alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DRAFT

Weldon Spring Plant: 

Special Exposure Cohort 

Petition Evaluation Report

Mark Rolfes, M.S.

Health Physicist

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

June 2012
DRAFT

Weldon Spring Plant

Site History

• AEC contracted with Mallinckrodt Chemical 

Company to refine uranium at Weldon Spring Plant 

from June 1957 ‒ December 1966

• 1967 was a transition year, and the site was 

awaiting the Department of the Army to take 

ownership

• In 1967, AEC returned the land to the Department of 

the Army
DRAFT

Weldon Spring Plant

Covered period

• Operational period defined as 1957 through 1967

• Plant closed down by AEC in 1966

• No AEC operations or contractors from 1966 

through 1975

• Monitoring and remediation from 1975 through 

1984
DRAFT

Operations

• The primary activity during the operational 

period was the conversion of natural uranium 

ore concentrate (yellowcake) 

• Other highly refined uranium and thorium 

compounds were processed in significant 

quantities

• The ore concentrates processed at Weldon 

Spring Plant were a relatively small source of 

radon because most of the radium in the ore 

was removed in the milling process
DRAFT

Approach

• NIOSH and SC&A agreed (January 2011 WG 

meeting) on bounding radon exposure 

conditions for process workers

– All radon released during processing was recirculated back into the process areas

– Assume steady state; minimum ventilation

• This approach establishes a bounding intake 

to perform dose reconstruction
DRAFT

Bounding Conditions

• Average annual uranium-containing material 

process throughput was 12,000,000 kilograms

• Radon release estimated based on amount of 

uranium processed

• Assume 70% of material was uranium 

• Estimated radium activity as 1% of uranium 

activity (a conservative, upper end estimate)
DRAFT

Bounding Conditions(cont’d)

• Equilibrium between radium and radon

• Radon release estimated between 12 to 34 

Curies/year (Meshkov et al. 1986, pp 47-48)

– NIOSH selected the upper bound value of 34 Ci/yr

• No surrogate data used
DRAFT

History of ABRWH WG Discussions

• January 2011: An agreement reached that a 

scenario in which ALL radon released during 

processing was re-circulated into the facility 

would be bounding

– The maximum concentration of radon, based on 

release estimate, to be assigned for intake 

• May 2011: discussion and clarification, but no 

change in proposed direction
Order entered March 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00224-CR

JORGE SUAREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 11

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA10-72305-N

ORDER

On January 14, 2013, this Court ordered the court reporter to file the reporter’s record 

within thirty days. When we did not receive the record by February 22, 2013, we ordered 

Vearneas Faggett to file the reporter’s record within fifteen days. To date, Ms. Faggett has 

neither filed the reporter’s record nor communicated with the Court regarding the record. The 

appeal cannot proceed until the record has been filed, and the Court has already determined that 

appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs for that record. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Vearneas Faggett, official court reporter of the County 

Criminal Court No. 11, to file the reporter’s record, including all exhibits, within TEN DAYS of 

the date of this order. If the record is not filed within the time specified, the Court will order that 

Vearneas Faggett not sit as a court reporter until she has filed the record in this case.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Elizabeth Frizzell, Presiding Judge, County Criminal Court No. 11; Vearneas Faggett, 

official court reporter, County Criminal Court No. 11; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
CHAIRMAN:

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Lafayette, Indiana

MEMBERS:

Josie Beach
Richland, Washington

Bradley P. Clawson
Rexburg, Idaho

Michael H. Gibson
Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon
Salem, New Hampshire

James E. Lockey, M.D.
Cincinnati, Ohio

James M. Melius, M.D., Ph.D.
Albany, New York

Wanda |. Munn
Richland, Washington

John W. Poston, Sr., Ph.D.
College Station, Texas

Robert W. Presley
Clinton, Tennessee

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.
Elysian, Minnesota

Phillip Schofield
Bosque Farm, New Mexico

STAFF:

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:

Christine M. Branch, Ph.D
Washington, DC

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT :

Zaida Burgos
Atlanta, Georgia

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH
4676 Columbia Parkway C-46

Cincinnati, Ohio 45
(513) 533-6825

April 30, 2008

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

HSO'H Q3AIZ03N

En:€ d C- AWW 8002

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has
evaluated SEC Petition-00102 concerning workers at the Special Alloy
Materials (SAM) Laboratories of Columbia University in New York City,
New York under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA and
incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13 and 42 CFR Sec. 83.14. The Board
respectfully recommends Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) status be
accorded to all employees of the DOE, its predecessor agencies, and DOE
contractors and subcontractors who worked in the Pupin, Schemerhorn,
Havenmeyer, Nash, or Prentiss buildings at the SAM Laboratories of
Columbia University in New York City, New York from August 13, 1942
through December 31, 1947 for a number of work days aggregating at
least 250 work days occurring either solely under this employment or in
combination with work days within the parameters established for one or
more other classes of employees in the SEC. The Board notes that
although NIOSH found that they were unable to completely reconstruct
radiation doses for these employees, they believe that they are able to
reconstruct the occupational medical dose.

This recommendation is based on the following factors:

e People working in these areas of the Special Alloy Materials (SAM)
Laboratories during this time period were involved in atomic
weapons research and development.

e NIOSH was unable to locate sufficient monitoring data or
information on radiological operations at these laboratories in order
to be able to complete accurate individual dose reconstructions The
Board concurs with this conclusion.


The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt April 30, 2008

e NIOSH determined that health may have been endangered for the workers exposed
to radiation in these areas of the SAM Laboratories at Columbia University during
the time period in question. The Board concurs with this determination.

Enclosed is supporting documentation from the recent Advisory Board Meeting held in
Tampa, Florida where this special exposure cohort class was discussed. If any of these items
are unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly.

Sincerely,

Zz _
Ze A 2. seerrte z

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Chairman

Ene.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5858 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require coverage without 

a deductible of certain primary care services by high deductible health plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2018 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself and Ms. STEFANIK) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

coverage without a deductible of certain primary care 

services by high deductible health plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Primary Care Patient 

5 Protection Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF COVERAGE WITHOUT DEDUCT7 IBLE OF CERTAIN PRIMARY CARE SERVICES 

8 BY HIGH DEDUCTIBLE HEALTH PLANS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(c)(2)(B) of the Inter10 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘if subVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:43 May 31, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5858.IH H5858

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5858 IH

1 stantially all of its coverage is coverage described in para2 graph (1)(B).’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘if— 

3 ‘‘(i) substantially all of its coverage is 

4 coverage described in paragraph (1)(B), or 

5 ‘‘(ii) such plan has a deductible for 

6 primary care services provided by a quali7 fied provider as part of a qualified visit.’’. 

8 (b) QUALIFIED PRIMARY CARE SERVICES DE9 FINED.—Section 223(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

10 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(6) PRIMARY CARE SERVICES.—The term ‘pri13 mary care services’ has the meaning given such term 

14 by section 1833(x)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act, 

15 without regard to clauses (ii) and (iii) of such sec16 tion. 

17 ‘‘(7) QUALIFIED PROVIDER.—The term ‘quali18 fied provider’ means a general practitioner, family 

19 practice practitioner, general internist, obstetrician, 

20 gynecologist, pediatrician, geriatric physician, or ad21 vanced practice registered nurse acting in accord22 ance with State laws. 

23 ‘‘(8) QUALIFIED VISIT.—The term ‘qualified 

24 visit’ means, with respect to an individual for a plan 

25 year, either of the first 2 visits by the individual 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5858 IH

1 during the year with a qualified provider who is des2 ignated by such individual as the primary care pro3 vider for such individual.’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 this section shall apply to plan years beginning after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NATAVIS BAYNARD, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D22-2573

LT Case Nos.2020-CF-001378

2016-CF-000675

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed February 17, 2023

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Putnam County, 

Howard O. McGillin, Jr., Judge.

Natavis Baynard, Lake Butler,

pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur. 

EDWARDS, J., concurs specially, with opinion. 
2 

Case No. 5D22-2573

LT Case Nos. 2016-CF-000675,

2020-CF-001378

EDWARDS, J., specially concurring. 

I note that affirming the order denying Appellant’s Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion will not prevent Appellant from pursuing 

any other post-conviction relief if he can do so in good faith.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION 

RAY CHRIS MOBLEY, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-178-RS-EMT 

CORRECTIONS CORP. 

OF AMERICA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/

ORDER

 Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20). 

No objections have been filed. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order. 

2. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s 

failure to prosecute or failure to comply with an order of the 

court. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file. 

ORDERED on February 10, 2012. 

 /S/ Richard Smoak 

 RICHARD SMOAK 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00178-RS-EMT Document 21 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 1
AGENDA 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Teleconference Meeting of the 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review 

January 30, 2017 

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537
 

Participant Pass Code: 9933701
 

10:30 a.m. Eastern Time 

Welcome and roll-call 

DISCUSSION 

1.	 Review outstanding Category 2 issues from Sets 14-18 DOE Sites 

matrix 

2.	 Review Category 1 and 2 issues from Sets 14-18 AWE matrix and Sets 

19 and 21 SRS & Hanford matrix 

5:00 p.m. Adjourn
Exhibit 32.02





Section 906 Certification of the CFO





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ServisFirst Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Date: May 3, 2011
By:
/s/   William M. FosheeWilliam M. FosheeChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement 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.
DEPARTMENOOP SFI \NasEH1_& HUMAN SERVICES
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Office of the Secretary

CHAIRMAN:
Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.

Lafayette, Indiana

MEMBERS:

Henry A. Anderson, M.D.
Madison, Wisconsin

Roy L. DeHart, M.D., M.P.H.
Nashville, Tennessee

Richard L. Espinosa
Espanola, New Moxico

Michael H. Gibson
Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon
Salem, New Hampshire

James M. Mellus, M.D., Ph.O.
Albany, New York

Wanda |. Munn
Richland, Washington

Charles L. Owens
Paducah, Kentucky

Robert W. Presley
Clinton, Tennessee

Genevieve S, Roessler, Ph.D.
Elysian, Minnesota

STAFF:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:

Lewis V. Wade, Ph.D
Washington, DC

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT :

LaShawn D. Shields
Atlanta, Georgia

IRRESPONDENCE

‘ROL CENTER

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEXETH

4676 Columbia Parkway, MS; a .
Cincinnati, Ohio 4522006 CE | YED

(513) 533-6825

February 7, 2006FFicg oF THE se
ECRETARY
COMMUHICATIONS CONT:
CENTER ROL

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20201 .

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The ABRWH continues to have concerns about the legal advice from the Department of
Justice Office of Legal Counsel regarding the procedures for the utilization of classified
or restricted information for the qualification of claimants for the Special Exposure
Cohort under the EEOICPA program. The Board was first made aware of this ruling in
April 2005, and at that time, we wrote you a letter expressing our concerns and
requesting additional information and clarification on this matter. At our Board
meeting on January 25, 2006, we were again briefed about this issue.

The Board is concerned about the possible implications of this legal advice on our
ability to review SEC petitions in a matter compatible with the original legislation and
the ensuing regulations governing this program. While the Board is fully supportive of
the need for preventing the release of classified or restricted information and recognizes
the necessary use of this type of information in DOE nuclear programs, the Board also
recognizes the critical importance of transparency to the EEOICPA program. Due to
the long history of secrecy at DOE nuclear facilities, former workers are very
suspicious of secrecy related to any health-related information used as the basis for their
claims.

Although having Board members with appropriate security clearances review any
classified or restricted material necessary for SEC evaluation may allow the Board to
utilize such information in our deliberations, that use would not be transparent to the
petitioners and other interested pasties. The Board is concemed that such procedures
could undermine the credibility of our recommendations.

The Board respectfully requests a copy of any written legal advice specific to this
matter and a briefing by someone knowledgeable about the basis for this determination.
This would assist the Board in attempting to address this legal advice while maintaining
a process that is consistent with the original intent of the EEOICPA legislation.

Sincerely,

Paul L. Zierfiér, Ph.D.

Chairman
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10744 

Summary Calendar

 

Doris Stevenson, et al. Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

Rochdale Investment Defendant-Appellant.

Management, Inc.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Nortern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-1544-T) 

 

February 18, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rochdale filed an interlocutory appeal from the district

court’s denial of its motion to stay and compel arbitration. The

plaintiffs argue that this court lacks jurisdiction over this

appeal or, in the alternative, that the district court’s denial

should be affirmed. 

Jurisdiction over Rochdale’s appeal from an order denying a

motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration is proper

pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). A trial court's finding that a

party has waived its right to arbitration is subject to de novo

review, but the factual findings underlying that conclusion may not
2

be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Frye v. Paine, Webber,

Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 877 F.2d 396, 398 (5th Cir. 1989), cert.

denied, 494 U.S. 1016 (1990). 

Although there is a presumption against waiver, waiver may be

found when the party seeking arbitration substantially invokes the

judicial process to the detriment or prejudice of the other party.

Walker v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 938 F.2d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1991);

see also Price v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., 791 F.2d 1156 (5th

Cir. 1986). The district court’s finding of prejudice to the

plaintiffs is not clearly erroneous. In addition, Rochdale’s

proffered justification for its belated motion to compel

arbitration, that it was not aware that the plaintiffs intended to

argue that the Investment Advisory Agreements were accepted by

Rochdale, is unconvincing given the facts of this case. 

The district court’s denial of Rochdale’s motion to stay and

compel arbitration is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 4040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-232]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Approval of the Finding of No Significant Impact and 
Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
Construction of a New Land-Based Airport in Akutan, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of approval of the Finding of No Significant Impact/
Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration is announcing the approval 
of the Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) 
for the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the construction of a 
new land-based airport in Akutan, AK. The FONSI/ROD provides final 
agency determinations and approvals for the proposed development.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patti Sullivan, Environmental 
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region, Airports 
Division, 222 W. 7th Avenue <greek-i>14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504. Ms. 
Sullivan may be contacted during business hours at (907) 271-5454 
(phone) and (907) 271-2851 (facsimile).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FONSI/ROD is for the approval of actions 
for the construction of an airport, including a runway, a runway safety 
area, connecting taxiway, an apron, and a snow removal equipment and 
maintenance facility; an airport access road; two hovercraft landing 
pads; a hovercraft storage and maintenance facility; and acquisition of 
a hovercraft. The FONSI/ROD provides the final agency determinations 
and approvals for Federal actions by the FAA related to the selection 
of alternatives to meet the purpose and need for the action. The FONSI/
ROD also includes required mitigation measures and conditions of 
approval.
    The FONSI/ROD indicates that the selected actions are consistent 
with existing environmental policies and objectives set forth in the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, as well 
as other Federal and State statutes, and that the actions will not 
significantly affect the quality of the environment.
    The FAA's decision is based upon information contained in the Final 
EA, issued in December 2007, and on all other applicable documents 
available to the agency and considered by it, which constitutes the 
administrative record.
    The FAA's determinations are discussed in the FONSI/ROD, which was 
approved on December 26, 2007.

FONSI/ROD Availability

    The FONSI/ROD may be viewed at the following Web site: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/alaskan/.

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska on January 11, 2007.
Byron K. Huffman,
Manager, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 08-232 Filed 1-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>