alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No: II-16-001 January 4, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC To Conduct Special Inspection at Oconee Nuclear Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will begin a special inspection Tuesday at Duke Energy’s 

Oconee nuclear power plant to assess the degradation of power cables on startup transformers for two 

of the plant’s three units.

The plant is located near Seneca, S.C., about 30 miles west of Greenville.

A plant operator making routine inspections on Dec. 7 discovered a disconnected cable that 

should have been connected to the Unit 3 startup transformer. Upon further inspection, it was 

determined that other cables linked to the Unit 1 startup transformer were in a degraded condition. All

of the cables have been repaired and the transformers are available for use if needed.

“There was not an event in which the startup transformers were needed, but they play a very 

important role in some circumstances by providing electrical power to plant safety equipment,” said 

Leonard Wert, acting NRC Region II administrator. “We felt a special inspection was warranted to 

gather more information about Duke’s response and also determine if there are generic issues that may 

apply to other plants.”

The on-site inspectors for the special inspection are the senior resident inspector from the 

Oconee plant and an inspector from the NRC’s Region II office in Atlanta. Another NRC expert from 

Atlanta will not travel to the site, but will assist in reviewing the data gathered. The team’s work will 

include a review of the circumstances surrounding the degradation and failure of the cables and the 

utility’s actions after the degraded conditions were identified. It will also develop a timeline on when 

the cables were damaged and/or failed, and review Duke’s testing and maintenance practices.

The on-site portion of the inspection will take several days. A report documenting the results 

should be issued within 45 days of the completion of the inspection.
#### Iola Hardwick, Appellant, v. Samuel H. Gardiner, Respondent.

Memorandum: There is no appeal from that part of the order granting plaintiff summary judgment against the defendant and such order for judgment may not be disturbed. The only appeal before this court is from that part of the order which stays execution for ten days to permit the defendant to serve an amended answer. The defendant’s time to amend, of course, had expired. The court had no authority to grant defendant permission to serve an amended answer, upon mere request of counsel, and to stay execution pending such service. All concur. (The portion of the order appealed from allows a stay of execution.) Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ENACTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ardent Health
Services LLC (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, R.
Dirk Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

    (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                     /s/ R. Dirk Allison
                                                     -------------------
                                                     R. Dirk Allison
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     May 17, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Howard Forrest Risher v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00625-CR

Trial court case number: 1513823

Trial court: 208th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s appointed counsel has moved to withdraw from this appeal and filed a brief 

concluding that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Under 

Anders, if appointed counsel concludes after reviewing the record and applicable law that the 

appeal is without merit, counsel must advise the court, file a motion to withdraw, and file a brief 

discussing any issue that might arguably support the appeal. See id. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The appellate court must then perform an independent 

examination of the record and the law to determine whether the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 

386 U.S. at 744. The question before us is not who will ultimately prevail but instead whether any 

non-frivolous issue exists. If the court determines that there are arguable issues, it must abate the 

appeal and remand with orders for the trial court to appoint new counsel. See Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Based on our independent review of the record and applicable law, we conclude that a 

nonfrivolous issue may exist. Accordingly, we strike counsel’s Anders brief and grant counsel’s 

motion to withdraw. We abate this appeal and remand the cause for the trial court to appoint new 

appellate counsel. The trial court is ordered to inform this Court in writing of the identity of new 

counsel and the date of appointment within 20 days of the date of this order. Appellant’s brief 

will be due 30 days after the trial court appoints new counsel. This appeal will be reinstated 

after the notice of appointment is received by this Court. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Gordon Goodman__________

 Acting individually 

Date: __May 14, 2019___
### §16139. Settlement agreement provisions

In any settlement agreement regarding alleged violations of environmental law in which a defendant agrees to perform a diesel emissions reduction Supplemental Environmental Project, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall require the defendant to include in the settlement documents a certification under penalty of law that the defendant would have agreed to perform a comparably valued, alternative project other than a diesel emissions reduction Supplemental Environmental Project if the Administrator were precluded by law from accepting a diesel emission reduction Supplemental Environmental Project. A failure by the Administrator to include this language in such a settlement agreement shall not create a cause of action against the United States under the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.] or any other law or create a basis for overturning a settlement agreement entered into by the United States.

(Pub. L. 110–255, §2, June 30, 2008, 122 Stat. 2423.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Clean Air Act, referred to in text, is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322, which is classified generally to chapter 85 (§7401 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which comprises this chapter.
### §14136c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14136c was editorially reclassified as section 40725 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Carver v. Tanner et al.

March 3, 1950.

John B. Rodes, Judge.

B. S. Rogers for appellant.

Noel P. Harper for appellee.

Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

This suit was brought to enjoin appellees and to recover damages for an alleged trespass on appellant’s land. The Chancellor awarded appellant nominal damages, and refused to grant the injunction.

Appellant’s land, and that surrounding it, has for a great many years been exploited for oil production. There are four oil leases on his and the adjoining property, all of which are owned by appellees. In the operations on three of the leases, there has been utilized for the purpose of discharging waste, principally salt water, an old road bed and ravine which runs through appellant’s land. No complaint is made of this user.

In 1946 appellees moved two separation tanks on one of their leases nearer appellant’s line in order to use a central power plant. Since that date, they have discharged waste which eventually, after traversing other property, reaches the stream flowing through his property.

*389The testimony regarding the amount of water or other waste discharged by appellees from these tanks is conflicting. It is not very substantial because of the limited operations. It amounts at most to an increase in the flow of water on appellant’s land. The Chancellor found that it did not cause any material damage.

Appellant’s position seems to be that regardless of the amount of damage, since the increased flow constituted a trespass, he was entitled to a permanent injunction. Proof shows that the granting of such relief would cause appellees a substantial hardship and would seriously interfere with their joint operations on all the oil leases. We think this situation calls for the application of the principle followed in Kentucky Electric Development Co.’s Receiver et al. v. Wells, 256 Ky. 203, 75 S. W. 2d 1088. In that case the defendant had increased the height of its dam several inches, thereby raising the level of water on plaintiff’s land. It was held that compelling the defendant to remove a seven inch addition to its concrete dam would impose upon it an undue hardship out of all proportion to the alleged injury caused the plaintiff, and the judgment was reversed insofar as it allowed injunctive relief.

Under the circumstances shown by this record, we believe that if appellees’ operations in the future cause appellant any substantial damage, he may recover at law for the permanent injury; and the Chancellor, in refusing to grant the injunction, did not abuse his judicial discretion.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is affirmed.
Part 5308 - Required Sources of Supplies and Services       DAFFARS PART 5308 Knowledge Center          **2019 Edition**          Revised: June 2023                                       Subpart 5308.4 - FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES                                                         5308.404 Use of Federal Supply Schedules                                                            5308.405-3 Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)                                                            5308.405-6 Limited Sources                                                                             Subpart 5308.7 - ACQUISITION FROM NONPROFIT AGENCIES EMPLOYING PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED                                                         5308.705 Procedures                                                            5308.707 Prices.    Subpart 5308.4 - FEDERAL SUPPLY SCHEDULES    5308.404 Use of Federal Supply Schedules       (h)(3)(ii)(C) See MP5301.601(a)(i). for approval of a T&M/LH order with a total performance period, including options, that is more than three years.5308.405-3 Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA)       (a)(3)(ii) See MP5301.601(a)(i). for approval to award a single-award Blanket Purchase Agreement with an estimated value exceeding $100 million (including any options).5308.405-6 Limited Sources       (b)(3)(ii)(C) See MP5301.601(a)(i) for approval of a written determination that access through e-Buy is not in Government's interest.         (a)-(d) Justification Approvals         See DAFFARS 5306.304 (a) for the approving officials for proposed orders or BPAs using the limited or sole source justification at FAR 8.405-6. See the tailorable Limited Sources Justification and Approval (J&A) template. See DAFFARS 5306.303-1-90 for “Bridge Actions.”Subpart 5308.7 - ACQUISITION FROM NONPROFIT AGENCIES EMPLOYING PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED    5308.705 Procedures       Refer to the AbilityOne Procurement Guidebook for acquiring products and services under 41 U.S.C., chapter 85 from nonprofit agencies employing people who are blind or severely disabled.         5308.707 Prices          Contracting Officers are required to obtain the Fair Market Price (FMP) Determination from the U.S. Ability One Commission prior to contract award. Please note that the self-inspection program at DAFFARS MP5301.601-91 reviews compliance with this requirement for contracts awarded under the AbilityOne program.5308.707 Prices.       Contracting Officers are required to obtain the Fair Market Price (FMP) Determination from the U.S. Ability One Commission prior to contract award. Please note that the self-inspection program at DAFFARS MP5301.601-91reviews compliance with this requirement for contracts awarded under the AbilityOne program.
### §16601. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 109–155, §2, Dec. 30, 2005, 119 Stat. 2897, which related to definitions, was transferred and is set out as a note under section 10101 of Title 51, National and Commercial Space Programs.
Part 5343 - Contract Modifications

DAFFARS PART 5343 Knowledge Center

Revised: June 2023

Subpart 5343.1 – GENERAL

5343.102-90 Contract Scope Considerations

Subpart 5343.2 – CHANGE ORDERS

5343.204-70-1 Scope

5343.204-70-3 Definitization Schedule

5343.204-70-5 Exceptions

5343.204-70-7 Plans and Reports

Subpart 5343.1 – GENERAL

5343.102 Policy

If the contract is a space program contract to which SSCI 64-101 applies, contracting officers shall

not execute contract modifications resulting from an engineering change proposal with a contractor

listed on the Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL) without obtaining SSC/CC approval (see

DAFFARS 5309.103(b)(i)).

5343.102-90 Contract Scope Considerations

Contracting officers shall document scope determination when modifying contracts (see the Scope

Determination – MFR template). New work requires competition unless one of the seven exceptions

to competition found in FAR 6.302 applies. When determining whether proposed modifications

constitute new work the following should be considered-

(a) the extent of any changes in the type of work, performance period, and costs between the

modification and the original contract;

(b) whether the original solicitation adequately advised offerors of the potential for the change or

the change was the type that reasonably could have been anticipated; and

(c) whether the modification materially changes the field of competition for the requirement.

For unilateral modifications authorized by clauses other than the Changes clause (e.g., Property

clause, Options clause, Suspension of Work, etc. (see FAR 43.103(b)(3)), a scope determination is

not required to be documented but is highly encouraged.
Subpart 5343.2 – CHANGE ORDERS

5343.204-70-1 Scope

(b) When complying with the requirements described in DFARS 243.204-70-1, SCOs must provide a

courtesy copy to the cognizant HCA workflow. Maintain proof of submission in the contract file.

5343.204-70-3 Definitization Schedule

(a) Contracting officers must document the contract file with the justification for the delay and

revised definitization milestone schedule.

5343.204-70-5 Exceptions

(c) See MP5301.601(a)(i).

5343.204-70-7 Plans and Reports

To comply with the Consolidated UCA Management Plan and Semi-annual Consolidated UCA

Management Report requirements described in DFARS 243.204-70-7, SCOs are required to ensure

unpriced change orders with an estimated value exceeding $5 million are input/updated in the UCA

Reporting tool on a semi-annual basis no later than April 10th and October 10th of each year. Special

access program offices will provide the information directly to the cognizant HCA, as appropriate.
#### §§ 204.12-204.29 [Reserved]
No: IV-16-021 October 28, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Proposed Violation

At Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with officials from the Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company on Nov. 15, to discuss a preliminary finding regarding the licensee’s failure to adequately 

maintain the emergency core cooling system at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis 

Obispo, Calif.

The public meeting, scheduled for 12:30 p.m., will be held at the NRC’s Region IV office at 

1600 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington, Texas. NRC officials will answer questions from the public following 

the business portion of the meeting. A telephone bridge will be available for the meeting by calling 

888-790-5880 and entering passcode 4630080.

Background

Each reactor at Diablo Canyon is equipped with two emergency core cooling systems that are 

used to provide cooling water to a reactor under some accident conditions. During a scheduled test 

conducted in May, workers discovered that a maintenance problem had rendered one of the Unit 2 

emergency core cooling systems inoperable for an extended period of time, beginning as early as 

October 2014.

A second emergency core cooling system was available had it been needed. The licensee has 

corrected the condition and changes have been made to maintenance procedures to prevent recurrence. 

The issue is described in an NRC inspection report.

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear plants with a color-coded 

process that categorizes inspection findings as green, white, yellow or red in order of increasing safety 

significance. The NRC has preliminarily determined that the inspection finding has low to moderate 

(white) safety significance, which may require additional inspections, regulatory actions and oversight.

No decision on the final safety significance of the finding or any additional NRC actions are 

expected to be made at the conference. That decision will be announced at a later time and documented 

in an NRC inspection report.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6369
PERRY RUSSELL EVERETT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Mary land, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1216-H) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Perry Russell Everett, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Everett v. Corcoran , No. CA-97-1216-H (D. Md. Feb. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.333-126656, Form S-3 No. 333-122055 and Form S-3No. 333-63918) of Arden Realty Limited Partnership and in the related Prospectuses of our reports datedMarch 9, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Arden Realty LimitedPartnership, Arden Realty Limited Partnership management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Arden Realty Limited Partnership included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2005./s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP                                        Los Angeles, California
### §15834. Report on failure to comply with deadlines for new or revised energy conservation standards

#### (a) Initial report

The Secretary shall submit a report to Congress regarding each new or revised energy conservation or water use standard which the Secretary has failed to issue in conformance with the deadlines established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act [42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.]. Such report shall state the reasons why the Secretary has failed to comply with the deadline for issuances of the new or revised standard and set forth the Secretary's plan for expeditiously prescribing such new or revised standard. The Secretary's initial report shall be submitted not later than 6 months following August 8, 2005, and subsequent reports shall be submitted whenever the Secretary determines that additional deadlines for issuance of new or revised standards have been missed.

#### (b) Implementation report

Every 6 months following the submission of a report under subsection (a) until the adoption of a new or revised standard described in such report, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress an implementation report describing the Secretary's progress in implementing the Secretary's plan or the issuance of the new or revised standard.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §141, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 648.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 94–163, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 871, which is classified principally to chapter 77 (§6201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6201 of this title and Tables.