alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J~ \SEO s?qrZ,S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

### o ~ Q

0

~~ iTq < PROS eG ~ 2 

### JA 2 0 2011

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Ed Ziemianski Acting Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221 Dear Mr. 7,iemianski: We received an email from your office dated January 20, 2011, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft certification memo the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Hanford. We concur with CBFO's draft certification memo allowing Hanford-CCP to certify contact-handled (CH) Summary Category Group (SCG) debris (S5000) waste for its disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on December 21, 2010, EPA approved the CH TRU waste characterization program at Hanford (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-138). The EPA limitations applicable to the characterization of RH TRU waste are appropriately included in Attachment 4 of the draft certification memo. The waste characterization equipment, procedures and processes included in the ANL draft certification memo are consistent with EPA's existing approvals at the site. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft certification memo for Hanford-CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9462. Sincerely,

~ 

# `,\
~ ,, ~

Rajani Joglekar Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30 % Postconsumer)cc: (Electronic Distribution)

Christine Gelles, DOE HQ Alton Harris, DOE HQ J.R. Stroble, CBFO NTP Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA Larry Romine, RL Jonathan Edwards, EPA Tom Peake, EPA Raymond Lee, EPA Steve Zappe, NMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YORDY JESUS GRADOS-HINOJOSA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-74096

Agency No. A088-735-064

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 14, 2015** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

Yordy Jesus Grados-Hinojosa, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

OCT 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. 

Grados-Hinojosa does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he waived any

challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim was untimely. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not

supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Thus, we deny the petition as to

Grados-Hinojosa’s asylum claim. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Grados-Hinojosa did

not establish past persecution, or that it is more likely than not he will be

persecuted in the future, on account of a protected ground if returned to Peru. See

Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act

“requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum

applicant’s persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.

2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by

theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 

Thus, we deny the petition as to Grados-Hinojosa’s withholding of removal claim.

Finally, Grados-Hinojosa does not raise any arguments challenging the

2 12-74096
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 12-74096
December 17, 1979

#### Rogers, David M. v. State Accident Insurance Fund

(14541).

Reversed. *Hackney v. Tillamook Growers,*39 Or App 655, 593 P2d 1195, *rev den*286 Or 449 (1979). (603 P2d 783, *reversed and remanded*289 Or 633, 616 P2d 485 (1980))
# C_2004214EN.01000101.xml

| 26.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 August 2004

(2004/C 214/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2081 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,19 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4359 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6727 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1546 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5403 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,33 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,313 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5775 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,705 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6569 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4263 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4118 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 977 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,96 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,11 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 819 300 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7122 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5823 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4232 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8626 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0703 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 396,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0826 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2081

JPY

Japanese yen

133,19

DKK

Danish krone

7,4359

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6727

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1546

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5403

ISK

Iceland króna

87,33

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,313

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5775

CZK

Czech koruna

31,705

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6569

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4263

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4118

ROL

Romanian leu

40 977

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,96

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,11

TRL

Turkish lira

1 819 300

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7122

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5823

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4232

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8626

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0703

KRW

South Korean won

1 396,50

ZAR

South African rand

8,0826

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             650
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,944
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     13,549
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,513
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,573
<LOANS>                                         27,035
<ALLOWANCE>                                        153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,987
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,702
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,043
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                544
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  46,987
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    599
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  257
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   856
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 227
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 315
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              541
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        5
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (4)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    281
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       163
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.11
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   148
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  153
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            153
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004314EN.01002101.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/21

---

Action brought on 22 September 2004 by Orsay GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-378/04)

(2004/C 314/52)

Language of the case: German

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 22 September 2004 by Orsay GmbH, established in Willstätt (Germany), represented by D. von Schultz, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 – R 909/2002-4 – Orsay (word/figurative mark)/D'ORSAY (word/figurative mark) and Decision 2562/2002 of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 August 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought by application No 1 042 605 was refused for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’, on the ground of Opposition No B 242 075; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2004 – R 909/2002-4 – Orsay (word/figurative mark)/D'ORSAY (word/figurative mark) and Decision 2562/2002 of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 August 2002 insofar as registration of the Community trade mark sought by application No 1 042 605 was refused for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’, on the ground of Opposition No B 242 075;

| — | declare that the Community trade mark ‘Orsay’ sought by application No 1 042 605 is to be registered by OHIM for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’ in Class 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Community trade mark ‘Orsay’ sought by application No 1 042 605 is to be registered by OHIM for the goods ‘clothing, boots, shoes and slippers; headgear’ in Class 25;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative mark ‘Orsay’ for goods in Class 23 (yarns and threads, etc.), Class 24 (clothing etc.) and Class 25 (headgear), application No 1 042 605 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Refusal to register the mark applied for |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark sought:

Figurative mark ‘Orsay’ for goods in Class 23 (yarns and threads, etc.), Class 24 (clothing etc.) and Class 25 (headgear), application No 1 042 605

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Refusal to register the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 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: Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 – Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 5, Second Renewal)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 5, Second Renewal (PDF – 24.2 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2019**Date Published:** October 2019

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff prepared this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) as part of its environmental review of Florida Power & Light Company’s subsequent license renewal application, to renew the operating licenses for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4 (Turkey Point or Turkey Point Units 3 and 4) for an additional 20 years. This SEIS includes the NRC staff's evaluation of the environmental impacts of the subsequent license renewal as well as alternatives to subsequent license renewal. Alternatives to subsequent license renewal considered in this SEIS include: (1) a new nuclear power plant, (2) a new natural gas combined-cycle power plant, and (3) the combination of a new natural gas combined-cycle power plant and new solar photovoltaic power generation. In addition to replacement power alternatives, this SEIS evaluates an alternative cooling water system to mitigate potential impacts associated with the continued use of the existing cooling canal system. The NRC staff's recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal for Turkey Point are not so great that preserving the option of subsequent license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC staff based its recommendation 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 Florida Power & Light Company
        - the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies
        - the NRC staff's independent environmental review
        - the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received during the scoping process
        - the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received on the draft SEIS

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.a



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 Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of registrant, 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, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 14, 2007 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                |  |                            
|                |  | John P. Manning            
|                |  | Principal Executive Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
September 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Monitoring Well (Code 353) 

A well designed and installed to obtain representative

ground water samples and hydrogeologic information. 

Practice Information 

A monitoring well is used to provide controlled access for

sampling ground water near an agricultural waste storage

facility, waste treament facility, or other areas of concern to

detect the occurrence of seepage and to monitor ground

water quality through time. The main difference between a

water well and a monitoring well is the monitoring well must be built so that water entering the well is

only from the soil or rock layers of interest. 

Before a monitoring well, or series of monitoring wells, is installed, a surface and subsurface

investigation of the site is conducted to develop a conceptual hydrogeologic model of the site to

identify potential ground water flow paths and determine the location of the target monitoring zone(s).

Assistance from a professional geologist is required. 

A buffer zone with a minimum 30-foot radius must be established around each wellhead. The buffer

must be protected from access by motor vehicles and livestock. 

Common Associated Practices 

When the monitoring well has reached the end of its useful life, close the well in accordance with

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard Well Decommissioning (Code 351). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
HomeRadioactive WasteStorage of Spent Nuclear FuelDry Cask Storage

# Typical Dry Cask Storage System

At some nuclear reactors across the country, spent fuel is kept on site, above ground, in systems basically similar to the ones shown here. Once the spent fuel has cooled, it is loaded into special canisters. Each canister is designed to hold approximately 2-6 dozen spent fuel assemblies, depending on the type of assembly. Water and air are removed. The canister is filled with inert gas, and sealed (welded or bolted shut).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 08, 2020
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2169 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2169

   To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance information 
   sharing in the Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and 
       Regional Fusion Center Initiative, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2017

  Mr. Katko (for himself, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Keating) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                                Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance information 
   sharing in the Department of Homeland Security State, Local, and 
       Regional Fusion Center Initiative, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Fusion Centers' Access to 
Information Act''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED INFORMATION SHARING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
              SECURITY STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL FUSION CENTER 
              INITIATIVE.

    Subsection (b) of section 210A of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
(6 U.S.C. 124h) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the semicolon at 
        the end the following: ``and conduct outreach to such fusion 
        centers to identify any gaps in information sharing and consult 
        with other Federal agencies to develop methods to address such 
        gaps, as appropriate'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (12) as 
        paragraphs (4) through (13), respectively; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(3) identify Federal databases and information systems, 
        including systems used, operated, or managed by Department 
        components, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the 
        Department of the Treasury, that are appropriate for inclusion 
        in the information sharing environment and coordinate with the 
        appropriate Federal agency to deploy or access such systems;''.
                                 <all>
```