alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12884]



[[Page 30078]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-271; NRC-2010-0191]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, 
LLC; Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station; License No. DPR-28; Receipt 
of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by petition dated April 19, 2010, 
Congressman Paul W. Hodes (the Petitioner) has requested that pursuant 
to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.206, 
``Requests for Action under this Subpart,'' the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) take action with regard to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear 
Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The Petitioner requested that the NRC 
not allow Vermont Yankee, operated by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 
(Entergy or the licensee), to restart after its scheduled refueling 
outage until all environmental remediation work and relevant reports on 
leaking tritium at the plant have been completed. Specifically, the 
Petitioner requested that Vermont Yankee be prevented from resuming 
power production until the following work has been completed to the 
Commission's satisfaction: (1) The tritiated groundwater remediation 
process; (2) the soil remediation process scheduled to take place 
during the refueling outage, to remove soil containing not only 
tritium, but also radioactive isotopes of cesium, manganese, zinc, and 
cobalt; (3) Entergy's ongoing Root Cause Analysis; and (4) the 
Commission's review of the documents presented by Entergy in response 
to the Commission's demand for information, which was issued on March 
1, 2010.
    The NRC is treating the request under 10 CFR 2.206 of the 
Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director 
of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). By letter dated May 
20, 2010, the Director denied the Petitioner's request to maintain 
Vermont Yankee shut down. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, the NRC will 
take appropriate action on this petition within a reasonable time.
    A copy of the petition is available to the public from the NRC's 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) in the public 
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html under ADAMS Accession No. ML101120663, and is 
available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of May 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric J. Leeds,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-12884 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-2493

___________

IN RE: SHAUN WRIGHT,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-00918)

____________________________________

_________

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

_________

It appears that the final sentence of the opinion filed on August 17, 2012 was not 

completed and certain words were omitted. The final sentence of the opinion as filed is:

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny .

The complete sentence is:

For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, an amended opinion will be filed. The filing date of the opinion as 

originally filed will not be altered as well as the filing date of the judgment.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: August 30, 2012
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In
connection with the Annual Report of Volcan Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Sholom
Feldman, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:




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




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









October
      29, 2009


/s/
      Sholom FeldmanSholom
      Feldman
              Treasurer
      and Secretary
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3981

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Jan Major Mengedoht, Estate of Percy * L. Hue, * * Appellant. *

___________ Appeals from the United States No. 08-3982 District Court for the ___________ District of Nebraska. United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * v. * * Jan Major Mengedoht, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 1, 2009 Filed: September 2, 2009

___________Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated appeals, Jan Mengedoht challenges the validity of the district court’s 1 orders enforcing summonses issuedby the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). We dismiss these appeals as un timely because the orders granting the government’s petitions for enforcement we re entered in March 2007, and Mengedoht did not file his app eals until December 2008. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (when United States is party, notice of appeal may be filed within 60 days after order appealed from is entered); United States v. Allee , 888 F.2d 208, 212 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (district court order enforci ng IRS summons was final appealable order when it was issued; challenges to issuan ce of IRS summons and validity of order enforcing summons can, and must, be raised by timely appeal from date of issuance of enforcement order; fact that order di rected party to do something--appear before IRS and claim, if desired, Fifth Amendm ent privilege--did not affect enforcement order’s finality for appeal purposes); cf. Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co. , 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). Accordingly, we dismiss both appeals.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable Thomas D. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. -2-
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Karin
Klemm,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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.



                                                     /s/ KARIN KLEMM
                                                     -----------------
                                                     Karin Klemm
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     August 3, 2005
[661 NE2d 996, 638 NYS2d 423]

#### In the Matter of Lester C. Hamel.

Decided November 30, 1995

*835OPINION OF THE COURT

On the Court’s own motion, it is determined that Honorable Lester C. Hamel is suspended, with pay, effective immediately, from his office of Justice of the Champlain Town Court, Clinton County, pending disposition of his request for review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith and Levine. Taking no part: Judge Ciparick.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PennantPark Investment Corporation for the
annual period ended September 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Aviv Efrat, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge
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 Registrant.



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|       |  | /s/    AVIV EFRAT      
|Name:  |  | Aviv Efrat             
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 14, 2012
#### Henry S. Anderson, Respondent, v. Edward T. Dickinson, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide the event.— Lewis, J.: This is the second time this case has been before this court upon appeal from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. We held, in deciding the first appeal, that the referee had erred in his construction of the contract upon which the plaintiff’s cause of action is based when the contract was read in connection with the evidence on the trial and we reversed the judgment and granted a new trial (72 Hun, 556). The case was retried and before the same referee and it appears bv his second report that he has adhered to his former conclusions. His findings on the second trial are more elaborate than were his first findings, but they were based upon substantially the same evidence. Both parties were present and testified upon the first trial. The defendant is a resident of France and was not present at the second trial, but his testimony given on the first trial was read by stipulation. The plaintiff was called and testified on the last trial, and in relating a conversation he had with the defendant and which he had assumed to fully state upon the former trial he added new matter not before stated. When asked why he had omitted it on the first trial he replied that he was not then interrogated in reference to it; he did not claim that it did not occur to his mind. It is upon this new matter that the plaintiff mainly relies to distinguish the case as now presented from the former appeal. It is apparent from the record that the plaintiff is an intelligent man of considerable business experience and that he fully comprehended the questions involved in the litigation and the effect of the evidence, and it is altogether improbable that the new matter would have been left out by him on the first trial when he was stating the conversation if it, m fact, was a part of it. We are satisfied, after an examination of the evidence on this appeal and a re-examination of the evidence m the former record, that the facts are substantially the same; if there be any material change it is in favor of the defendant; a number of letters written by the defendant, not read in evidence on the former trial were in evidence on the second trial; it is quite difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile their contents with the plaintiff’s alleged cause of action. We find no reason for changing our conclusions upon the former appeal. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted costs to abide the event.

Werner, J., concurred; dissented; Bradley, J., not voting.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2019
NESRIA H. ABDELA, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-600-684) Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 23, 2004 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrew M. Eschen, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nesria H. Abdela, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. Abdela asserts that she established her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Abdela fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Abdela seeks. Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Abdela’s application for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Abdela fails to show she is eligible for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.- 3 - Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Henry Hughes, Respondent, v. The New York Elevated Railroad Company and others, Appellants.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
ACTIONS OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2018, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING

VOTED that the Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Regents pursuant to Board 

Bylaw 3.01, recognizes the generosity of The Boeing Company and accepts the terms of the 

sponsorship agreement.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

TIMMY MCCLAIN AND MARCHEAL MCCLAIN

,

Appellant s

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 55

LT Case No. 2019

- CA

- 001554

HMC ASSETS, LLC, SOLELY IN ITS CAPACITY

AS A SEPARATE TRUSTEE OF CAM XI TRUST,

PRESERVE AT ASTOR FARMS HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION D/B/A AAMES HOME LOAN, ET AL.

,

Appellee s

.

________________________________/

Decision filed J anuary 10, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County

, Chris topher Sprysenski , Judge.

Tanner Andrews, of Tanner
Andrews, P

. A

. , Deland, for Appellant s

.

Ashland R. Medley, of Ashland Medley Law, PLLC, Coral Springs, for Appellee , HMC Assets, LLC Solely in its Capacity as Separate

Trustee of Cam XI Trust

.

No Appearance for Other Appellees.2 PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT

, C.J.

, EVANDER and WALLIS , JJ., concur.
#### Elwin S. Piper, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central *and*Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Bequests to*charge— *exceptions to a refusal to charge, when insufficient.*

At the close of the judge’s charge upon the trial of an action the defendant presented to the court twenty-eight requests to charge, some of which were charged and some refused. The defendant excepted to each of the charges made "by the court at the request of the plaintiff, and to each qualification of those requests and to each refusal to charge either of the propositions requested hy the defendant to be charged.

*Held,*that these exceptions were wholly insufficient to present any question for review.

Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, from a judgment of tlie Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 1st day of December, 1894, upon the verdict of a jury rendered after a trial at the Kings County Circuit, and also from an order bearing date the 23d day of November, 1894, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

*Frederic A. Ward*and *Edwin D. Worcester, Jr.,*for the appellant.

*Joseph A. Burr,*for the respondent.

Brown, P. J.:

This case was before the General Term of this department at the December term in 1893 upon an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entei’ed upon a dismissal of the complaint. The court then decided that the question as to the negligence of .both parties was for the jury.

We do not think that the case has been materially changed upon the retrial and we adhere to the decision then made.

The learned judge who wrote the opinion upon the former appeal appears to have understood that the plaintiff fell from the rear door of the rear car of the train. The fact that he fell from the vestibule between two cars does not make inapplicable the rule of law *76then applied or anything said in the opinion, and after a careful review of the testimony we think the case in all its aspects was for the jury.

At the close of the charge the defendant presented to the court twenty-eight requests, some of which were charged and some refused. The defendant excepted to each of the charges made by the court at the request of the plaintiff and to each qualification of those requests and to each refusal to charge either of the propositions requested by the defendant to be charged.

These exceptions are wholly insufficient to jiresent any question for review. *(Smedis*v. *Brooklyn & Rockaway Beach R. R. Co.,*88 N. Y. 22; *Newall v.*Bartlett, 114 id. *405; Huerzeler*v. *C. C. T. R. R. Co.,*139 id. 490.)

Other requests were made and exceptions taken to the rulings of the court, but they present no other question than that arising upon the motion to dismiss the complaint and need not be considered.

None of the exceptions to the rulings upon evidence are well taken, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurred; Pratt, J., not sitting.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the annual report of AmCOMP Incorporated, (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Fred R. Lowe,
Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:
  
 1.
              The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  2.
              The
      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
  
 
 March
      5, 2008
              /s/  
      Fred
      R. LoweName:
              Fred
      R. LoweTitle:
              Principal
      Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. 1350
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the undersigned officers of Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
 
 (a)           The annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 20010 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and
 
 (b)           Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:  December 14, 2010
 
 /s/ Art Buckland
 Art Buckland, Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Executive Officer)
 
 
 /s/ Matthew Veal
 Matthew Veal, Chief Financial Officer, Controller and Secretary
 (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20516

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1344

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1343

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1342

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1341

USDC No. 4:03-CV-1340

 

BRENDA SUE BAILEY; JOHN ALLEN BABIN; CHARLES FRANCIS 

COLEMAN; JAMES ARNOLD SCHNUR; RALPH F. SCHNUR, 

 

 Petitioners-Appellants,

versus 

CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 

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

JOHN ALLEN BABIN, 

 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

 

CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,

 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 

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

CHARLES FRANCIS COLEMAN, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

 

versus 

CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas,

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 
* 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.

2

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

JAMES ARNOLD SCHNUR, 

 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

versus 

 

CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 

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

RALPH F. SCHNUR, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

 

versus 

CHARLES ROSENTHAL, District Attorney for Harris County Texas, 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

 

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. 03-CV-1340)

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

PER CURIAM:*

The appellants in this case appeal from the dismissal of

their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petitions. A certificate of appealability

(“COA”) is required to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of

process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 

Because the appellants are seeking release from the pending state
3

criminal proceedings against them, a COA is required before they

can proceed on appeal. Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 261-

622 (5th Cir. 1998). 

The district court must make the initial determination

whether a COA should issue. Muniz v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 43, 45

(5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the

district court for the limited purpose of the district court’s

issuance of a COA ruling. Once the district court has issued its

ruling, this court will consider the case.
#### Campbell Printing Press Company, Respondent, v. Stillman R. Walker, Appellant

—Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.
#### Joseph Arthur and others, Respondents, v. Michael B. Leavitt, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Ter Curiam.*