alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 25528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12279]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Notice of Publication of Draft Commission Paper ``Combined 
License Review Process''

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a draft 
version of a Commission paper entitled ``Combined License Review 
Process'' and is requesting public comments on this paper. Subpart C of 
10 CFR part 52 presents a process for issuing combined licenses (COLs) 
for nuclear power facilities. A COL is a single license authorizing 
construction and conditional operation of a nuclear power facility. 
This draft paper informs the Commission about the NRC staff's positions 
on a number of issues relating to the COL review process, including: 
contents of a COL application; COL inspections, tests, analyses, and 
acceptance criteria (ITAAC); ITAAC for emergency plans; verification of 
ITAAC; role of the quality assurance program in ITAAC; and emergency 
plans for early site permits.
    An earlier version of the draft paper was issued in April 1993. The 
NRC received comments from the nuclear industry (NUMARC) on this paper. 
As a result, several changes were made to the draft paper. The most 
significant of these changes include; removing a proposed license 
condition regarding detailed design drawings, removing any mention of 
hold points in the construction inspection process, revising the format 
of the sample license, and shortening the duration of a combined 
license to conform with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. An 
amendment to the Atomic Energy Act has been proposed to correct the COL 
duration issue.
    A copy of the draft paper has been placed in NRC's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20037, 
for review by interested persons. Questions and comments should be 
directed to Jerry N. Wilson, Mail Stop O-10 D22, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Email:<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac0c4ddeac4d8c984cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ce6e2fbcce2feefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a> 
or telephone: 301-415-3145. Comments should be submitted within 120 
days of the publication of this notice.

    Dated at Rockville, MD, this 1st day of May 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theodore R. Quay,
Director, Standardization Project Directorate, Division of Reactor 
Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-12279 Filed 5-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20698 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICOLAS PENA-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-03-CR-0045-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nicolas Pena-Reyes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United Statesafter deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. PenaReyes contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a conviction only underNo. 03-20698 -2- that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Pena-Reyes acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Mellon Financial Corporation (the Corporation), hereby certifies that the Corporations
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                      |  |                                     |  | 
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: August 5, 2005 |  | /s/ Michael A. Bryson              
|                      |  | Name:    Michael A. Bryson         
|                      |  | Title:      Chief Financial Officer
#### State v. Parker

107,616

01/08/14

Granted; sum-manly reversed; remanded to Dist. Ct.

Unpublished
exhibit 10.24


 


Revision
to David Cuthbert EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Revision to David
Cuthbert’s August 5, 2011 Employment Agreement is effective February
1, 2012. As a result of the transfer of Jay Mercer to report to David, the additional responsibilities warrant an increase in base
pay.


 


		1.	Compensation and Benefits.



 


(a)        Base
Salary. During the Employment Term, the Company shall pay Executive a base salary at the annual rate of $315,000 per year or
such higher rate as may be determined annually by the Company (“Base Salary”). Such Base Salary, less applicable
withholdings, shall be paid in accordance with the Company’s standard payroll practice for executives.


 


In
Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year set forth below.


 


	Warwick Valley Telephone Company	 	Executive
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Duane W. Albro	 	By:	/s/ David Cuthbert
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Duane W. Albro	 	Address:	 


 


	Title:	President and CEO	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	1/26/12	 	Date:	1/30/12
|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                
|                                                                             
|U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             
|                                                                             
|U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Acquifers Capacity  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 1,263,106
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,263,711 | 1,195,141 | 1,234,007 | 1,237,132 | 1,238,158 | 1,350,689 | 1,356,323 | 1,347,516 | 1,351,832 | 1,340,633
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,233,017 | 1,231,897 | 1,237,269 | 1,443,769 | 1,445,031 | 1,445,639 | 1,446,649 | 1,377,293 | 1,369,538 | 1,370,840
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1,372,914 | 1,376,785 | 1,372,943 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                   Certification of Chief Financial Officer
             Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of  Section  1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of MAXXAM Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does
hereby certify that:

     (a) the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March  31,  2005  of  the  Company  (the  "Report")   fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934;
and

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

Dated:  May 9, 2005

                                              /S/        PAUL N. SCHWARTZ
                                                _______________________________
                                                             Paul N. Schwartz
                                                       Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code).
```
No. 12-6123.

#### Caraballo *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied.
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Alaska Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Alaska Natural Gas Number of Commercial Consumers - Transported  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 770    | 885   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 981    | 1,120  | 1,235  | 1,253  | 1,269  | 1,332  | 1,526  |        |        |       
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 325    | 303    | 61     | 62     | 63     | 20     | 22     | 23     | 21     | 21    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 19     | 12     | 12     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 38 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 38

Providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2011

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Matsui, and Mr. 
   LaTourette) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a citizen regent 
        of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
Institution, in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by 
reason of the expiration of the term of Robert P. Kogod of the District 
of Columbia, on May 5, 2011, is filled by the reappointment of the 
incumbent. The appointment is for a term of 6 years, beginning on the 
later of May 6, 2011, or the date of the enactment of this joint 
resolution.
                                 <all>
```
407P03-2

#### State v. Phillip Vance Smith, II

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal (COA16-847)

2. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

1. Dismissed

2. Dismissed as moot
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         408,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 408,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   408,174
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,819
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,727
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### K.M.D. v. J.D.D. Appeal of: K.M.D.

214 MDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/17/2017

2011-20752 (Lebanon)

Vacated/Reraanded
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

     I, James C. Mavel, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
Scan-Optics, Inc., certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Scan-Optics, Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statement
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

     4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

          c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data; and

          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.




Date: March 30, 2004


                                        / ss /
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James C. Mavel
                                        Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                        and President
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-10571

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO MENDEZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CV-108-A)

_________________________________________________________________

June 9, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Mendez, Jr., federal prisoner # 24717-077, appeals the

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Mendez filed his

motion prior to the 24 April 1996 effective date of the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, he is not required

to obtain a certificate of appealability. See United States v.

Carter, 117 F.3d 262, 264 (5th Cir. 1997).

Mendez contends that his trial counsel was ineffective: (1)

in failing to object to the denial of an offense-level reduction

for being a minimal or minor participant; (2) in not showing a

violation of the concurrent-sentence doctrine; (3) in not obtaining
- 2 -

recusal of the district judge; (4) in not objecting to an alleged

violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (5) in not

objecting to a sentence enhancement for possession of a firearm.

We have reviewed the record and Mendez’s brief, and we AFFIRM

the denial of § 2255 relief for essentially the reasons given by

the district court. United States v. Mendez, No. 4:96-CV-108-A

(N.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 1996) (unpublished). 

The additional claimed bases for ineffective assistance,

raised for the first time in Mendez’s reply brief, are not properly

before this court and are not considered. E.g., United States v.

Jackson, 50 F.3d 1335, 1340 n.7 (5th Cir. 1995) (court will not

consider issues raised for first time in reply brief).

AFFIRMED