alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests

# Recent FOIA Requests for 2018

The following pages present chronological listings of Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Requests submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during each month of the current fiscal year. These listings include the subject and reference number of each request. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010

#### 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, March 9, 2021
#### Kryl, Appellant, vs. Frank Holton & Company, Respondent.

*March 4*

April *2, 1935.*

*630For the appellant there were briefs by Zimmers, *Jaekels & Zimmers,*and oral argument by *Wilkie M. Zimmers*and *Eugene M. Haertle,*all of Milwaukee.

*Fred Kull*of Elkhorn, for the respondent.

Fairchild, J.

Fraudulent advertising is prohibited, and no person is permitted, for the purpose of selling merchandise directly or indirectly to the public, to induce the public to purchase by publishing in a newspaper, circular, pamphlet, or poster, an advertisement of anything so offered to the public containing any assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading.

In sec. 343.413 (1),.Stats., the policy of preventing publication of deceptive advertising is fixed by the legislature. In addition to the statutory prohibition, there is a rule of law which has long been recognized that “no man has the right to sell his reputation or skill in any profession, whatever it may be, and thus enablé an unknown party to perpetrate a fraud upon the public in his name.” *Jerome v. Bigelow,*66 Ill. 452; *Blakely v. Sousa,*197 Pa. 305, 332, 47 Atl. 286; *Messer v. The Fadettes,*168 Mass. 140, 46 N. E. 407. An agreement is illegal where its making or performance is expressly forbidden by statute, or its making or performance is made a crime, or where a penalty is imposed for doing the act agreed upon. Restatement, Contracts, § 580; Restatement, Contracts, Wis. Anno. § 580 (2). The appellant agreed to circulate misleading advertisements. Fie was to represent that he and his band used respondent’s instruments- ‘’exclusively. He sold the right to use his own and his band’s name in connection with the sale and advertisement of band instruments manufactured by respondent for the purpose of creating in the public mind the belief that he and his band used those instruments because they were of a superior quality instead *631of for the money consideration promised him. This resulted in stipulations that must be held to be illegal. We agree with the trial court that the only things of consequence undertaken to be performed by the appellant 'were calculated to deceive the public and were in violation of sec. 343.413 (1), Stats. The clear purpose of the agreement is manifested by those provisions relating to advertising, and they show an undisguised attempt to misinform the public for the purpose of increasing the sale of Holton instruments. As said in the case of *Lowe v.*Crocker, 154 Wis. 497, 143 N. W. 176: “If illegality permeates a contract so that it furnishes the reason for it and the foundation upon which it rests, then the whole contract is void and courts will leave parties where they find them.” The agreement here involved is prohibited by law and no recovery may be had under it.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Critical Area Planting, Dike, Pumping Plant, Structure for Water Control, Subsurface Drain, Surface Drainage, Field Ditch, Surface Drainage, Main or Lateral, Vertical Drain, Water and Sediment Control Basin.****

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

BENITO RIVERA, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (PRO PALLET, LLC), 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 515 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1




Exhibit 11.1

                               XETEL CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                                             September 26,     September 27,   September 26,     September 27,
                                                                 1998              1997             1998             1997
                                                                 ----              ----             ----             ----
<S>                                                          <C>               <C>             <C>               <C>
     Basic earnings per share:
           Weighted average shares outstanding                   9,062             8,821            9,035            8,816
                                                               =======            ======           ======           ======

           Net income                                          $  (240)           $   61           $  444           $  516
                                                               =======            ======           ======           ======

           Basic earnings per share                            $ (0.03)           $ 0.01           $ 0.05           $ 0.06
                                                               =======            ======           ======           ======

     Diluted earnings per share:
           Weighted average shares outstanding                   9,062             8,821            9,035            8,816
           Common stock equivalents: stock options (1) (2)        ---                841              580              845
                                                               -------            ------           ------           ------
                                                                 9,062             9,662            9,615            9,661
                                                               =======            ======           ======           ======

           Net income                                          $  (240)           $  $61           $  444           $  516
                                                               =======            ======           ======           ======

           Diluted earnings per share                          $ (0.03)           $ 0.01           $ 0.05           $ 0.05
                                                               =======            ======           ======           ======

</TABLE>

(1) Stock options based on the treasury stock method using average market
price.

(2) Common stock equivalents were 314,000 for the three months ended September
26, 1998. Common stock equivalents are included in the computation of diluted
weighted average shares outstanding only during periods that their inclusion
would be dilutive.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2004201EN.01000102.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/1 |

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 17 June 2004

in Case C-30/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa): Recheio — Cash & Carry SA v Fazenda Pública/Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas [(1)](#ntr1-C_2004201EN.01000102-E0001)

(Recovery of sums paid though not due - Period of 90 days for the bringing of an action - Principle of effectiveness)

(2004/C 201/02)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports

In Case C-30/02: REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instância de Lisboa (Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Recheio — Cash & Carry SA and Fazenda Pública/Registo Nacional de Pessoas Colectivas, intervener: Ministério Público — on the interpretation of Community law concerning recovery of sums paid though not due — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 2004, in which it has ruled:

With regard to a claim for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community law, the principle of effectiveness of Community law does not militate against the fixing of a limitation period of 90 days reckoned from the end of the period prescribed for voluntary payment of those charges.

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2004201EN.01000102-E0001)  
[OJ C 97, 20.4.2002](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2002_097_R_TOC).

---
# Crow Tribal Montana Local Working Group Meeting

      Little Big Horn College,            Crow Agency,        MT    

Montana

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Events 
-  Crow Tribal Montana Local Working Group Meeting 

NRCS is hosting meetings to gather input from local stakeholders to help prioritize natural resource concerns and guide funding opportunities.

## Registration

Registration not required.

The Crow Tribal Local Work Group will meet on Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. at the Little Big Horn College Cultural Building, 215 Makawasha Ave, Crow Agency, MT. 

The purpose of the local working group meeting is to develop a conservation needs assessment for land within the Crow Reservation. The assessment will identify priority resource concerns, including high-priority areas within the Crow Reservation needing assistance, and identify conservation practices that address the resource concerns. Anyone with an interest and familiarity with agricultural and natural resource issues in the community is encouraged to attend and provide input. The meeting will also include information for Farm Bill programs available through the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Information will be provided about the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), what the programs entail and how to participate.

USDA-NRCS provides reasonable accommodations for all persons with disabilities to participate in NRCS programs and activities. If you require special accommodations, please contact Evan Van Order at the Crow Field Office.

## Contact

                -    Evan VanOrder 
                -    406-629-3228 
                -    evan.vanorder@usda.gov 

## Find Your Local Service Center

    USDA Service Centers are locations where you can connect with Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development employees for your business needs. Enter your state and county below to find your local service center and agency offices. If this locator does not work in your browser, please visit offices.usda.gov.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard E. Otto, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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: 

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

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

Date: August 10, 2006 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Corautus Genetics Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Robert T. Atwood, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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: 

(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. 

Date: August 10, 2006 

 

/s/ ROBERT T. ATWOOD
Name: Robert T. AtwoodTitle: 
Executive Vice President and

Chief FinancialOfficer
# C_2004228EN.01004203.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/42

---

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-196/04)

(2004/C 228/97)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Ryanair Limited, Dublin, Ireland, represented by Mr D. Gleeson and Mr A. Collins Barristers and Dr V. Power, Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of 12 February 2004 concerning the advantages authorised by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair at the time of its installation at Charleroi. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 12 February 2004 concerning the advantages authorised by the Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair at the time of its installation at Charleroi.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant company is an airline which specialises in low fares flights. On the occasion of the establishment by the applicant of a base at Brussels South Charleroi Airport the Walloon Region of Belgium implemented a number of aid measures in favour of the applicant. By the contested decision the Commission found that a part of these measures, namely a reduction in airport landing charges as well as discounts on ground handling services, constituted state aid incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 87 EC. The same decision declared a number of other aid measures granted by the airport to the applicant compatible with the common market subject to several conditions.

In support of its application for the annulment of this decision, the applicant submits that the duty to give reasons under Article 253 EC was infringed. In particular the applicant claims that the contested decision fails to provide reasons for treating the Walloon Region and the airport as independent entities, even though the region owns and controls the airport. Further, the applicant claims that no reasons are given for treating the region as a legislator/regulator and not as an airport owner, and that the Commission failed to consider evidence of the behaviour of other airports and failed to assess the airport's business plan in a correct manner.

The applicant also considers that there has been a misapplication of Article 87 EC because not all elements of the first paragraph of that article were satisfied; the agreement does not amount to State aid when viewed objectively; and the Commission failed to analyse the situation from the perspective of both the alleged benefactor and beneficiary.

---
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through May 21, 2016.

For information, contact William Cibulas, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Health and Human Services, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F61, Chamblee, Georgia 30341, telephone (770) 488-0662 or fax (770) 488-3385.

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2015-02026 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
# C_2004262EN.01004302.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/43

---

Action brought on 26 July 2004 by Ferrero oHG mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-310/04)

(2004/C 262/83)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 July 2004 by Ferrero oHG mbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by Dr M. Schaeffer, lawyer.

Cornu SA Fontain was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | overrule the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 March 2004 in case R 01540/2002-4 and allow the opposition No. B 245 714; |
| --- | --- |

—

overrule the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 March 2004 in case R 01540/2002-4 and allow the opposition No. B 245 714;

| — | impose the costs on the Applicant for the trade mark. |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the costs on the Applicant for the trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Cornu SA Fontain |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ‘FERRO’ for goods in Classes 30 (salted biscuits) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The applicant |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark ‘FERRERO’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33 (chocolate, etc.) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition rejected |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal rejected |
| Pleas in law: | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1) |

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Cornu SA Fontain

Community trade mark sought:

Word mark ‘FERRO’ for goods in Classes 30 (salted biscuits)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

National word mark ‘FERRERO’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33 (chocolate, etc.)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal rejected

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 (1)

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

1

---