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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6824

DAWN MAUREEN EGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA L. HAUFFMAN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District

Judge. (CA-03-180-A)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dawn Maureen Egan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dawn Maureen Egan seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Egan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### **Exhibit 32.1**

### **Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Conceptus, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(i)            the accompanying Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2006(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

Date: August 9, 2006
|        | /s/ Mark M. Sieczkarek  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Mark M. Sieczkarek      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Handwerger and Frank Natoli, Appellants.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Breitel and Bergan, JJ.
September 15, 2006 

MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Morris, Branch Chief 

Reactor Security Branch 

Division of Security Policy 

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

FROM: Vince L. Williams, Security Specialist /RA/

Reactor Security Branch 

Division of Security Policy 

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARY OF NUCLEAR SECURITY AND INCIDENT 

RESPONSE PUBLIC MEETING WITH NEW PLANT TASK FORCE ON 

JULY 25, 2006 

 

On July 25, 2006, the New Reactor Security Team held a public meeting with the New Plants 

Task Force at One White Flint Commissioners’ Hearing room. The Office of Nuclear Security 

and Incident Response (NSIR), the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation (NRR) participated in the meeting. The following is a list of the agenda items that 

were covered during the meeting. 

1. Presentation of the Draft Security Assessment Rulemaking Language (NRR) 

2. Overview of the Security Assessment Process (NSIR) 

3. Presentation of an Industry Security Assessment Plan (New Plants Task Force) 

The NRC presentation slides for the security assessment draft rule language and overview of the 

security assessment process are attached to this meeting summary. 

Contact: Vince Williams, NSIR/DSP 

 (301) 415-6844 
September 15, 2006 

MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Morris, Branch Chief 

Reactor Security Branch 

Division of Security Policy 

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

FROM: Vince L. Williams, Security Specialist /RA/

Reactor Security Branch 

Division of Security Policy 

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 

SUBJECT: MEETING SUMMARY OF NUCLEAR SECURITY AND INCIDENT 

RESPONSE PUBLIC MEETING WITH NEW PLANT TASK FORCE ON 

JULY 25, 2006 

 

On July 25, 2006, the New Reactor Security Team held a public meeting with the New Plants 

Task Force at One White Flint Commissioners’ Hearing room. The Office of Nuclear Security 

and Incident Response (NSIR), the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation (NRR) participated in the meeting. The following is a list of the agenda items that 

were covered during the meeting. 

4. Presentation of the Draft Security Assessment Rulemaking Language (NRR) 

5. Overview of the Security Assessment Process (NSIR) 

6. Presentation of an Industry Security Assessment Plan (New Plants Task Force) 

The NRC presentation slides for the security assessment draft rule language and overview of the 

security assessment process are attached to this meeting summary. 

Contact: Vince Williams, NSIR/DSP 

 (301) 415-6844 

Distribution:

DSP R/F RidsNsirOd RidsNsirDspRsb PUBLIC 

Package ML062490314 MEMO ML062490281 Enclosure ML062490303 

 

*See Previous Concurrence

OFFICE LA: DSP DSP/RSB BC:DSP/RSB 

NAME KGrimes VWilliams SMorris 

DATE 9/ 6 /06 9/ 12 /06 9/ 15 /06
**EXHIBIT 3.1.4**

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO  AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF  GLOBAL ePOINT, INC.**

(Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)

1.      The name of the corporation is Global ePoint,Inc.

2.       Article FOURTH of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the corporation as amended, is further amended to read as follows:

> “FOURTH:     The corporation is authorized to issue two classes of shares designated “Preferred Stock” and “Common Stock.” The number of shares of Preferred Stock authorized tobe issued is 2,000,000 shares, with or without par value, as determined by the board of directors, and the number of shares of Common Stock authorized to be issued is 50,000,000 shares, with a par value of three cents ($0.03) pershare.

>                     The Preferred Stock may be divided into such number ofclasses or series as the board of directors may determine by resolution. The board of directors is authorized to determine and alter the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions granted to or imposed upon any wholly unissued series ofPreferred Stock, and to fix the number of shares of any series of Preferred Stock and the designation of any such series of Preferred Stock. The board of directors, within the limits and restrictions stated in any resolution or resolutions of theboard of directors originally fixing the number of shares constituting any series, may increase or decrease (but not below the number of shares of such series then outstanding) the number of shares of any series subsequent to the issue of shares ofthat series.

3.       The vote by which the shareholders holding shares in the corporation entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or suchgreater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of incorporation have voted in favor of the foregoing amendment to the Amended and RestatedArticles of Incorporation is: more than 50%.

DATED: July 28, 2003.

|                               |        |                            |
|-------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|
| /s/ FREDERICK SANDVICK        |   | /s/ KEITH A. CANNON        |
|                               |   |                            |
| Frederick Sandvick, President |   | Keith A. Cannon, Secretary |
#### § 2425.8 Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program.

The parties may request assistance from the Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (CADR) to attempt to resolve the dispute before or after an opposition is filed. Upon request, and as agreed to by the parties, CADR representatives will attempt to assist the parties to resolve these disputes. If the parties have agreed to CADR assistance, and the time for filing an opposition has not expired, then the Authority will toll the time limit for filing an opposition until the CADR process is completed. Parties seeking information or assistance under this part may call or write the CADR Office at 1400 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20424. A brief summary of CADR activities is available on the Internet at *http://www.flra.gov.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

Each of the undersigned directors and officers of eFUNDS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, hereby constitutes and appoints Paul F. Walsh and Steven F.
Coleman, and each of them, as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with
full power to act without the other, to sign the Company's annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, and any and all amendments to such
report, and to file the same and any such amendments, together with any
exhibits, and any other documents required in connection with such filing, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission under the provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

                                                   Date

/s/ Paul F. Walsh                                 2/13/03
------------------------------------
Paul F. Walsh, Chairman
And Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Thomas S. Liston                              2/13/03
------------------------------------
Thomas S. Liston,
Chief Financial Officer

/s/ John J. Boyle III                             2/13/03
------------------------------------
John J. (Jack) Boyle III, Director

/s/ Janet M. Clarke                               2/14/03
------------------------------------
Janet M. Clarke, Director

/s/ Sheila A. Penrose                             2/13/03
------------------------------------
Sheila A. Penrose, Director

/s/ Jack Robinson                                 3/5/2003
------------------------------------
Jack Robinson, Director

/s/ Robert C. Nakasone                            2/13/03
------------------------------------
Robert C. Nakasone, Director
#### Herman Friedman, Respondent, v. Harry Ladisky, Individually and as President of the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators *&*Paperhangers, District Coun*801cil No. 9 of New York City, and of Interlocal Conference of Progressive Painters, Unincorporated Associations, et al., Appellants.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 05-096 June 29, 2005

NRC FINDS NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM

EXTENDED OPERATION OF BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2 & 3

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its final environmental impact statement on the

proposed renewal of the operating licenses for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3. The

report contains the NRC’s finding that there are no environmental impacts that would preclude license

renewal for an additional 20 years of operation.

The Browns Ferry plant is located in Limestone County, Ala., about 10 miles southwest of

Athens, Ala. The current operating licenses expire on Dec. 20, 2013, for Unit 1; June 28, 2014, for

Unit 2; and July 2, 2016, for Unit 3. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the licensee, submitted

an application for renewal of the licenses on Jan. 6, 2004.

Browns Ferry Unit 1 has been shut down since 1985, and TVA is readying the facility for

restart. TVA anticipates resuming Unit 1 operations in May 2007.

As part of its environmental review of the application, the NRC held public meetings near the

plant to discuss the scope of the review and the draft version of the environmental impact statement.

Comments were received from members of the public, local officials and representatives of state and

federal agencies.

The Browns Ferry Final Environmental Impact Statement is available on the NRC’s Web site

at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement21/index.html . Copies

are also available for inspection at the NRC’s Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md.; and the Athens-Limestone Public Library, 405 East South Street, in

Athens.

###
§ 207.61 Responses to notice of institution. ( a ) *When information must be filed.* Responses to the notice of institution shall be submitted to the Commission no later than 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register.
( b ) *Information to be filed with the Secretary.* The notice of institution shall direct each interested party to make a filing pursuant to §§ 201.6, 201.8 and 207.3 of this chapter containing the following: ( 1 ) A statement expressing its willingness to participate in the review by providing information requested by the Commission;
( 2 ) A statement regarding the likely effects of revocation of the order(s) or termination of the suspended investigation(s) under review;
( 3 ) Such information or industry data as the Commission may specify in the notice of institution.
( c ) *When requested information cannot be supplied.* Any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by the notice of institution in the requested form and manner shall, promptly after issuance of the notice, notify the Commission, provide a full explanation of why it cannot furnish the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. The Commission may modify its requests to the extent necessary to avoid posing an unreasonable burden on that party.
( d ) *Submissions by persons other than interested parties.* Any person who is not an interested party may submit to the Commission, in a filing satisfying the requirements of § 201.8 of this chapter, information relevant to the Commission's review no later than 50 days after publication of the notice of institution in the Federal Register.
( e ) A document filed under this section shall be filed electronically, and nine (9) true paper copies shall be submitted on the same business day.
[44 FR 76468, Dec. 26, 1979, as amended at 74 FR 2849, Jan. 16, 2009; 76 FR 61944, Oct. 6, 2011; 79 FR 35925, June 25, 2014]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 01-136 December 26, 2001

NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATES FOR DRESDEN 2, 3 AND QUAD CITIES 1, 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by Exelon Generating Co. to

increase the generating capacity of its Dresden 2 and 3 and Quad Cities 1 and 2 nuclear power plants.

The power uprate at Dresden 2 and 3, located near Morris, Illinois, will increase the power of

each reactor by 17 percent to about 912 megawatts of electricity per unit. The power uprate at Quad

Cities 1 and 2, located near Moline, Il., will increase the power of each reactor by 17.8 percent, to about

912 megawatts of electricity per unit.

 The application for the increases was submitted to the NRC in December 2000. Exelon intends

to implement the power uprate immediately for Dresden Unit 2. Uprates for the three other reactors

will be implemented during outages scheduled for 2002 and 2003.

The NRC's safety evaluation of the requested power uprate for the units focused on several

areas, including nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems,

accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations and technical specification changes. The

NRC staff determined that the licensee could safely increase the power output of the reactors with

modifications to plant equipment and use of new fuel.

###
<PAGE>

                                 AMENDMENT 4
                       TO CONTRACT NO. RV-5-00575-5-00
                       BETWEEN THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
                DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
                                    AND
                          ENVIROTEST SYSTEMS CORP.



This Contract by and between the State of Tennessee Department of Environment 
and Conservation, hereunder referred to as the State, and Envirotest Systems 
Corp, hereafter referred to as the Contractor, is hereby amended as follows:

1.  Delete the following Section 42 in its entirety:

          "SECTION 42. TERM. The term of this Contract shall commence on 
May 16, 1994, and shall extend through December 31, 1998. The State shall have 
no obligation for services rendered by the Contractor which are not performed 
within the specified period."

    and insert the following in its place:

          "SECTION 42. TERM. The term of this Contract shall commence on May 
16, 1994, and shall extend through June 30, 2001. The State shall have no 
obligation for services rendered by the Contractor which are not performed 
within the specified period."

The other terms and conditions of this contract not amended hereby shall 
remain in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF:

ENVIROTEST SYSTEMS CORPORATION:



/s/ Chester C. Davenport                 DATE: May 1, 1998
--------------------------------              ---------------
Chester C. Davenport, Chairman


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION:


/s/ Milton H. Hamilton, Jr.              DATE:   5/4/98
--------------------------------------        ---------------
Milton H. Hamilton, Jr., Commissioner


APPROVED: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION:


/s/ John D. Ferguson                                      DATE:   May 04 1998
--------------------------------------------------              ---------------
John D. Ferguson, Commissioner


COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY:


/s/ WR Snodgrass                                          DATE:  5-5-98
--------------------------------------------------              ---------------
William R. Snodgrass, Comptroller of the Treasury
### SUBCHAPTER IV—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

APPRIO, INC., Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 18
- 2180 (JDB) NEIL ZACCARI, Defendant.

ORDER Upon consideration of [59] plaintiff’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary judgment on breach of contract, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that [59] the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED ; it is further
ORDERED AND DECLARED that Za ccari assigned his right, title, and interest in and to the CRR Software, as well as all trade secret, patent, copyright, mask work, and other intellectual property rights with respect to he CRR Software, to Apprio ; it is further
ORDERED that because Zaccari has breached the Proprietary Information and Assignment of Inventions Agreement , final judgment on Count I is entered on behalf of Apprio , including designation of Apprio as the prevailing party; it is further
ORDERED that Zaccari shall relinquish to Apprio all copies of the CRR Software and related documentation in his possession; it is further
ORDERED that Zaccari shall execute an assignment to Apprio designating Apprio as

owner of copyright TXu002082202 titled “CRR_Automated Search_Application” ; it is furtherORDERED that the deadline to file a motion for attorney’s fees under Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(d)(2)(B) is STAYED ; it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to L

. C i v
. R

. 54.2, the parties will confer and attempt to reach agreement on all fee issues ; and it is further
ORDERED that a status conference shall be set for April 29, 2022 at 10:00 AM in Telephonic/VTC , at which the Court will (1) determine whether settlement of any and or all aspects

o f the fee matter has been reached, (2) enter judgment for any fee on which agreement has been reached, (3) make the determination regarding pending appeals required by paragraph (b) of L

. C i v
. R

. 54.2, and (4) set a schedule for completion of any fee litiga tion.
SO ORDERED
.

/s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge
Dated: March 3 1 , 2022
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

No. 05-126 September 9, 2005

NRC DENIES UTAH’S FINAL APPEALS, 

AUTHORIZES STAFF TO ISSUE LICENSE FOR PFS FACILITY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today denied the state of Utah’s final appeals in the

adjudication on an application by Private Fuel Storage to construct and operate an independent spent

nuclear fuel storage facility in Skull Valley, Utah, and by a 3-1 vote authorized the NRC staff to issue

PFS a license once the staff has made the requisite findings under NRC regulations.

Utah petitioned for Commission review of a Feb. 24 decision by the Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, which rejected the state’s assertions that there is too high a probability of a radiation

release resulting from an accidental crash of one of 7,000 flights over the Skull Valley each year by

F-16 single-engine jets from Hill Air Force Base.

The Commission’s memorandum and order also dismisses as moot petitions by PFS and the

NRC staff for review of portions of an earlier ASLB ruling.

“Our decision today concludes this protracted adjudication, which has generated more than 40

published Board decisions and more than 30 published Commission decisions,” the Commission said

in its memorandum and order. “The adjudicatory effort, plus our staff’s separate safety and

environmental reviews, gives us reasonable assurance that PFS’s proposed [storage facility] can be

constructed and operated safely,” it said.

“There are no remaining adjudication issues to resolve. Accordingly, once it has made the

requisite findings pursuant to 10 CFR 72.40, the staff is authorized to issue PFS a license to construct

and operate its proposed [facility].”

PFS submitted its application for the license in June 1997. The NRC issued its final

Environmental Impact Statement in January 2002 and a Consolidated Safety Evaluation Report in

March 2002.

The PFS facility would be located on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute

Indians, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The proposed above-ground facility would use up

to 4,000 NRC-approved Holtec International HI-STORM 100 storage casks, each of which can hold up

to 10 tons of spent fuel. The HI-STORM cask consists of a steel canister in which the fuel is stored and

a steel and concrete overpack. To shield the spent fuel, the canister is welded closed and then placed in
the overpack of two steel shells encasing a wall of concrete more than two feet thick. The concrete

provides additional shielding from radiation during storage. The cask weighs 180 tons when full.

Separate from the NRC’s actions, the Bureau of Indian Affairs must issue final approval of the

lease between the company and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians. Also, the Bureau of Land

Management must approve a revision of the land resource management plan for Skull Valley to permit

PFS to construct and operate a rail line on a right-of-way through BLM land to connect the PFS site

and the Union Pacific Railroad main line.

###