alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §598a. Property acquisition

#### (a) In general

In acquiring an interest in land, or requiring a non-Federal interest to acquire an interest in land, the Secretary shall, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 [42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.], first consider the minimum interest in real property necessary to support the water resources development project for which such interest is acquired.

#### (b) Determination

In determining an interest in land under subsection (a), the Secretary shall first consider a temporary easement or other interest designed to reduce the overall cost of the water resources development project for which such interest is acquired, reduce the time to complete such project, and minimize conflict with property owners related to such project.

#### (c) Procedures used in State

In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider, with respect to a State, the procedures that the State uses to acquire, or require the acquisition of, interests in land, to the extent that such procedures are generally consistent with the goals of a project or action.

(Pub. L. 115–270, title I, §1115, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3776.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 91–646, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1894, which is classified principally to chapter 61 (§4601 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4601 of Title 42 and Tables.

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 102 of Pub. L. 115–270, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7279

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY JACKSON, a/k/a Loc,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00039-BO-1; 7:23-cv-01233-

BO)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7279 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 

100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson has not made 

the requisite showing. The district court correctly concluded that Jackson’s claim that 

counsel was ineffective for advising him that he could plead guilty despite the appellate 

waiver in the plea was belied by the record as Jackson was advised of the waiver at the 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and agreed that he understood its terms. Therefore, Jackson 

failed to demonstrate that counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7279 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7279 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
#### § 2634.414 OMB control number.

The various model trust documents and Certificates of Independence and Compliance referenced in this subpart, together with the underlying regulatory provisions, are all approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3209-0007.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee GRADY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4261.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2002.

Decided May 7, 2002.

Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lee Grady pled guflty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of assault with a deadly weapon on a United States Postal employee, Janet Hughes, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111(a), (b) (West 2000), and one count of use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). Grady was sentenced to a term of *61imprisonment of 216 months. On appeal, Grady contends that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea without requiring the Government to provide a factual basis for the assertion that Janet Hughes was a government employee. We affirm Grady’s conviction.

Because Grady did not raise this claim in the district court, our review is for plain error. *See United States v. Martinez,*277 F.3d 517, 524-25 (4th Cir.2002). Under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(f), a court may satisfy the factual basis requirement by examining the presentence report. *Martinez, 277*F.3d at 532 (citing *United States v. Graves,*106 F.3d 342, 345 (10 Cir.1997)). The district court’s finding of a factual basis is reviewed for abuse of discretion. *Martinez, 211*F.3d at 531.

We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the presentence report to satisfy the factual basis requirement of Rule 11(f). The presentence report described Hughes as a United States Postal Service Rural Route Carrier. Further, Grady admitted at the plea hearing that he was guilty of assaulting a government employee. We find there was an adequate factual basis to support Grady’s conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### § 293.201 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the criteria to be used to determine when personnel records on individuals are subject both to the regulations contained in this part and to Office or agency regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. When personnel records are maintained within a system of records, the records are deemed to be within the scope of both the regulations in this part and Office or agency regulations implementing the Privacy Act.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Review and Assessment of Codes and Procedures for HTGR Components (NUREG/CR-6816, ANL-02/36)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6816 (PDF - 4.09 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**February 2003**Date Published:**June 2003

**Prepared by:** V.N. Shah, S. Majumdar, and K. Natesan Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, Illinois 60439

C.A. Greene, NRC Program Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6537

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The report reviews and evaluates currently available national and international codes and procedures for use in the design of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs) including, but not limited to, the Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) and the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PMBR). It includes an evaluation of the applicability of the codes, standards, and procedures to the materials that have been used or recommended for HTGRs, taking into account the HTGR operating temperature and environments. Seven codes and procedures, including five ASME Codes and Code Cases, one French Code (RCC-MR), and one British Procedure, were reviewed and evaluated. The ASME Codes and Code Cases included Section III, Subsection NB and Subsection NH; Code Cases N-499-1, N-201-4; and the draft Code Case for Alloy 617. Major findings of the evaluation are the following. (1) Most of the materials needed for HTGR are not included in the code cases. New code cases are needed for these materials. (2) The maximum temperature permitted by the codes and code cases for the materials acceptable for HTGR components is lower (760°C) than the maximum temperature (850°C or higher) that these components may experience in reactor service. The scope of the code and code cases needs to be expanded to include materials with allowable temperatures of ≥850°C. (3) The codes and code cases do not provide specific guidelines for environmental effects, especially the effect of impure helium, on the high-temperature behavior (e.g., creep and creep-fatigue) of the materials considered. The needed data on environmental effects should be collected or generated, if not available, so that the specific guidelines for these effects can be developed. Although the linear damage rule has been adopted by many design codes for estimating creep-fatigue damage, other potentially superior predictive models need to be evaluated and further developed for HTGR components operating under helium environment. The linear damage rule is not a good description of behavior if environmental effects (e.g., surface cracking) play an important role in high-temperature fatigue. Life predictive models for surface cracking have to be developed for this type of damage.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
### §552. Repealed. May 29, 1928, ch. 901, §1(28), 45 Stat. 988

Section, act Aug. 5, 1886, ch. 929, §8, 24 Stat. 335, required reports to Congress concerning civilian engineers employed in improving rivers and harbors.
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

No. 06-010 January 30, 2006

 NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 

TO MEET FEB. 9-11 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)will hold a public meeting Feb. 9-11 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, genericguidelines for extended power uprate testing programs and a draft report on the evaluation of humanreliability analysis methods against good practices.

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North building, at11545 Rockville Pike. It will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day and end at 6:45 p.m. on Thursday, 7 p.m. onFriday and 1 p.m. on Saturday. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2006/ . Anyone with questions or thosewanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364.

The ACRS, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, advises theCommission on licensing, the operation of nuclear power plants and related safety issues.

###
### §44. Sturgeon Bay, Illinois

So much of the west fork of Sturgeon Bay within the county of Mercer and State of Illinois as lies west of the line between the east half and the west half of the east half of section 25, in township 14 north, range 6 west of the fourth principal meridian, and so much of the east fork of said Sturgeon Bay as lies north of the north line of section 30, in township 14 north, range 5 west of the fourth principal meridian, shall not be deemed navigable waters of the United States.

(Feb. 7, 1907, No. 13, 34 Stat. 1421.)
#### § 319.202 Allocation of positions.

SL and ST positions may be established only under a position allocation approved by OPM.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

www.nrc.gov

 

No. I-07-006 February 5, 2007

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC FOLLOWING UP ON UNUSUAL EVENT AT 

INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was closely monitoring an Unusual Event at the Indian

Point 3 nuclear power plant earlier today. An Unusual Event, the lowest of four levels of emergency

classification, was declared at the Buchanan (Westchester County), N.Y., facility at 7:07 a.m. in

response to reduced water levels at the plant’s water intake structure. The Unusual Event was exited at

10:14 a.m.

The NRC’s Resident Inspectors at the plant were following the event and the Incident Response

Center in the agency’s Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., was activated to track developments and

determine if plant operators were responding appropriately.

Like all nuclear power plants, Indian Point 3 pumps water from a nearby waterway – in this

case, the Hudson River – for cooling purposes. The water, which does not come in contact with any

radioactive systems and therefore does not become contaminated, is pumped back into the river after

being used to cool down various systems, such as the plant’s condenser.

At 5:53 a.m. today, plant control room operators received an alarm indicating a problem with

the rotating screens that are used to prevent debris in the river from entering the water intake structure. 

At 5:57 a.m., the pumps used to wash debris off the screens, tripped off-line due to low water levels. 

The tide on the river was going down concurrent with these events. Another concern was icing

conditions caused by freezing temperatures in the region. Cold weather conditions are expected to

continue throughout the week.

Low tide occurred at 7 a.m. in the vicinity of the facility and the level in the plant’s water intake

structure was increasing this morning. As of 10 a.m., the intake structure water level was continuing to

increase.

 Both Indian Point 3 and the adjoining Indian Point 2 reactors were continuing to operate at full

power. Indian Point 2 also experienced reduced water intake levels but on a less significant level than

Indian Point 3.
Indian Point 3 is a 1,100-megawatt pressurized water reactor. It is owned and operated by

Entergy.

###

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html . The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. 

E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
§ 1690.14 Checks made payable to the Thrift Savings Plan. ( a ) *Accord and satisfaction.* The TSP does not agree to accept less than the total amount due by negotiating an instrument such as a check, share draft or money order with a restrictive legend on it (such as “payment in full” or “submitted in full satisfaction of claims”), or by negotiating an instrument that is conditionally tendered to the TSP with an offer of compromise.
( b ) *TSP payment address.* The TSP record keeper has established an address for the receipt of specified TSP payments. The TSP record keeper will not answer correspondence mailed to that payment address.
[70 FR 32218, June 1, 2005, as amended at 87 FR 31696, May 24, 2022]
§ 530.309 Miscellaneous provisions. ( a ) A special rate may be paid only for those hours for which an employee is in a pay status.
( b ) A pay increase caused by an employee becoming entitled to a new or higher special rate supplement is not an equivalent increase in pay within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 5335. (See 5 CFR 531.407(c).)
( c ) A special rate is included in an employee's *total remuneration,* as defined in 5 CFR 551.511(b), and *straight time rate of pay,* as defined in 5 CFR 551.512(b), for the purpose of overtime pay computations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
( d ) Consistent with § 530.308, the reduction or termination of an employee's special rate supplement in accordance with the requirements of this subpart is not an adverse action under 5 CFR part 752, subpart D, or an action under 5 CFR 930.211.
[70 FR 31287, May 31, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 66151, Nov. 7, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED JUNE 30, 1999 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH STATEMENTS AS FILED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         502,199
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  439,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    159,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,152,966
<PP&E>                                       1,666,921
<DEPRECIATION>                               (934,725)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,786,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          264,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,896,143
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,468,501)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,786,996
<SALES>                                        998,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               998,394
<CGS>                                          879,540
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  879,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               708,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (586,207)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,382)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (591,589)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (591,589)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.23  


EXTENSION AGREEMENT TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

between J. Don McGregor ("Executive") and

Pogo Producing Company, a Delaware corporation ("Company"),

dated effective February 1, 2003  


        WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an "Executive Employment Agreement" bearing an original "Effective
Date" of February 1, 2003; and 


        WHEREAS, February 1, 2004, (even date herewith) is hereby deemed to be the "Renewal Date" in that Executive Employment Agreement;
and 


        WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said Executive Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period so as
to terminate (unless further extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit February 1, 2006); and 



        WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive for the benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce
Executive to remain in its employ for that extended time period; and 


        WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an employee of Company for the period specified herein from and after the date of
this Extension Agreement; and 


        WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to enter into this Extension Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the
experience and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and understandings of Company and Executive; and 


        WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and performance of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and
approved by all requisite corporate action on the part of the Company. 


        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises and agreements herein contained, and in consideration of the sum
of $10 paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows: 


        1.     The
Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and Company bearing an "Effective Date" of February 1, 2003 and a "Renewal Date" which is deemed herein to be
February 1, 2004, is hereby extended for an additional one-year period commencing February 1, 2005 and ending January 31, 2006, unless such employment period is
hereafter further extended for an additional period by both Executive and Company. 



        2.     All
provisions of the Executive Employment Agreement between Executive and Company dated as of February 1, 2003, and as it is herein amended, are continued in full
force and effect 








without
change as if the Executive Employment Agreement had been initially effective as of February 1, 2004. 



	 	 	POGO PRODUCING COMPANY
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

/S/ JOHN O. McCOY, JR.
 John O. McCoy, Jr.

Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
	

ATTEST:	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

/S/ JOE ANN KINGDON
 Assistant Corporate Secretary	
 	

 	
 	

 
	

 	
 	

EMPLOYEE:
	

 	
 	

/S/ J. DON McGREGOR
 J. Don McGregor

Senior Vice President—Sales