alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INS. CO.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 4:11cv188/RS-WCS

KATHRYN SIMKINS-ESFORMES,

and LEE WARWICK

Defendants.

__________________________________

ORDER

The relief requested in the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Plaintiff 

to File its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count IV (Doc. 16) is 

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file its response to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) not later 

than June 27, 2011. 

ORDERED on June 16, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:11-cv-00188-RS-WCS Document 17 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010185EN.01000502.xml

| 9.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 185/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5818 — Ericsson/LG Electronics/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 185/03

On 23 June 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5818. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5818. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Lightbridge Corp.: Exhibit 10.19 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.19 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR THE REDACTED
PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT. THE REDACTIONS ARE INDICATED WITH “*[REDACTED]*”. A
COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE U.S. SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 

CHANGE ORDER NO. 01 

TO 

AGREEMENT NO. FCM-CON-13-004 

BETWEEN 

EMIRATES NUCLEAR ENERGY CORPORATION 

AND 

LIGHTBRIDGE CORPORATION 

FOR 

FUEL FABRICATION QA/QS SERVICES 





 




SIGNATORIES 

IN WITNESS of which each of the parties has signed this
Agreement Change Order No. 01: 

	 	SIGNED by 	)	By: 	
      /s/ Yagoob Al Shehhi 

	 	For and on behalf of Emirates Nuclear Energy 	)	Name: 	
      Yagoob Al Shehhi 

	 	Corporation (ENEC) 	)	Title: 	
      Executive Director Group Finance & Supply 

	 	  	 	Chain: 	
      

	 	  	 	Date: 01/07/14




	 	SIGNED by 	
           /s/ James D. Guerra 

	 	for and on behalf of LIGHTBRIDGE 	Name: James D. Guerra 
	 	CORPORATION 	Title: COO 
	 	  	Date: 18/6/14
ABRWH
 

Agenda
 

Subcommittee on Procedures Review 

February 24, 2016 

Conference Call Number 1-866-659-0537 

Participant Pass Code 9933701 

11:00am EDT Welcome and Roll Call 

11:10 Review BRS status All 

11:25 Y-12 active issues – 

OTIB 0013 – Assign OTIB 044 Review to close 

OTIB 0029 – Assign TBD Review to close 

11:40 ORAUT OTIB 0026 - Expanded “close” proposal SC&A 

11:45 ORAU OTIB 0032 – Status report on protocol review SC&A 

11:55 OCAS-TIB-0014 – Assign TBD Review to close 

12:00 ORAUT-OTIB-0039 – Responses to NIOSH SC&A 

12:30 Lunch 

1:30 pm	 ORAUT-OTIB-0050 – TBD review status SC&A 

ORAUT-OTIB-0060 - Responses review status NIOSH/SC&A 

ORAU PROC 0042 – OTIB 64 status NIOSH 

ORAU-RPRT-0044 – Response review status NIOSH/SC&A 

2:30 PER 0057 – Assignment of review cases SC&A 

PER 003 - Open item status NIOSH 

PER 005 - Response review status SC&A 

PER 008 - Status SC&A 

PER 011 – Status SC&A 

PER 029 - Response review status SC&A 

PER 0031- Report review - carryover NIOSH* 

PER 0042 – Status 

PER 0045 - proposed resolution to responses SC&A * 

PER 0047 - Findings 3, 4 NIOSH * 

PER 0053 – Review status SC&A 

PER 0055 – Review status SC&A 

3:30 Break 

3:45 Administrative detail -

Routine note of abeyance items ready for closing NIOSH 

Status of case selection recommendations SC&A 

Need for new tasking - PROC 0006 KBehling 

Next meeting 

4:00 Adjourn 

*carryover
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1240 KA 11-02219**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER W. TESSITORE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

CHARLES A. MARANGOLA, MORAVIA, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (BRIAN N. BAUERSFELD OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Mark H. Fandrich, A.J.), rendered May 3, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), defendant contends that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe and that the award of restitution is unlawful. Defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 255-256; People v Harris , 94 AD3d 1484, 1485, lv denied 19 NY3d 961; People v Gordon , 89 AD3d 1466, 1466, lv denied 18 NY3d 957).

Defendant’s challenge “to the amount of restitution is not foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal because the amount of restitution was not included in the terms of the plea agreement” ( People v Sweeney , 4 AD3d 769, 770, lv denied 2 NY3d 807; see People v Spencer , 87 AD3d 1284, 1285). Defendant, however, failed to preserve his challenge to the restitution amount for our review inasmuch as he did not object to that amount at sentencing ( see People v Jorge N.T.
, 70 AD3d 1456, 1457, lv denied 14 NY3d 889; People v Hannig , 68 AD3d 1779, 1780, lv denied 14 NY3d 801), and in any event he affirmatively waived his right to a restitution hearing ( see People v Huffman , 288 AD2d 907, 908, lv denied 97 NY2d 755).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

 

I, Gary W. Rada, President and Chief Executive Officer of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp., certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report Form 10-K of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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 statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periods covered by this annual report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statementsand other financial information included in this 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 report; 

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible 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 have: 

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 whichthis 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 theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; 

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions): 

 

a)  all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)  any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: April 22, 2005
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofWaste2Energy Holdings, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Bohan,Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| (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. |

 

 
| Dated: February 12, 2010   | By:    | /s/ Peter Bohan                                              |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   | Peter BohanChief Executive  Officer(Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

KIM ANTHONY POLONCZYK,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv207/MCR/EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated May 24, 2011 (Doc. 13). The parties have been furnished a copy

of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This matter is DISMISSED due to improper venue.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00207-MCR-EMT Document 15 Filed 06/10/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SAM J. PEARSON, IV,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv81/MCR/CJK

BRIDGET E. GRAHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated May 31, 2011. The petitioner has been furnished a copy of the

report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been

made. Having fully considered the record and the report and recommendation, to which

no objections have been filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the court.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00081-MCR-CJK Document 8 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 120 (Friday, June 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 35187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-1373]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Certain Companies Quoted on the Pink Sheets: 
Greenstone Holdings, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

    June 18, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Greenstone Holdings, Inc. (``Greenstone'').
    Greenstone is incorporated under the laws of Florida and has its 
primary headquarters in New York, New York. Questions have arisen 
regarding the adequacy and accuracy of press releases, financial 
statements, and statements on the company's Web site concerning the 
company's current financial condition, business and operations, and 
stock promoting activity.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in Greenstone's 
securities.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed 
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 18, 
2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 1, 2008.

    By the Commission.

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 08-1373 Filed 6-18-08; 10:51 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We herebyconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-109876, 333-111512 and 333-119750) and on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-170639, 333-165721, 333-155129, 333-128377, 333-138872 and 333-139662)and on Forms S-8 (333-165664, 333-63580, 333-133258 and 333-140041) of World Heart Corporation of our report dated March 30, 2010 relating to the financial statements which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ BURR PILGER MAYER, INC. 

SanFrancisco, California 

March 30, 2011
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1641

CHARLES RAWLINGS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BALTIMORE, Mayor and City Council Dept. of Public 

Works,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-02077-BEL)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Rawlings, Appellant Pro Se. Justin Sperance Conroy, 

Assistant Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Rawlings appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration of the order denying 

relief on his employment discrimination complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Rawlings v. City of Baltimore, No. 1:10-cv-02077-BEL (D. Md. 

Apr. 16, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00420-CR

William James McKee

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1322082D)

October 17, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133275 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133275 

 COA: 267945 

Kent CC: 04-012450-FC 

SHAWN WILSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                             Inktomi Corporation
                                Subsidiaries


Inktomi Limited, a corporation organized under the laws of the United Kingdom,
doing business as "Inktomi Limited."

Inktomi Japan KK, a corporation organized under the laws of Japan, doing
business as "Inktomi Japan KK."

C2B Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business under the name
"Inktomi Corporation."

Impulse! Buy Network, Inc., a California corporation, doing business under the
name "Inktomi Corporation."

WebSpective Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation, doing business under the
name "Inktomi Corporation."
Weldon Spring Bounding 

Radon Model

Stuart Hinnefeld, CHP

Director

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

June 2012
Approach

 January 2011 WG meeting: NIOSH presents 

bounding radon exposure scenario 

conditions for process workers

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

• Assume steady state; minimum ventilation

 Approach establishes a bounding intake to 

perform dose reconstruction
History of ABRWH WG Discussions

 January 2011: NIOSH presented a scenario in 

which ALL radon released during processing 

was re-circulated into the facility as 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

 June 2012: WG asked for additional detail to be 

added to these slides and for presentation of 

same to full ABRWH
Bounding Conditions

 Some sources describe annual uraniumbearing material throughput as 14,500,000 kg 

per year, while others describe it as 5,000,000 

kg per year

 Radon release estimated based on amount of 

uranium processed

• 5 million kg uranium/yr processed = 12 Ci radon

• 14.5 million kg uranium/yr processed = 34 Ci radon

 Assume 70% of material was uranium 

 Estimated radium activity as 1% of uranium 

activity (a conservative, upper end estimate)
Bounding Conditions—cont.

 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
Scenario Parameters

 Building 103 volume: 2.6 x 104 m3

 Ventilation rate: 1 air change per hr

 34 Ci/yr = 3.9 x 109 pCi/h

 1 WL = 100 pCi/L of Ra-222 in full equilib. 

with short lived alpha emitting progeny

 Hours in a WLM = 170

 Equilibrium factor = 0.5

 Number of occupational work hours = 

2,000/yr
Calculations

 Ceq is the radon-222 equilibrium conc. (pCi/L) in 

a ventilated room

 I is the influx of radon-222 in pCi/h = 3.9 x 109

pCi/h

 V is the volume of the space in L

 ach is the number of air changes per hour
Radon Exposure in WLM/y

so
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 19, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
135369 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 135369 COA: 276914 Oakland CC: 2006-207985-FH, RYAN ALLAN WILSON, 2006-208197-FH, 2006-208250-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND th is case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

0211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 19, 2008

Clerk