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

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. III-02-055 October 4, 2002

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC CONDUCTS SPECIAL INSPECTION OF POSSIBLE RADIATION EXPOSURES

AT ANN ARBOR MEDICAL FACILITY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions staff is conducting a special inspection into possible

radiation doses above NRC limits which occurred while family members visited a patient receiving a

nuclear medicine treatment at St. Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The medical facility reported to the NRC that a patient received a therapeutic dose of

radioactive iodine-131on July 1. The patient’s condition subsequently worsened, and she died on July

7. There is no indication that her death was associated with the iodine-131 treatment.

Members of the patient’s family visited during the treatment period and were in prolonged,

close contact with the patient. 

The hospital reported that one family member may have received a radiation dose in the range

of 3,000 to 5,600 millirems, based on conservative assumptions. The NRC limit for radiation doses to

a member of the public is 100 millirems per year. (A millirem is a standard measure of radiation dose.)

Radiation exposures in the range reported would not produce any immediate health effects; the

NRC limit for workers in occupations associated with radiation is 5,000 millirems per year.

Other family members visiting the patient may have received significantly lower doses,

although possibly in excess of the NRC limit. 

The hospital placed shielding around the patient to reduce the radiation level and counseled the

family members on the need to minimize their time and proximity to the patient. Due to the family

members’ desire to be near the patient, many of the family members apparently did not adhere to the

controls established and the directions provided by the licensee to minimize radiation exposure. 

The hospital initially reported the situation to the NRC on August 15 and submitted its final

report to the agency on October 1.

Following its review of the reports, the NRC dispatched two radiation specialists to perform a

special inspection to review the circumstances surrounding the possible overexposures and to perform

independent calculations of the possible radiation doses received by the family members.

###
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00479 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ALEJANDRO EMILIANO SOLIS

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1

Relator Alejandro Emiliano Solis filed a pro se p etition for writ of mandamus in the above cause on A ugust 29, 2016, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his pending motion for nunc pro tunc judgment. The relator did not furnish an appendix or record to support his request for relief. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a purely ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. In re Harris ,

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. procee ding); In re McCann , 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct

. of App s. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). I t is the relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3. The relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficien t to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mand amus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 2 nd day of September, 2016

.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-02-0077 - Proposed Rule to Update 10 CFR Part 52, "Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined License for Nuclear Power Plants"

Accession Number: ML021050284

Date Released: Wednesday, June 5, 2002

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML021040009 - SECY-02-0077 - Proposed Rule to Update 10 CFR Part 52, "Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants" (11 page(s), 5/8/2002)
    - ML021040011 - SECY-02-0077-Attachment-Federal Register Notice for Proposed Rule to Update 10 CFR Part 52, "Early Site Permits, Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants" (200 page(s), 5/8/2002)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         130,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                       887
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,151
<PP&E>                                         467,531
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 726,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,413
<BONDS>                                        492,866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,110
<OTHER-SE>                                    (90,214)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   726,058
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (44,971)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (44,971)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)
        

</TABLE>
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-01-034 August 13, 2001

 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov 

NRC SCHEDULES CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS SUMMER NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement

conference with South Carolina Electric & Gas Company officials in Atlanta on August 17 to discuss

regulatory concerns regarding the V. C. Summer commercial nuclear power plant, operated by the

company near Jenkinsville, about 30 miles north of Columbia.

The meeting will be held from 10:00 until 11:30 a.m. in the NRC offices located on the 24th

floor of the Sam Nunn Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street, S. W. It will be open to observation by

interested members of the public and news media representatives. NRC officials will be available at

its conclusion to answer questions from observers who attend.

NRC officials said the conference, which was requested by the company, is being held to

discuss an apparent violation at the plant due to a past practice of disabling special doors to a

switchgear room near high energy steam lines during maintenance activities without first performing a

required safety evaluation. NRC officials said the practice, discontinued in February of 1999, had the

potential to render emergency AC power to safety-related equipment inoperable during an accidental

break in one of these lines while the doors were removed. 

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that a

determination has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. 

The purpose is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance, to provide the

licensee with an opportunity to point out errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report

and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a civil

penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time.

###
#### British Aluminium Company v. George N. Trefts.

Motion for new trial granted. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### D. E. Lucas, Defendant in Error, v. Frank Lincoln Johnson, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 16,777.

*Set-off—demands must be mutual between all the parties.*In an action on a *joint*liability of a husband and wife, the husband cannot set off a debt due himself though the wife is not served with process, since the wife can be brought in by *scire facias*and made a party to the judgment.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the *Hon.*Askold Heap, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 30, 1912.

Julius A. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

Charles Daniels and Sumner Palmer, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff, here the defendant in error, began a suit against the defendant, here the plaintiff in error, and his wife, for services rendered in attendance as a physician upon the defendant and his family. Mrs. Johnson was not served and the cause proceeded to trial against the defendant, Mr. J ohnson, who admitted *144the cause of action and an indebtedness of sixty-eight dollars, for which the court entered judgment. The defendant offered to prove a set-off against the plaintiff for services rendered by him to the plaintiff in a real estate transaction. On objection this evidence was excluded and this the defendant contends was error. The suit was brought jointly against the defendants, and on the record here presented Mrs. Johnson could be brought in on a *scire facias*and be made a party to the judgment. The plaintiff bringing a joint action and establishing a joint liability, the court properly sustained the objection to the evidence offered tending to establish a right of action on the set-off in behalf of Mrs. Johnson only against the plaintiff. “Demands, to be the subject-matter of set-off, must be mutual between all the parties to the action.” Priest v. Dodsworth, 235 Ill. 613, and authorities there cited.

It is not necessary to discuss the other errors assigned and argued, for the cause here presented is determined on the ground indicated.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6636
WARREN L. HOLDERMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; MARK HUGHES, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-592-6) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 31, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren L. Holderman, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Norwood League, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief in part on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent thata certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Holderman v. North Carolina Attorney General , No. CA-93-592-6 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 5, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and 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.

DISMISSED
*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. 00-50521

Summary Calendar

_____________________

FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION; ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

FIRST CITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, NA;

CHASE SECURITIES, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(USDC No. W-99-CV-277)

_______________________________________________________

November 20, 2000

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

FirstCity Financial Corporation appeals from the dismissal of its action

against Chase Bank of Texas and Chase Securities, Inc. (CSI). The district court

dismissed FirstCity’s case based on a forum selection clause in its engagement

agreement with CSI. We review this determination de novo. See Afram Carriers,

Inc. v. Moeykens, 145 F.3d 298, 301 (5th Cir. 1998).

FirstCity contends the clause is unenforceable under Fifth Circuit precedent

because (1) the clause was induced by fraud and overreaching, (2) its enforcement

would contravene public policy, and (3) its scope does not reach FirstCity’s claims

under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, ch. 240, 70 Stat. 133 (codified as

amended in scattered sections of 12 U.S.C.).

The Supreme Court has made it clear that forum selection clauses are favored

and will be enforced absent a clear showing of unreasonableness. See M/S Bremen

v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972); Haynsworth v. The Corporation,

121 F.3d 956, 962-63 (5th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, this Circuit has stated that

“[f]raud and overreaching must be specific to a forum selection clause in order to

invalidate it.” Id. (citing Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 519, n.14

(1974)).

For the following reasons we must agree with the splendid order of the

district court. FirstCity fails to meet its burden because (1) FirstCity cannot produce
3

evidence that the forum selection clause itself, as opposed to the contract in general,

is a product of fraud or overreaching, and any disparity in bargaining positions is

mitigated by the fact that both parties to the agreement were sophisticated financial

institutions represented by competent counsel; (2) no public policy at issue is strong

enough to trump the presumption in favor of forum selection clauses; and (3) each of

FirstCity’s claims relate to its engagement of CSI, and thus, each falls within the

scope of the forum selection clause.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 203 (Thursday, October 21, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 61864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23504]



[[Page 61864]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant To the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--American Society of Agricultural Engineers

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), American Society of 
Agricultural Engineers (``ASAE'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: American 
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. The nature and scope 
of ASAE's standards development activities are: ASAE serves as the 
primary U.S. developer of standards, engineering practices and data 
(collectively referred to as standards) for engineering applicable to 
agricultural, food, and biological systems. The scope of these 
documents encompasses, but is not limited to, the following subject 
areas: agricultural equipment; biological and biological systems 
engineering; natural resources management; irrigation and drainage; 
agricultural structures and environment; livestock production; food and 
bioprocess engineering; information and electrical technologies; forest 
engineering; energy production and distribution for agricultural 
locales and operations; renewable fuels and biomass; aquacultural 
engineering; nursery and greenhouse operations; and agricultural safety 
and rural health.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-23504 Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### §1737. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §456, formerly §457, as added Pub. L. 102–235, §9, Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1809; renumbered §456 and amended Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(5), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1084, related to nontraditional employment demonstration program.

A prior section 456 of Pub. L. 97–300 was classified to section 1736 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(4), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1084.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
Date of 

Maintenance/I

nspection

Serial Number of the 

Unmanned Aerial 

System (UAS)

Condition of Propellers (run 

finger along leading and 

trailing edges, flex both 

blades to check for hairline 

cracks)

Example Entry 6/7/2015 S135613 No defect or cracks

Appendix E - Monthly UAS M


 Check motor shafts have no free play

(missing E clip? Loose bell housing 

screw? Bad bearings?)

 Check motors 

move freely when 

spun by hand;

Check condition of battery 

spade connectors and data 

pins (level, free movement, 

clean);

No defects No defects - moves 

freely No defects - Clean, level, etc

E - Monthly UAS Maintenance Log


Check camera mounts are 

secure (and any other 

attachments, e.g. Flytrex 

core);

When powered up and 

idling confirm no unusual 

noise or vibration from 

motors.

Visual inspection of shell and other 

plastic components for 

cracking/damage (landing skids, 

camera mounting plates, etc.);

Mounts are secure

No defects or unusual 

sound/vibration detected No defects


Check tightness of motor 

retaining screws and shell 

retaining screws (both 

2.0mm hex);

 Clean data spring pins and battery contact pads 

with alcohol and swab or proprietary electrical 

contact cleaner and cycle spring pins several times 

to check for spring weakness and full unimpeded 

travel

Plug in to Vision Assistant and 

check tx & IMU calibration 

state and all battery cells have 

good balance (repeat for all 

batteries);

Secured with appropriate 

tightness Clean No defects


Check batteries for 

number of cycles and 

discharge per DJI 

recommendations if 

required

Completed, meet 

recommendations
§ 12.62 Enforcement; duties of Customs officers. ( a ) In accordance with the authority contained in sections 10 and 12 of the act, Customs officers shall arrest or cause to be arrested persons violating the provisions of the act or of any regulation made pursuant thereto; shall search vessels when there is reasonable cause to believe that such vessels are subject to seizure under the act, shall seize any vessel used or employed or which it appears has been or is about to be used or employed in violation of the act or any regulation made pursuant thereto; and shall seize fur seals and sea otters, or the skins thereof, killed, captured, transported, imported, offered for sale, or possessed by any person contrary to the provisions of the act or of any regulation made pursuant thereto.
( b ) All articles, including vessels and equipment, seized by Customs officers for violation of the act shall be turned over to the nearest officer or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, for appropriate disposition under the act, receipts to be taken in duplicate therefor. One copy of each such receipt shall be transmitted to Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service with a detailed report of the facts in the particular case involved.
[28 FR 14710, Dec. 31, 1963, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51253, Dec. 21, 1988]