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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-09-047 August 19, 2009 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 562-4416 

NRC REQUIRES IMPROVEMENTS AT USEC PADUCAH FACILITY 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued three Confirmatory Orders to the United 

States Enrichment Corporation’s Paducah, Ky., facility as part of settlement agreements involving 

three unrelated issues. 

 One issue involved operators concealing damaged equipment and falsifying records while 

moving a uranium hexafluoride cylinder. In the second issue, classified information was mishandled 

when a package was sent to an unapproved mailing address. The third issue stemmed from a U.S. 

Department of Labor decision that USEC retaliated against a former manager and an NRC concern for 

the potential influence this would have on the willingness of other employees to raise safety concerns. 

In each case, USEC requested the alternative dispute resolution process, which includes the use 

of a mediator, to resolve its differences with the NRC concerning the apparent violations and to discuss 

corrective actions. The confirmatory orders document USEC’s commitments to the NRC reached as 

part of the NRC’s ADR process, which can be requested in place of traditional NRC enforcement. 

Often, the ADR process is more effective in developing effective long-term corrective actions than 

traditional enforcement. 

As part of the settlement agreements, USEC has agreed to a number of corrective actions and 

enhancements, including procedure revisions, improved oversight and an incorporation of lessons 

learned into training. The company also agreed to a review of the events and a sharing of information 

with other USEC facilities. Some of the actions agreed to by USEC go beyond what would have been 

required under the NRC’s traditional enforcement process. 

In consideration of the commitments made by USEC, the NRC will not propose a civil penalty, 

issue a Notice of Violation or take other enforcement action on the three issues. The NRC will, 

however, evaluate adherence to the commitments during future inspections. 

Copies of the NRC letters detailing the agreements and required actions are publicly available 

online in the NRC’s Agency-wide Document Access and Management System, www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. The ML numbers are ML092220062 (discrimination), ML092300522 (classified 

information) and ML092300516 (damaged equipment). 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv 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. Email notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
#### City of New York, Respondent, *v.*Welz & Zerweck, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

The complaint should be dismissed for failure to prosecute; no adequate explanation was offered to excuse the long delay. The counterclaim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. Moreover, it is extremely doubtful whether, under the permit or so-called “ franchise ” agreement the city had any claim for rental after the holder of the permit, personal in character, discontinued the use of the tunnel, removed from the premises, sold the premises to another, and coneededly notified the city to that effect.

The order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the judgment entered thereon should be reversed and the motion denied; the order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute should be reversed and the motion granted; the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be affirmed, all of the foregoing to be without costs.

Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the judgment entered thereon unanimously reversed and the motion denied; order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute unanimously reversed and the motion granted; order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed. Settle order on notice.
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. 06-063 May 5, 2006

NRC’S CHRISTOPHER TRIPP TO RECEIVE ARTHUR S. FLEMMING 

AWARD FOR ENGINEERING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Dr. Christopher Tripp, of the Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, has been selected to receive a prestigious Arthur S. Flemming Award for

Engineering. 

Dr. Tripp is a criticality expert who has been a leader in using risk insights in the evaluation of

criticality safety. He was the primary criticality safety license reviewer for the construction of a facility

to manufacture mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel for use in nuclear reactors. This was a first-of-a-kind

safety review for the agency for this type of facility. It represented several firsts:

! First construction approval granted to a nuclear fuel cycle facility;

! First weapons-grade fuel facility authorized by the NRC; and

! First major application of NRC’s risk-informed regulation governing licensing of special

nuclear material.

Dr. Tripp dealt with numerous unique technical challenges posed by the criticality safety review

of this facility including the need to evaluate design bases that had no regulatory precedent. While

being cognizant of the unique chemical and metallurgical properties of plutonium and MOX, he

evaluated proposed safety controls for nuclear fabrication processes not previously used in the United

States. 

After receiving his bachelor’s and master degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1989

and 1994, Dr. Tripp received his doctoral degree in experimental medium energy physics from RPI in

1995. His doctoral thesis was done at the Bates Linear Accelerator Center operated by the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has worked for ten years at NRC as a nuclear criticality

safety inspector and technical reviewer in the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards. Other

projects with which he has been involved include the Paducah Higher Assay Upgrade, MOX

construction authorization, and a license application for a gas centrifuge plant.

The Flemming Awards were established by the Washington Downtown Jaycees in 1948 to

honor outstanding Federal employees. Winners are selected from all areas of the federal and military

service who have between three and 15 years of government service. 
Twelve separate awards in different categories will be presented by The George Washington

University in conjunction with the Arthur S. Flemming Awards Commission in June.

###
#### William W. Wood, Appellant, v. William H. Barnard, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
§ 8401.103 Prior approval for outside employment. ( a ) *Prior approval requirement.* ( 1 ) Before engaging in any outside employment, whether or not for compensation, a Commission employee who is classified at GS-13 or above, as well a Commission attorney at any grade level, must obtain the written approval of the employee's immediate supervisor and the designated agency ethics official. This requirement does not apply to a special Government employee of the Commission.
( 2 ) Requests for approval shall be forwarded through the employee's immediate supervisor to the designated agency ethics official and shall include at a minimum the name of the person, group, or organization for whom the work is to be performed; the type of work to be performed; and the proposed hours of work and approximate dates of employment.
( b ) *Standard for approval.* Approval shall be granted only upon a determination that outside employment is not expected to involve conduct prohibited by statute or Federal regulation, including 5 CFR 2635 and this part.
( c ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section: ( 1 ) *Employment* means any form of non-Federal employment or business relationship involving the provision of personal services by the employee. It includes but is not limited to personal services as an officer, director, employee, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, general partner, trustee or teacher. It also includes writing when done under an arrangement with another person for production or publication of the written product. It does not, however, include participation in the activities of a nonprofit charitable, religious, professional, social, fraternal, educational, recreational, public service or civic organization, unless such activities involve the provision of professional services or advice or are for compensation other than reimbursement expenses.
( 2 ) *Professional services* means the provision of personal services by an employee, including the rendering of advice or consultation, which involves application of the skills of a profession as defined in 5 CFR 2636.305(b)(1).
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 17, 2021

No. 04-20-00598-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARLOS Y. BENAVIDES, JR., AN 

INCAPACITATED PERSON,

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PB6–000081-L2

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After this court granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file the brief, we 

set Appellant’s brief due on May 12, 2021. On the extended due date, Appellant filed a second 

motion for extension of time to file the brief until June 11, 2021.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on June 11, 2021. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(d). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of May, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
### §151509. Records and inspection

(a) Records.—The corporation shall keep—

(1) correct and complete records of account;

(2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of directors, and committees having any of the authority of its board of directors; and

(3) at its principal office, a record of the names and addresses of its members entitled to vote.

(b) Inspection.—A member entitled to vote, or an agent or attorney of the member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1403.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 151509 | 36:2010. | Aug. 9, 1982, Pub. L. 97–231, §10, 96 Stat. 257. |

Section

The word "records" is substituted for "books and records" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words "Nothing in this section shall be construed to contravene any applicable State law" are omitted as unnecessary.
se 7% UNITED STATES
es 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
y if é WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

CHAIRMAN September 3, 2009

MEMORANDUM TO: R. W. Borchardt
Executive Director for Operations

FROM: Chairman Jaczko /Dig , Plpar—

SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF BURIED PIPING AT NUCLEAR REACTOR
FACILITIES

The issue of leaking buried piping at nuclear reactor facilities has garnered much attention and
debate, especially lately. While most of these incidents involve non-safety related pipes and, in
the end, have not jeopardized public health and safety, the agency's message in handling these
events has focused on the specific incidents as they occur. | believe, however, that we need to
look at what the agency is doing on a generic level in order to gather more information that
could enhance our understanding of buried piping.

Therefore, staff should prepare an information paper within 90 days of the date of this memo
explaining the generic activities currently underway or planned on the issue of leaks from buried
piping. The staff should also discuss any activities or plans that would address the following
items:

e Evaluation of the adequacy of current NRC requirements for design, inspection and
maintenance of safety-related buried piping, including requirements for operating reactors,
renewal of licenses, and new reactor licenses.

e Evaluation of the adequacy of current American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code
requirements for design, inspection and maintenance of safety-related buried piping.

e Evaluation of the effectiveness of current requirements and voluntary initiatives for the
design, inspection and maintenance of buried piping (both safety and non-safety related) to
ensure public health and protection of the environment.

e Recommendations for revisions, if necessary, to existing regulations, requirements,
practices, or oversight related to the integrity of buried piping.

cc: Commissioner Klein
Commissioner Svinicki
OGC
SECY
§ 847.505 When transfer occurs. ( a ) OPM, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Coast Guard will transfer the amount specified in § 847.504 as soon as practicable after receipt of an election of retirement coverage under subpart D of this part.
( b ) The transfer of contributions may not be delayed until the employee retires or separates from service.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-07-0104 - Proposed Rulemaking - Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Thermal Shock Events (RIN 3150-AI01)

Accession Number: ML070570525

Date Released: Wednesday, July 11, 2007

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.
    - ML070570141 - SECY-07-0104 - Proposed Rulemaking - Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events (RIN 3150-AI01) (11 page(s), 6/25/2007)
    - ML070570283 - SECY-07-0104Encl1 - Proposed Rule on Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, RIN 3150-AI01 (45 page(s), 6/25/2007)
    - ML070570383 - SECY-07-0104Encl2 - Regulatory Analysis, Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Pressurized Thermal Shock Events, RIN 3150-AI01 (13 page(s), 6/25/2007)
    - ML070570446 - SECY-07-0104Encl3 -  OMB Supporting Statement, Alternate Fracture Toughness Requirements for Protection Against Thermal Shock Events, RIN 3150-AI01 (8 page(s), 6/25/2007)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
#### Charles L. Donoughe, Respondent, v. Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Orders unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Cohn, J. P., Breitel, Bastow, Botein and Bergan, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1027.]
ACCEPTED 03-15-00498-CV 7405532 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/16/2015 10:06:18 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK NO. 03-15-00498-CV
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
LONG CANYON PHASE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

### Appellants, 

### v. CHRIS CASHIONAND LISA CASHION 

### Appellees. Appealed from the County Court at Law. No.2 of Travis County, Texas Cause No. C-1CV-15-001016
APPELLEE CHRIS AND LISA CASHION'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FIRST APPELLEE BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Appellee Chris and Lisa Cashion, files this First Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee's Briefpursuantto Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure 38.6(d) and 10.5(b)(1) and would respectfully show unto the Courtthe following: 1. The deadline for filing Appellee's Briefis Wednesday, October 21, 2015.2. Appellee seeks a 14-day extension oftime to file Appellee's Brief. Appellee respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for filing Appellee's Briefto October 30, 2015. 3. This is the first Motion for Extension ofTime filed for Appellee's Briefwith the Court. 4. This extension oftime is not requested for mere delay, butto allow Appellee adequate time to prepare Appellee's Brief. 5. Appellee is requesting additional time in orderto thoroughly research and adequately briefthese matters for the Court. Forthese reasons, Appellee respectfully requests thatthis Court grant a**14~** day extension oftime to file Appellee's Brief. Appellee also requests any further reliefto which it may be entitled.

2 Respectfully submitted, CHAMBERLAIN MCHANEY 301 Congress, 18th Floor (78701) P.O. Box 684158 Austin, Texas 78768-4158 (512) 474-9124 (512) 474-8582 (Facsimile) bdavidson@chmc-law.com 

## c " t. I**~** - 

### E'
.. \ 1.-_ By: vv.u,,,:\ I&,M. William C. Davidson SBN 05447000 ATTORNEY FORAPPELLEECERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that on October 16, 2015, I conferred with Frank 0. Carroll III regarding the merits ofthis First Motion for Extension ofTime. Mr. Carroll infonned me that he was unopposed to the filing ofthis First Motion for Extension ofTime.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this document is 383 words, as calculated by the word count feature ofMicrosoft Word 2013 (Professional Edition).

3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been sent facsimile and/or regular mail, to all counsel ofrecord, in accordance with the Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure on this the 16th day ofOctober, 2015.

William C. Davidson

4
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2094 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2094

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the 80-percent 
             deduction for meal and entertainment expenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2003

  Mr. Foley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the 80-percent 
             deduction for meal and entertainment expenses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF 80-PERCENT DEDUCTION FOR MEAL AND 
              ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (n) of section 274 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``50 percent'' in paragraph (1) and 
        inserting ``80 percent'', and
            (2) by striking ``50 percent'' in the subsection heading 
        and inserting ``80 percent''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (n) of section 274 of such 
Code is amended by striking paragraph (3).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bert Hughson, Appellant, v. Earl H. Crittenden et al., Respondents.

All concur. (Appeals from two judgments for the respective defendants for no cause of action in an automobile negligence action. The orders deny plaintiff’s motions for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See *post,*p. 844.]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Mark Williams ltr re: U.S. NRC's Observation Audit Report OAR-07-01, Observation Audit of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Audit OQA-BSC-07-03 of  Office of Assessment Activities, Corrective Actions and Trending Programs.

Accession Number: ML070090505

Date Released: Friday, January 19, 2007

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.
    - ML070090543 - Mark H. Williams, ltr re: NRC's Observation Audit Report OAR-07-01, Observation Audit of the Office of Civilian Radioative Waste Management Audit OQA-BSC-07-03 of Office of Assessment Activities, Corrective Actions and Trendiing Programs.Mark H. Williams (5 page(s), 1/19/2007)
    - ML070320422 - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Observation Audit Report OAR-07-01, Observation Audit of Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Quality Assurance, Audit OQA-BSC-07-03 of Assessment Activities, Corrective Actions, and Trending Progr (6 page(s), 1/19/2007)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10925

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Simon Galarza, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:21-CR-107-1

Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Simon Galarza

has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Galarza

has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant por-

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 11, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10925 Document: 00516503887 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2022
No. 21-10925

2

tions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-10925 Document: 00516503887 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2022
### **CHAPTER 1501—NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION**

Sec.
150101.
Definition.
150102.
Organization.
150103.
Purposes.
150104.
Services to United States Government.
150105.
Membership.
150106.
Governing body.
150107.
Powers.
150108.
Restrictions.
150109.
Duty to maintain corporate and tax-exempt status.
150110.
Records and inspection.
150111.
Service of process.
150112.
Liability for acts of officers and agents.
150113.
Annual report.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7165
JENNIFER L. BUNCH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRICO COUNTY; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1411) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer L. Bunch, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jennifer L. Bunch appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bunch v. Henrico County , No. CA-02-1411 (E.D. Va. filed June 25, 2003; entered June 26, 2003). 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