alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(No. 39528.

#### The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, *vs.*Sam DeStefano, Appellant.

*Opinion filed September 23, 1966.*

*262Anna R. Lavin, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for appellant.

William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and Patrick A. Tuite, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice House

delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant, Sam DeStefano, was tried by a jury in the circuit court of Cook County, and convicted of conspiring with others to cause perjury to be committed. He was fined $1,000 and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three to five years. He has prosecuted a direct appeal to this court contending: (1) that the indictment failed to charge a crime; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to convict; (3) that improper argument occurred; (4) that the jury was improperly instructed; (5) that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a change of the place of trial; (6) that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to discharge the venire, and his further motion that he be granted extra peremptory challenges; and (7) that “the State failed to put defendant to trial within four months after his first demand for trial, without any fault on his part,in violation of Article 2, Section 9 of the Constitution, and Sec. 103 — 5” of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 111. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 103 — 5.

No effort has been made by defendant to assert or establish the basis upon which this court has jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal. (See: Rule 28 — iA, 111. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap, no, par. 101.28 — iA.) Apparently our jurisdiction is intended to rest on the last' claim asserted, the single contention which has been buttressed by constitutional citation. This court recently said: “As a practical matter the statute *263operates to prevent the constitutional issue from arising except in cases involving prolonged delay, or novel issues such as were presented in *People*v. *Moriarity,*(1965) 33 Ill.2d 606, and *People*v. *Bryarly,*(1962) 23 Ill.2d 313. It does not follow, however, that the statutory requirement is the precise equivalent of the constitutional guaranty.” *(People*v. *Stuckey,*34 Ill.2d 521, 523.) This case does not present the unusual features which would elevate it to constitutional status.

The suggestions that defendant was denied a fair trial because the trial court denied his motion to change the place of trial and his motion to discharge the venire do not present a substantial constitutional question giving us jurisdiction. Both motions were directed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the only issue on appeal is the correctness of its rulings. An issue of this character raises no constitutional question. *Cf. People*v. *Smith,*30 Ill.2d 622.

Since there are no issues raised which afford this court jurisdiction, the cause is transferred to the Appellate Court, First District.

*Cause transferred.*
### [§1713. Renumbered §1781]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1713 was renumbered section 3513 of this title.
Exhibit 31.4


CERTIFICATION


I, Elizabeth Eby, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No 1, of NeoPhotonics Corporation;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


Date: August 9, 2019





/S/  ELIZABETH EBYElizabeth EbySenior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
§ 908.6 Final report. Upon completion of a weather modification project or activity the person who performed the same shall submit a report to the Administrator not later than 45 days after completion of the project or activity. The report shall include the file number assigned by the Administrator and the following items: ( a ) Information required for the interim reports (to the extent not previously reported).
( b ) The total number of days on which actual modification activities took place during the project or activity.
( c ) The total number of days during the project or activity on which weather modification activities were conducted, segregated by each of the major purposes of the activities.
( d ) The total number of hours of operation of each type of weather modification apparatus during the project or activity (*i.e.*, net hours of agent release).
( e ) The total amount of modification agent(s) dispensed during the project or activity. If more than one agent was used, each should be totaled separately (e.g., carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, urea, silver iodide).
( f ) The date on which the final weather modification activity occurred.
[41 FR 23394, June 10, 1976, as amended at 46 FR 32233, June 22, 1981]
No: III-14-011 March 25, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Names New Resident Inspector at Duane Arnold Nuclear Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Jakob Steffes as the 

new Resident Inspector at the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant in Palo, Iowa, 

approximately eight miles northwest of Cedar Rapids. The nuclear power facility 

is operated by NextEra Energy Duane Arnold, LLC.

“Jakob Steffes is an excellent inspector with a firm commitment to safety. 

He will help the NRC fulfill its mission of protecting people and the environment 

by ensuring the Duane Arnold plant operates at the high standards set by the 

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

Steffes joined the NRC in 2011 as a reactor engineer in Region III. Prior 

to joining the agency, he served six years in the U.S. Navy, four of those years on 

board the USS Greenville as a reactor operator. Steffes holds a bachelor’s and master’s degree in nuclear 

engineering and radiological sciences from the University of Michigan.

Each commercial nuclear power plant site in the United States has at least two NRC Resident 

Inspectors who monitor day-to-day operations at the plant. Steffes joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector 

Luke Haeg at the Duane Arnold facility. The NRC Resident Inspectors can be reached at 319-851-5111.
### §10002. Statement of purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to—

(1) provide for the establishment of minimum standards by the Federal Government for the accreditation of education programs for persons who administer radiologic procedures and for the certification of such persons; and

(2) insure that medical and dental radiologic procedures are consistent with rigorous safety precautions and standards.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §977, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 599.)
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Karl Patrick Houlditch, Appellant

No. 06-14-00207-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 71st District Court of 

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13-

0263X). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Karl Patrick Houlditch, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED OCTOBER 30, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### SUBCHAPTER X—ENERGY AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
#### § 930.37 Consistency determinations and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.

A Federal agency may use its NEPA documents as a vehicle for its consistency determination or negative determination under this subpart. However, a Federal agency's federal consistency obligations under the Act are independent of those required under NEPA and are not necessarily fulfilled by the submission of a NEPA document. State agencies shall not require Federal agencies to submit NEPA documents as information required pursuant to § 930.39. If a Federal agency includes its consistency determination or negative determination in a NEPA document, the Federal agency shall ensure that the NEPA document includes the information and adheres to the timeframes required by this subpart. Federal agencies and State agencies should mutually agree on how to best coordinate the requirements of NEPA and the Act.

[65 FR 77154, Dec. 8, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 827, Jan. 5, 2006]
No: 13-051 June 10, 2013

CONTACT: Dave McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Announces Public Availability of License Renewal Application for

Braidwood and Byron Nuclear Power Plants in Illinois

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received an application from Exelon Generation Co. 

to renew the operating licenses for the Braidwood and Byron nuclear power plants in Illinois. The 

application is now available for public inspection on the NRC website.

Exelon filed the application, dated May 29, seeking to renew the operating licenses for an 

additional 20 years of operation. The Braidwood Nuclear Station, located 20 miles southwest of Joliet, 

and the Byron Nuclear Station, located 17 miles southwest of Rockford, each have two pressurizedwater reactors. The current operating licenses for Braidwood expire on Oct. 17, 2026, for Unit 1 and 

Dec. 18, 2027, for Unit 2. The licenses for Byron expire Oct. 31, 2024, for Unit 1 and Nov. 6, 2026, for 

Unit 2.

Exelon, in submitting a single application to cover both plants, cited extensive similarities in 

the systems, structures and components of each that are analyzed in a license renewal review. The NRC 

staff is currently reviewing the application to determine if it is sufficiently complete to begin its 

extensive safety and environmental reviews. If the application is determined to be complete, the staff 

will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The application and information about the license renewal process are available on the NRC 

website. Copies of the application are also available at the Byron Public Library, 100 S. Washington St., 

in Byron, and the Fossil Ridge Public Library at 386 W. Kennedy Road in Braidwood.
#### § 838.234 Collection of arrearages.

Specific instructions are required before OPM may pay any arrearage. Except as provided in § 838.225(b), OPM will not increase a former spouse's share of employee annuity to satisfy an arrearage due the former spouse. However, under § 838.225, OPM will prospectively honor the terms of an amended court order that either increases or decreases the court order's entitlement.
NRC TO INCREASE OVERSIGHT OF CONCRETE DEGRADATION REVIEWS

INVOLVING SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct additional inspections and reviews to 

independently verify and assess work being done to address concrete degradation identified at the 

Seabrook nuclear power plant. The single-reactor facility is located in Seabrook, N.H., and is 

operated by NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.

 The NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process does not prescribe increased oversight based on the 

company’s performance in this area. However, “the (agency) staff believes the additional 

inspections and assessments are needed to support the review of licensee commitments and planned 

large-scale concrete specimen testing by the licensee, the development of staff technical guidance, 

and stakeholder communications and outreach activities,” NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean 

wrote in a memorandum to Executive Director for Operations William Borchardt.

That request for further resources has now been approved via the “Deviation 

Memorandum,” which refers to a deviation from the Reactor Oversight Process.

The degradation of concrete in some areas of specific structures at the Seabrook plant is 

being caused by an alkali silica reaction, or ASR. ASR is a chemical combining of reactive silica 

from the concrete aggregate with the alkali from the cement paste in the presence of moisture. The 

result of the reaction is a gel, which can expand and may cause micro-cracks in the concrete.

 While the extent of the problem at Seabrook is still being evaluated, the NRC has 

determined that the structures identified to be affected by ASR can perform their safety function 

when called upon.

A copy of the Deviation Memorandum and other documents related to the Seabrook ASR 

issue are available on the NRC’s web site at: www.nrc.gov.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link

on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to 

NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, Pa. 19406-2713

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. I-12-036

Contact: Diane Screnci, (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, (610) 337-5331

September 14, 2012

Email: opa1.resource@nrc.gov
#### Sada M. Abrahams et al., v. American Steel & Wire Co. et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Bastow and Rabin, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 880.]
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, R. Brooks Sherman Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Inergy Holdings, L.P. (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared:

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and present in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 10, 2006



/s/ R. Brooks Sherman, Jr.R. Brooks Sherman, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




45
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

GLEN ALLEN PARKER, II, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1985 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed September 11, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lara E. Breslow, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
### Part C—Patient Safety Improvement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO THE

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW

EXAMINERS

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 978

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2024, Adam C. Bonin, Esquire, Philadelphia, 

is hereby appointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners for a term 

of three years, commencing April 1, 2024.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 20603

**Mark Douglas Adams,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus
**Keri Blakinger,** Editor Houston Chronicle Newspaper **; John Bridges,**  Editor Austin Newspaper **; Louie Gohmert,** U.S. Representative **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CV

- 1843

Before **Southwick, Graves,** and **Costa,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Mark Douglas Adams, Texas prisoner # 1509320 , seeks leave to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Adams fails

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 29, 2022 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 20-20603 Document: 00516257975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022No. 20

- 20603

2 to make any relevant or coherent response to the district court’s order . He thus identifies no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See McGarrah v. Alford , 783 F.3d 584 , 584 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly , the IFP motion is **DENIED ,**  and the appeal is **DISMISSED** as frivolous. See id. ; **5th Cir. R.** 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal and this dismissal count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson , 575 U.S. 532, 537

- 38 (2015). In addition, while this appeal was pending, another district court imposed a strike. Adams v. Lumpkin , No. 4:21

- CV

- 1088, 2022 WL 425978, at *6 ( S.D. Tex. Feb. 10 , 2022). Adams now has three strikes. See Coleman , 575 U.S. at 537 . A dams is now **BARRED** from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical i njury. § 1915(g) ; see McGarrah , 783 F.3d at 585

. IFP **DENIED** ; appeal **DISMISSED** ; § 1915(g) bar **IMPOSED**

. Case: 20-20603 Document: 00516257975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. IV-12-041

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

October 04, 2012 

 E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC PROPOSES $11,200 FINE TO AVERA MCKENNAN HOSPITAL

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed an $11,200 fine to the Avera 

McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D. for failure to implement procedures that protect patients 

undergoing internal radiation therapy known as brachytherapy. This violation resulted in 

significant and unintended radiation exposure to a patient’s skin on two separate occasions.

The hospital provides brachytherapy treatments to irradiate cancerous tumors inside the body. 

A treatment planning computer programs the source to travel a specified distance inside a catheter to 

the target treatment area. 

On Jan. 17, the hospital’s Radiation Safety Officer notified the NRC of two incidents involving 

a patient who received an unintended exposure directly to the skin on two different days. This occurred 

because of an error in programming the computer that controls the device. 

The NRC has categorized the violation as a Severity Level 2, the second most serious under the 

NRC enforcement program, for events that could have very serious consequences. In determining this 

severity level, the NRC established that the cause of the treatment error was a lack of checks and 

balances to ensure correct procedures are verified and followed when treating patients. When the 

source came into direct contact with the patient’s skin, it resulted in a burn. 

On June 13, NRC issued an inspection report (ML12166A427) detailing the events. 

Avera McKennan responded in a July 12 (ML12200A299) letter describing the immediate and 

long-term corrective actions. Although the licensee did take actions to prevent a reoccurrence, the 

NRC is issuing double the base penalty of $5,600 due to an unintended dose to a 

patient because of poor performance by the licensee. 

Copies of the enforcement actions will be posted on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions. The results of the NRC 

inspection can be found in Inspection Report 030-11252/2012-001 and ADAMS Accession 

Number ML12166A427.

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link on 

the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's 

website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011-4511

Telephone: (817) 860-8100

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
# AY R E S Flight Log

Safety is no accident. The following checklist must be performed prior to all UAS

flights

Date: ___________ Project: ______________ Pilot: ___________

Spotter:

_________ Altitude: ______________ Speed: __________

Location: _________ Flight Lines: __________ Flight Time: ______

System: _________ SN: _______________

Signature 1:

Print name:

Signature 2:

Print name:
#### § 1500.1 Scope of subchapter.

Set forth in this subchapter C are the regulations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued pursuant to and for the implementation of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act as amended (see § 1500.3(a)(1)).