the judge holding the court liad gone out of office. According to the authority of the case of *Isler*v. *Haddock,*72 N. C., 119, we would grant a new trial if it appeared from the case or by affidavit that the appellant was guilty of no laches in having his case made up for this court. But it is not made to appear to us whether he applied to the judge to make up the case or whether he or the judge was in default. There is no error. Let this be certified to the end that the case may be proceeded in according to-law.

No error,
_____________ No. 95-3939SD

_____________ David R. Bradley, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. Pat Lichty, P.H.S. Director at * South Dakota State Penitentiary;* [UNPUBLISHED] Joe Class, Warden; Dr. Schaffer,* S.D.S.P.; Kay Paa, Nurse, * S.D.S.P., * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: December 13, 1995 Filed: January 2, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. David R. Bradley appeals the district court's dismissal of Bradley's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Our decision is guided by this court's recent decision in Wiedermann v. Lichty , No. 95-3339 (8th Cir. Dec. 12, 1995). For the reasons given in Wiedermann , we reverse and remand for further proceedings. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard Studies (NUREG-2117, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2117, Revision 1 (PDF - 8.17 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2011 **Date Published:** April 2012

**Prepared by:** Annie M. Kammerer Jon P. Ake

NRC Project Manager: Richard Rivera-Lugo

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

10 CFR 100.23, paragraphs (c) and (d) require that the geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site and its environs be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) Ground Motion for the site. In addition, 10 CFR 100.23, paragraph (d)(1), "*Determination of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion*," requires that uncertainty inherent in estimates of the SSE be addressed through an appropriate analysis such as a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). In response to these requirements, in 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published NUREG/CR-6372, *Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and the Use of Experts*. Written by the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC), NUREG/CR-6372 provides guidance regarding the manner in which the uncertainties in PSHA should be addressed using expert judgment. In the 15 years since its publication, NUREG/CR-6372 has provided many PSHA studies with the framework and guidance that have come to be known simply as the "SSHAC Guidelines." The information in this NUREG is based on recent efforts to capture the lessons learned in the PSHA studies that have been undertaken using the SSHAC Guidelines. As a companion to NUREG/CR-6372, this NUREG provides additional practical implementation guidelines consistent with the framework and higher-level guidance of the SSHAC Guidelines.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### MOTT v. RAMSAY.

*Excusable Negligence.*

The sickness of an attorney is a sufficient excuse for want of diligence in perfecting an appeal.

Ashe, J.

Since the opinion was filed in this case, dismissing the appeal [reported *ante,*29], the defendant has filed affidavits satisfactorily showing that so far from having been guilty of laches in perfecting his appeal, he used all possible diligence in his endeavors to have it perfected, but failed to do so in conse-cpience of the illness of his attorney.

Being of the opinion that his neglect was entirely excusable, *373the judgment rendered in the ease at this term is set aside, and the case will stand upon the docket as if no judgment had been rendered.

Judgment accordingly.
#### JOHN POTEAT *vs.*THOMAS BADGET.

Where one party offers to pay or give the other a certain sum by way of compromise, and the offer is rejected, it is in no way obligatory— Nor is it an admission of the fact that the defendant owed the sum offered. When a proposition of that kind is rejected, the rights of the parties remain precisely as they were before it was made.

This was an action of assumRsit, in which the plaintiff declared in two counts, one on a *quantum valebat*for, the use and occupation by the defendant of the plaintiff’s tenant, the other, on a promise of the defendant to pay the plaintiff fifty dollars for such use and occupation. Upon the trial at Caswell, on the last circuit before his Honor Settle, Judge, the plaintiff was forced to abandon his first count because of its being shewn that the occupation was under a special agreement, the terms whereof had been by him broken, and then resorted to his second counti The only evidence offered to sustain this count was¡ that a dispute having arisen between the parties in relation to their rights growing out of this agreement and occupation, the plaintiff proposed to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration; that the defendant, rejected this proposition, but offered to pay or give the plaintiff fifty dollars; that the plaintiff returned no answer to this offer, but on leaving the defendant declared his dissatisfaction therewith, and afterwards instituted this action, in which he sought to recover a much larger sum. His Honor declared his opinion that this evidence did not sustain the count in question, to which opinion the plaintiff excepted, *209The defendant obtained a verdict and had judgment, and thereupon the plaintiff appealed.

June 1839

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this court.

*W. A. Graham*for the defendant.’

GastoN, Judge,

after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows: We approve of the opinion expressed by his Honor. The offer of the defendant unless accepted by the plaintiff, was in no way obligatory. Neither was it an admission of the fact that the defendant owed the sum of fifty dollars. In all fairness it must be understood with reference to the subject matter before the parties, which was an attempt to adjust a disputed claim. It was a proposition, whether that claim- were well or ill founded, to pay a specific sum as the price of peace. As the plaintiff did not accede to the proposition, the rights of the parties remained precisé! y as they were before the propositition was made. The judgment is affirmed.

Pee, Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
fp0002383_agencyagt3.htm


 



Agreement No.__________







 


 


Agency Agreement




 







Shaanxi Baishui Dukang Brand Management Co., Ltd.









  





  











  






 


AGENCY AGREEMENT







Party A: Shaanxi Baishui Dukang Brand Management Co., Ltd.


Party B: Ms. Xue Aixian   ID card No.:   612101195412020826


 


In view of that Party B agrees to renewal the nationwide franchise buyout of the products of Party A — “Baishui Dukang · Refined Liquor Series (four kinds of liquor products)” which has already circulated in the market, Party A and B have reached an agreement through friendly consultation to conclude the following contract:








	
1.  

	
Party B buy out the nationwide franchise of the products of Party A — “Baishui Dukang · Refined Liquor Series” which has already circulated in the market.








	
2.  

	
The term of the buyout is from May 21, 2010 to May 20, 2011. When the agreement terminates and Party B is willing to renewal it, Party B owns the rights to first renew the agreement.








	
3.  

	
The fee for the buyout is for RMB1,200,000 (RMB one point two million yuan), 60% of the fee shall be paid before May 30, the remaining 40% of it shall be paid before August 31, 2010, otherwise there shall be an overdue fine for 5‰ per day.








	
4.  

	
During the period of the buyout, Party A shall guarantee the requirements of Party B for products and ensure that the product quality should meet the national quality standards.








	
5.  

	
During the period of the buyout, Party B shall in charge of the product sales network of Party A, and Party A can not sell any of the buyout products.








	
6.  

	
Party B assures of completing the sales target for RMB 3,000,000 during the period of the buyout, or each 10 percent decrease on the uncompleted sales target will result in 5 percent increase on the buyout fee.








	
7.  

	
The Agreement is in duplicate with the equal legal effect and each party holds one copy.














  





  











  






 



	
Party A:

	
Party B:


	
Shaanxi Baishui Dukang Brand Management Co., Ltd.

	
Ms. Xue, Aixian


	  	  
	  	  
	
Date: May 12, 2010

	
Date: May 12, 2010