alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Thanks to our Rapporteurs:

 Mark McBride, NRC (NRO)

 Randy Fedors, NRC (NMSS) 

 Joseph Giacinto, NRC (NRO)
Panel 2: State of the Practice

 Identifying and quantifying flood hazards 

 Extreme events (AEP 10-2 to 10-3) 

 Extremely extreme events (AEP 10-4 to 10-6) 

 Acknowledging events not historically observed or 

anticipated (i.e., “black swans”)

 Uncertainties
Panel 2 Presentations

 Will Thomas, Michael Baker, Jr.

 Jery Stedinger, Cornell University 

 Jim O’Connor, USGS 

 Douglas Clemetson, USACE 

 John England, BoR
Roles for Both Deterministic and 

Probabilistic Approaches

 Approaches dependent on 

 Site

 Question at hand

 Rarity of event

 Complexity of approach varies

 Physics

 Conceptual models

 Stochastic approaches

 Mixtures

 Procedures for moderate to extreme events (10-2) have been 

applied broadly with generally satisfactory results

 Multiple approaches can be complementary
Some Issues

 Multiple possible considerations

 Peak discharges

 Volumes

 Duration

 Paleoflood data, though possibly chellenging to 

acquire, helps to define frequency of extreme events

 Paleoflood data can greatly reduce uncertainty

 Various methods for evaluating uncertainty of extreme 

events
Need for multidisciplinary teams

 No one person has all necessary expertise

 Effective approaches may include

 Hydrologists

 Paleohydrologists

 Statisticians

 Modelers

 ...
Uncertainty

 For events that are frequent with respect to our 

data, aleatory uncertainty limits our ability to 

predict future events

 For rare (10-4 to 10-6) events, epistemic uncertainty 

begins to be important

 One need to consider both aleatory and epistemic 

uncertainty

 Point estimates (PMF) are comforting but, by 

ignoring epistemic uncertainty, foster false sense 

of confidence
Does Epistemic Uncertainty Really Matter?
Some Questions

 Contributions or impacts of climate change

 Applicability of paleoflood data (changing climate, 

channel assumptions) 

 Bulletin 17B,C (i.e., prescribed methods) may stifle 

innovation

 Choice of duration versus sequencing for maximum 

precipitation event input 

 Incorporation of orographic effects
Impediments to Implementation

 Shortage of expertise 

 Inadequate training/curricula

 Inconsistent definitions

 Culture (“Just try it...”)

 Lack of imagination
Concerns

 Delusional Precision

 If we’re going to present uncertainties, we had better 

compute them correctly

 Terminology matters (“risk,” “uncertainty,” etc.)

 Education: Training future analysts
Questions

 How can we improve our PRAs

 Can or should SSHAC-like process be followed?
Questions?
|                                                         | Exhibit 99(d) 
|-------------------------------------------------------- | --------------
|HSBC Finance Corporation                                 |               
|Household Credit Card Master Note Trust I, Series 2002-1 |               
|                                                         |               
|Original Principal                                       |               
|Class A                                                  | 507,111,000.00
|Class B                                                  | 52,889,000.00 
|Number of Bonds (000's)                                  |               
|Class A                                                  | 507,111       
|Class B                                                  | 52,889        
|                                                         |               
|                                                         |               
|                                                         |               
|                                                         |               
|CLASS A                                                  |               
|Class A Principal Distributions                          |               
|Class A Interest Distributions                           |               
|                                                         |               
|                                                         |               
|CLASS B                                                  |               
|Class B Principal Distributions                          |               
|Class B Interest Distributions                           |
#### § 919.980 Participant.

*Participant* means any person who submits a proposal for or who enters into a covered transaction, including an agent or representative of a participant.
.·-, .···



# Resolution 14·04



# Community of Elfin Cove**Endc~rnt:"r•t** 

### o:l' Alaska 

### Sea pla:r..es'**r~r:fti~l** Air 

### Se-rf"'!? Proposal 

### for Ano'!l',!ff**F(':~.rr·'r'ear** 

### Term •::<1 -3 

### DHC-2

Beaii!U/C!!'.tSna 20G**~nof. C~ii"l<l**  

### 208 Ca·rava n 

### Pl.;;.tform.

WH:Ei!i:EAS, The**Cc<rwr.wni~·f** of Elfin 

### (:q;<e-, Ala:sJ,;a IS 

### remotely**~ZI.~ta\!Jed** on Chk:!laE;of Island, withou:**m~t.:**

•:Jt 

### ferry**;!1(;!;~515** 

### to the**~T<a** 

### in Ia nd; 

### .ami

WHE!iliEAS,. Elfin**O;;·~t> f.3~ls**  wooer tlle 1978**,t.,ir!:ir~ ~c-r:gui<ltior;**  Act Essent'-al Air**Servi~e** 

### (EASJ**p~ram: arr~** 



### WH:.Eili:t:A$, 

### :Schedul!!!d air**!d!r.•i~;;JI' p~.:;ovides**  il critics 

### llf11lk ttl•**~m~;fE~q' ~erlke,;.,**  

### rtl?!!<l1t.l!**i:n~,** 

### equi;;mcnt



### and**~JJ:t:Plies:,** 

### freight and 

### us**rn~~~ "~~"~:l'c~.**  

### a n,j buslne£3 

### and to**uri~** 

### tr""Vl!.ll; a 

## oo

WliolERIEAS.,.**~!fin** 

### (..;:;·

.. "' is 

### sr:rved b· 1 • our**s.c1~d':l!".ld** air 

### Si! !'Vice**pro~ef Kalir1ia~**  

### A·.-i;Jtion r.:li::Ja**"A.Ia~'t~ s~aplar)~""**  

### with ;z minimwT:five 

### guarar.t"l,ed rE!!und;rips 

### pcr·.....-eeldr: the sumnl<!ttiml'"**pr.~":** 

### Si!ason, 

### and**~t** 

### le;;sttwo**jj;L!.a:a.,~M** tound:rips Dl!'''l'leek rn the oft-pl!'a:k**~t::a~on_,** 

### w-eiiltfler**~2rmlttio"l~;** and**WrU:I!t~ASJ Alas~a**  

### Sea.pla n-::s**l'i~ ~**  

### h;ll fleet cf s:tra !J.ll'lc aM**:a~nphibi\:)u~** flo;;t 

### p!;;.ne:s .and 

### r.as**~pa.l;iy S<!l"\'~**  our <:;:Qml:TIUnrty for i7 l{il'<lts 

### 11o1i£1i**Ob~p!]?rfett ~f-E!!(**  !!!'COrd;**a,~d**

WHERfA:S.**A!a~k;~** 

### S>::!;apl:anes prop.c:ses tE!!**cnntin~.JI!'** 

### se:rvica to Elfin Cft::Jve urn:li!!r :a 

### new**fou-"-'~ea** 

### r cor'r!/ao::::t

uljiizinij: its**extsti;n~** D:HC·2**~;;IV'('ri'Cessr.a** 206 

### !teet e11**st~ight** f!o;;rts 

### in the-**&umme~:'ml:l<~nt:l** 

### ;;ornph.ibkHJS**fl~;~~u** 

### in**tr~O\t1lrrter** 

### wh!!!n**~.he l::~tbl!;;t~.J**  j)Cild is frozen; and

WHIEREAS,**Al;~$s-.a ~apl;mes** **pro;:~s** upgr;;n;!ing 

### its ;=Jeet 

### 'A•lth the .ari!ldi!.'itm of;;n**lfP.-c;;pah~** cessna. 

### LOB

caravan a<ircrai't on**~** 

### rn;;-h ibious flcats ci!e;ri71g 

### gre.ate r**ca-~-aclt'{,** 

### a end imprc

...**~ r~li;;obiii't:'f**  

### du;lng pDor



### •,·i:;.:b!lit,·**condltlon~** at Elie l::J4NU ;;:irport 

### when**VFi1l.opeT~tions an:~**  

### otlierw·,:;e**grc?U.~de~;L**



# *P;;/i-

Oate '
§ 8a.230 Transition plans. ( a ) *Submission of plans.* An institution to which § 8a.225 applies and that is composed of more than one administratively separate unit may submit either a single transition plan applicable to all such units, or a separate transition plan applicable to each such unit.
( b ) *Content of plans.* In order to be approved by the Secretary of Education, a transition plan shall: ( 1 ) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
( 2 ) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
( 3 ) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
( 4 ) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
( 5 ) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
( c ) *Nondiscrimination.* No policy or practice of a recipient to which § 8a.225 applies shall result in treatment of applicants to or students of such recipient in violation of §§ 8a.300 through 8a.310 unless such treatment is necessitated by an obstacle identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a schedule for eliminating that obstacle has been provided as required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
( d ) *Effects of past exclusion.* To overcome the effects of past exclusion of students on the basis of sex, each educational institution to which § 8a.225 applies shall include in its transition plan, and shall implement, specific steps designed to encourage individuals of the previously excluded sex to apply for admission to such institution. Such steps shall include instituting recruitment programs that emphasize the institution's commitment to enrolling students of the sex previously excluded.
§ 1211.9 Additional entrapment protection requirements. ( a ) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door shall be supplied. The gripping surface (handle) shall be colored red and shall be easily distinguishable from the rest of the operator. It shall be capable of being adjusted to a height of 6 feet (1.8 m) above the garage floor when the operator is installed according to the instructions specified in § 1211.16(a)(2). The means shall be constructed so that a hand firmly gripping it and applying a maximum of 50 pounds (223 N) of force shall detach the operator with the door obstructed in the down position. The obstructing object, as described in § 1211.7(b)(3)(i), is to be located in several different positions. A marking with instructions for detaching the operator shall be provided as required by § 1211.17(a), (b), and (j), as applicable.
( b ) A means to manually detach the door operator from the door is not required for a door operator that is not directly attached to the door and that controls movement of the door so that: ( 1 ) The door is capable of being moved open from any position other than the last (closing) 2 inches (50.8 mm) of travel, and
( 2 ) The door is capable of being moved to the 2-inch (50.8-mm) point from any position between closed and the 2-inch (50.8-mm) point.
( c ) Actuation of a control that initiates movement of a door shall stop and may reverse the door on the closing cycle. On the opening cycle, actuation of a control shall stop the door but not reverse it.
( d ) An operator shall be constructed so that adjustment of limit, force or other user controls and connection of external entrapment protection devices can be accomplished without exposing normally enclosed live parts or wiring.
[57 FR 60455, Dec. 21, 1992, as amended at 65 FR 70658, Nov. 27, 2000; 81 FR 20231, Apr. 7, 2016]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eddie Seals, Appellant, v New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 351]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered March 28, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70. The judgment, inter alia, granted respondent’s motion for leave to renew and vacated the prior judgment granting the petition.

*1263It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is dismissed without costs.

Memorandum: Because petitioner was released on parole on September 20, 2005, we dismiss this appeal as moot. We note, however, that, were this appeal properly before us, we would reverse the judgment. The record establishes that Supreme Court initially granted the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and that respondent thereafter moved for leave to reargue with respect to that petition. We agree with petitioner that the court erred in converting respondent’s motion to one for leave to renew and erred in granting the motion and vacating the prior judgment that granted the petition. Motions for leave to reargue or renew are permitted with respect to *“a*prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [a]), but such motions have no application to a judgment determining a special proceeding. CPLR article 70 governs habeas corpus proceedings and, while a judgment issued in such a proceeding is subject to appeal *(see*CPLR 7011), Supreme Court has no authority to vacate its judgment and issue a contrary one based on “new” facts belatedly proffered by a respondent.

In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that CPLR 2221 were applicable, we would nevertheless conclude that the court abused its discretion by converting the motion to one for leave to renew and then granting the motion inasmuch as respondent did not comply with CPLR 2221 (e). The facts offered by respondent on “renewal” were in existence when the matter was initially before the court, and respondent gave no justification for originally conceding “facts” now claimed to be erroneous. Where CPLR 2221 (e) applies, compliance with that section is required *(see Robinson v Consolidated Rail Corp.,*8 AD3d 1080 [2004]; *see also Patel v Exxon Corp.,*11 AD3d 916, 917 [2004]; *Perez v Davis,*8 AD3d 1086, 1087 [2004]; *Giardina v Parkview Ct. Homeowners’ Assn.,*284 AD2d 953 [2001], *lv dismissed*97 NY2d 700 [2002]).

All concur, Hayes, J., not participating. Present — Gorski, J.P., Martoche, Green, Pine and Hayes, JJ.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 24, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60781

Summary Calendar

 

MARIA LUZ MATA-ARZOLA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A74-652-297

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Maria Luz Mata-Arzola (Mata) petitions this court for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her

request for cancellation of removal. She argues that the BIA

erred when it determined that her continuous physical presence in

the United States terminated in February 1993 when she departed

the United States under threat of institution of removal

proceedings. 
No. 02-60781

-2-

 This court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order

denying cancellation of removal. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft,

349 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 2003). To be eligible for a

discretionary cancellation of removal, an alien must satisfy four

requirements, one of which is 10 years of continuous physical

presence in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A);

Mireles-Valdez, 349 F.3d at 214-15. The Attorney General has

determined that voluntary departure under the threat of removal

proceedings interrupts continuous presence. See Mireles-Valdez,

349 F.3d at 218. This court has upheld the Attorney General’s

determination. See id. 

PETITION DENIED.
281 (1997) (noting that this court generally will not consider writ petitions 

challenging orders denying motions to dismiss). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

, J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. James Crockett, District Judge 

Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders 

Eglet Prince 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 441/193»
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Ransom English, as Committee of the Estate of Bennie English, an Incompetent, Respondent. Carl R. Gray, Jr., as Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, Appellant; Harry Sammet, Special Guardian, Respondent.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND FEDERAL GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3451 

To designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located 

at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the ‘‘Frederick 

P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2011 

Mr. MCKINLEY (for himself, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West 

Virginia, as the ‘‘Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

5 located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Vir6 ginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Frederick 

7 P. Stamp, Jr. Federal building and United States Court8 house’’. 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3451 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 Building and United States Courthouse referred to in sec5 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frederick 

6 P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Court7 house’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Parties, Inc., Respondent, v. Kagran Corporation, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No

opinion. Present — Cohn, J. P., Callahan, Breitel, Bastow and Botein, JJ.
§ 1031.17 Background. ( a ) In a Federal Register Notice (Vol. 69, No. 200) dated October 18, 2004, the CPSC announced that it was launching a pilot program to open CPSC staff activities for public review and comment. The pilot program covered information on CPSC staff participation with respect to a cross-section of voluntary standards, including advance notice of proposed staff positions on issues to be considered by voluntary standards organizations. The program was based on the premise that increased public awareness and participation would enhance the quality and conclusions of the proposed recommendations made by CPSC staff.
( b ) The pilot program ended on April 18, 2005, after a 6-month period. CPSC invited general comments on whether to continue the programs beyond the pilot period and solicited suggestions for improving the program.
( c ) On July 28, 2005, the CPSC staff submitted to the Commission an assessment of the pilot program's results, including data that indicated the voluntary standards site ranked among the top 20 directories visited on the CPSC Web site. Further, the report included the staff's recommendation that the voluntary standards Web site be expanded to include information on all standards activities.
( d ) On August 4, 2005, in accordance with the staff's recommendation, the Commission voted unanimously to continue the voluntary standards program and expand it to include all voluntary standards activities.
No: III-13-041 November 5, 2013

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Names New Senior Resident Inspector at Byron Nuclear Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected James 

McGhee as the new Senior Resident Inspector at the Byron nuclear 

power plant in Byron, Ill., approximately 17 miles southwest of 

Rockford. The nuclear power facility is operated by Exelon 

Generation Co.

Each commercial nuclear power plant site in the United 

States has at least two Resident Inspectors who monitor day-to-day 

operations at the plant. McGhee joins NRC Resident Inspector 

John Robbins at the Byron facility.

“James McGhee’s background and regulatory experience will assist the NRC in carrying out its 

mission of protecting people and the environment and ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power 

plants,” said Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson.

McGhee joined the NRC in 2005 as a reactor engineer in Region III and then served as the senior 

resident inspector at the Quad Cities nuclear power plant. Prior to joining the agency, he served six years 

in the U.S. Navy and worked in the commercial nuclear industry. McGhee holds a bachelor’s degree in 

nuclear engineering technology from Regents College of the University of the State of New York, now 

known as Excelsior College. He has more than 38 years of nuclear experience.

The NRC resident inspectors at the Byron plant and can be reached at 815 234-5451.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in each of the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-53222), Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-86968) and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-107079) pertaining to TradeStation Group, Inc. and subsidiaries
of our reports dated March 12, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of TradeStation Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of TradeStation Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                          |                              |                      
|------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ---------------------
|                          |                              | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                          | Certified Public Accountants
|West Palm Beach, Florida, |                              |                      
|March 12, 2008.           |                              |
§ 801.6 Penalties specified by law. ( a ) *Civil penalties.* Whoever fails to furnish any information required by the Act or to comply with any rule, regulation, order or instruction promulgated under the Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $2,500, and not more than $25,000, and to injunctive relief commanding such person to comply, or both (see 22 U.S.C. 3105(a) and (b)). These civil penalties are subject to inflationary adjustments (15 CFR 6.4.).
( b ) *Criminal penalties.* Whoever willfully fails to submit any information required by the Act or willfully violates any rule, regulation, order or instruction promulgated under the Act, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than $10,000 and, if an individual, may be imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. Any officer, director, employee, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violations, upon conviction, may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment or both (see 22 U.S.C. 3105(c)).