alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Supplement to License Amendment Request 16-03 Revise Current Licensing Basis to Adopt a Methodology for the Analysis of Seismic Category I Structures with Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction.

Accession Number: ML16279A047

Date Released: Friday, October 7, 2016

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.
    - ML16279A048 - Seabrook Station Supplement to License Amendment Request 16-03 to Revise Current Licensing Basis to Adopt a Methodology for the Analysis of Seismic Category I Structures with Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction. (15 page(s), 9/30/2016)
    - ML16279A049 - Enclosure 2: Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., "Evaluation and Design Confirmation of As-Deformed CEB, 150252-CA-02," Revision 0, July 2016 (Seabrook FP#100985). (527 page(s), 7/31/2016)
    - ML16279A050 - Enclosure 3: MPR-4153, Revision 2, "Seabrook Station-Approach for Determining Through-Thickness Expansion from Alkali-Silica Reaction," July 2016 (Seabrook FP# 100918) (Non-proprietary). (34 page(s), 7/31/2016)
    - ML16279A051 - Calculation 0326-0062-CLC-03, Rev. 2, "Correlation Between Through-Thickness Expansion and Elastic Modulus in Concrete Test Specimens Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR)." (30 page(s), 7/19/2016)
    - ML16279A052 - Calculation 0326-0062-CLC-01, Rev. 0, "Evaluation of ACI Equation for Elastic Modulus." (21 page(s), 1/29/2015)
    - ML16279A053 - Calculation 0326-0074-CLC-02, Rev. 0, "Compressive Strength Values for Concrete at Seabrook Station." (13 page(s), 1/28/2015)
    - ML16279A054 - Calculation 0326-0062-CLC-04, Rev. 0, "Calculation of Through-Wall Expansion from Alkali-Silica Reaction To-Date at Seabrook Station." (16 page(s), 7/19/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### Part 1—HUD Research
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3481 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3481

  To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service 
                     through the Lifeline program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2011

   Mr. Griffin of Arkansas introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit universal service support of commercial mobile service 
                     through the Lifeline program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LIFELINE SUPPORT FOR COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--A provider of commercial mobile service may not 
receive universal service support under sections 214(e) and 254 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 214(e); 254) for the provision of 
such service through the Lifeline program of the Federal Communications 
Commission.
    (b) Commercial Mobile Service Defined.--In this section, the term 
``commercial mobile service'' has the meaning given such term in 
section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
332(d)(1)).
                                 <all>
```
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 12, 2010

Decided May 13, 2010

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 3453

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

DAVID L. BROWN,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:09

‐ CR

‐ 10015

‐ 001

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge

.

O R D E R

David Brown pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute more than 50

grams of cocaine base. See 21 U.S.C. § 846. At Brown’s sentencing hearing the government

moved to reduce his sentence below the life

‐ time statutory minimum to reflect the value of

his assistance in the investigation and prosecution of other matters. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e).

The district court granted that motion and sentenced Brown to 244 months’ imprisonment,

but refused to consider other mitigating factors to further reduce his sentence. Brown

appeals, but his appointed counsel has concluded that his appeal is frivolous and moves to

withdraw. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited Brown to respond to

counsel’s motion, but he has declined to do so. See C IR

. R. 51(b). We limit our review to the

potential issue identified in counsel’s facially adequate brief. See United States v. Schuh

, 289

F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 3453 Page 2

Counsel initially advises that Brown does not want his guilty plea vacated, and thus

properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of

the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670

‐ 71 (7th Cir. 2002).

The only potential issue counsel identifies is whether Brown could challenge the

court’s refusal to further reduce his sentence for reasons other than his substantial

assistance. But we agree that this contention would be frivolous. As counsel notes, once a

district court decides that a defendant’s cooperation justifies a sentence below the statutory

floor, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), the court may not rely upon other mitigating factors in

§ 3553(a) to further reduce the sentence. United States v. Johnson

, 580 F.3d 666, 672

‐ 74 (7th

Cir. 2009), cert. denied

, 130 S. Ct. 1115 (2010).

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
§ 1702.12 Packaging specifications. Each petition for an exemption shall include the following information for each form of the product for which an exemption is sought: ( a ) A description of the packaging currently in use including the name of the manufacturer of the package and all specifications for the package,
( b ) A complete packaging description including any carton or wrapping in which the product is offered to the consumer,
( c ) A description of each size in which the product is offered, including physical form, color and flavoring, and
( d ) An empty sample of each type and size of package petitioned for exemption and, in the case of drugs, a designation of those packages intended to be used in dispensing the product to the consumer for household use.
### §13436. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–271, title I, §103(b)(2), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3306

Section, Pub. L. 102–486, title XX, §2026, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3066; Pub. L. 104–271, title I, §103(b)(1), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3306, related to a 5-year program on renewable hydrogen energy systems.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 104–271, title I, §103(b)(2), Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3306, provided that the repeal made by section 103(b)(2) is effective Oct. 1, 1998.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# 02/18/2015 Summary of Public Meeting to Discuss Concepts for the Proposed Cyber Security Rulemaking at Fuel Cycle Facilities.

Accession Number: ML16054A160

Date Released: Friday, March 11, 2016

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.
    - ML16054A181 - 02/18/2016 Summary of Public Meeting to Discuss Concepts for the Proposed Cyber Security Rulemaking at Fuel Cycle Facilities. (2 page(s), 3/3/2016)
    - ML16054A185 - 02/18/2016 Summary of Public Meeting to Discuss Concepts for the Proposed Cyber Security Rulemaking at Fuel Cycle Facilities - Enclosure 1. (2 page(s), 3/3/2016)
    - ML16054A186 - 02/18/2016 Summary of Public Meeting to Discuss Concepts for the Proposed Cyber Security Rulemaking at Fuel Cycle Facilities -  Enclosure 2 - Attendees List. (2 page(s), 3/3/2016)
    - ML16054A187 - 2-18-16 - Enclosure 3 - Final Handout for Cyber Security Public Meeting. (4 page(s), 3/3/2016)
    - ML16054A188 - 2-18-16 - Enclosure 4 - Slides for Cyber Security Meeting. (7 page(s), 2/18/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 1615.62 Policy and interpretation relative to items in inventory or as to recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) The Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 0 through 6X (FF 3-71) (subpart A of this part) was published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1971, at 36 FR 14062 *et seq.,* and amended in the Federal Register of July 21, 1972 (37 FR 14624). The Notice of Standard provided at 36 FR 14063 that “Items in inventory or with the trade on the effective date of the Standard are exempt. All concerned parties shall be required to maintain records that these items offered for sale after the effective date of the Standard are eligible for the exemption.”
( b ) The Children's Sleepwear Standard was amended on July 21, 1972, at 37 FR 14624 *et seq.* to incorporate a sleepwear sampling plan therein and to make certain nonsubstantive technical corrections as to the test equipment. The effective date remained the same. In issuance of such amendment the Notice of Amendment specified at 37 FR 14625 that “It is emphasized that the only substantive change made to the standard involves the amendment necessary to include the sampling plan.”
( c ) The Notice of Amendment did not repeat the language in the original 1971 Notice of Standard relative to items in inventory or as to recordkeeping requirements.
( d ) Questions have arisen under this standard as to the application of the standard to goods manufactured outside the United States prior to the effective date of the standard on July 29, 1972, as to whether a person claiming the exemption specified in the standard must maintain records showing eligibility for exemption from the standard.
( e ) In the Commission's view, the provisions of the July 29, 1971, Notice of Standard as to exemption of items of children's sleepwear in inventory or with the trade on the effective date of the standard and as to the necessity of maintenance of records to show eligibility for such exemption are in full force and effect.
Note:
This policy was published by the Federal Trade Commission on January 31, 1973 (38 FR 3014). It continues in effect.
§ 318.6 Content of notice. Regardless of the method by which notice is provided to individuals under § 318.5 (regarding methods of notice), notice of a breach of security shall be in plain language and include, to the extent possible, the following: ( a ) A brief description of what happened, including: the date of the breach and the date of the discovery of the breach, if known; and the full name or identity (or, where providing the full name or identity would pose a risk to individuals or the entity providing notice, a description) of any third parties that acquired unsecured PHR identifiable health information as a result of a breach of security, if this information is known to the vendor of personal health records or PHR related entity;
( b ) A description of the types of unsecured PHR identifiable health information that were involved in the breach (such as but not limited to full name, Social Security number, date of birth, home address, account number, health diagnosis or condition, lab results, medications, other treatment information, the individual's use of a health-related mobile application, or device identifier (in combination with another data element));
( c ) Steps individuals should take to protect themselves from potential harm resulting from the breach;
( d ) A brief description of what the entity that experienced the breach is doing to investigate the breach, to mitigate harm, to protect against any further breaches, and to protect affected individuals, such as offering credit monitoring or other services; and
( e ) Contact procedures for individuals to ask questions or learn additional information, which must include two or more of the following: toll-free telephone number; email address; website; within-application; or postal address.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 OF MARYLAND

 

Misc. Docket AG No. 30 

September Term, 2016 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

OF MARYLAND

v. 

MARK KOTLARSKY

Barbera, C.J. 

Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts 

Hotten

Getty,

 JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: April 4, 2017 

Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Case No. 32608-M

Argued: April 4, 2017
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * In the

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND 

 * Court of Appeals 

 

v. * of Maryland 

 

* Misc. Docket AG No. 30

MARK KOTLARSKY 

* September Term, 2016 

 

 

 PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it 

is this 4th day of April 2017, 

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the 

Respondent, Mark Kotlarsky be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective 

immediately, from the further practice of law in the State of 

Maryland; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of 

Mark Kotlarsky from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to 

Maryland Rule 19-761, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of 

the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals 

in the State; and it is further 

ORDERED that Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the 

Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 19-709, for which sum judgment is entered in favor 

of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Mark 

Kotlarsky.

/s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
No. I-16-023 July 27, 2016 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331 

Missing Portable Nuclear Gauge Recovered in Connecticut

A Connecticut company has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that a portable 

nuclear gauge reported stolen early Tuesday has been recovered. The gauge, which was located by 

police Tuesday afternoon at a pawn shop in Bridgeport, Conn., was not damaged.

An inspector from Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection traveled 

to the shop Tuesday to inspect the gauge. Once the inspector confirmed the device was undamaged, it 

was returned to its owner.

The NRC is following up on the event. This includes an NRC inspection being conducted today 

at the offices of HAKS Material Testing Group in Bridgeport.

On Tuesday morning, HAKS Material Testing Group reported to the NRC that the gauge was 

stolen from a technician’s vehicle while it was parked in Bridgeport. The vehicle’s trunk was broken 

into, chains securing the gauge in place were cut and it was removed.

The gauge is used for such industrial purposes as measuring the density of soil at construction 

sites. It contains small amounts of radioactive material that is shielded within the device when it is not 

in use.
|  |
|--|
|  |

| Untitled Document
  | Yarn Production (MA22F)**NOTE: ASCII text files are       replaced with Portable Data Format (PDF) files. Worksheet files are available       only in the WK3 format. Please direct any questions and/or comments by e-mail       to our Information Services Center.**********Frequency: annual **PDF FORMAT** Years available |        1999 |        1998 |        1997 | **TEXT FILE FOR VIEWING (ASCll       text)** Years available |        1997 |        1996 |        1995 |        1994 |        1993 |        1992 |**WORKSHEET FILES ('WKl' format)** Years available |        1997 |        1996 |        1995 |        1994 |        1993 |**WORKSHEET FILES ('WK3' format)** Years available |        1999 |        1998 |        1997 |*******Data are available before       1992. Send your request by e-mail       or call the Information Services Center at (301) 457-4673, or fax (301)       457-4632.*****Go back to list of Current Industrial Reports**
Census 2000 |  Subjects A to Z  |  Search |  Product Catalog  |  Data Access Tools |  FOIA   |  Privacy · Policies |  Contact Us |  Home
Last revised:Wednesday, 08-Nov-00 12:57:19 

  |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,755-01

EX PARTE LOUIE ROLAND GARCIA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2017CR12158-W1 IN THE 226TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam. YEARY, J., filed a concurring opinion. 

O R D E R

Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to eight

years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends, among other things, that he is actually innocent. The trial court made

findings of fact, concluded that Applicant had established that he is actually innocent, and

recommended that we grant him a new trial. We believe that the record is not adequate to resolve

whether Applicant is actually innocent. The trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). If the trial court elects to develop the record, it may use
2

any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). Applicant appears to be represented by counsel. If he is

not and the trial court holds a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant

is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent

him at the hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. If counsel is appointed or retained, the

trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name.

The trial court shall make furtherfindings of fact and determine whetherApplicant possessed

quantities of methamphetamine not found in the bathroom area of the house where, he and his codefendant maintain, the confidential informant planted drugs. The trial court shall then determine 1

whether Applicant committed a lesser-included offense of the charges set out in the indictment and

whether he has established that he is actually innocent. See State v. Wilson, 324 S.W.3d 595, 598

(Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (“We hold that the term ‘actual innocence’ shall apply, in Texas state cases,

only in circumstances in which an accused did not, in fact, commit the charged offense or any of the

lesser-included offenses.”). The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it

deems appropriate in response to Applicant’s claims.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

 According to the record, a large bundle wrapped in tape containing 1,102 grams of 1

methamphetamine was found behind a loose board in the bathroom area.
3

Filed: November 18, 2020

Do not publish
#### In the Matter of Gary Hayes et al., Respondents, v New York State Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and James P. Powers, Appellant.

[819 NYS2d 629]

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McNamara, J.), entered August 3, 2006 in Albany County, which granted petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare invalid the designating petition naming respondent James F. Powers as the Republican *661Party candidate for the public office of Member of the State Assembly for the 127th Assembly District in the September 12, 2006 primary election.

In July 2006, a designating petition was filed with respondent State Board of Elections purporting to name respondent James P. Powers (hereinafter respondent) as the Republican Party candidate for the public office of Member of the State Assembly for the 127th Assembly District in this year’s primary election. The office sought by respondent was described on the designating petition as “127th Assembly District.” Petitioners thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102 seeking to declare the designating petition invalid because the description of the office sought failed to properly indicate the public office that respondent intended to seek. Supreme Court granted petitioners’ application to invalidate the designating petition, concluding that although respondent adequately described the geographic territory from which he was a candidate, he failed to sufficiently identify the title of the public office or party position sought. This appeal by respondent ensued.

We affirm. Because both a Member of the Assembly and a delegate to the judicial convention are selected from the 127th Assembly District (see Election Law § 6-124), simply denoting the geographic territory without reference to the title of the public office or position sought is not “ ‘sufficiently informative ... so as to preclude any reasonable probability of confusing or deceiving the signers, voters or board of elections’ ” *(Matter of Dipple v Devine,*218 AD2d 918, 918-919 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 704 [1995], quoting *Matter of Donnelly v McNab,*83 AD2d 896 [1981], *lv denied*54 NY2d 603 [1981]; *see Matter of Bliss v Nobles,*297 AD2d 457, 458 [2002]; *Matter of Dunlea v New York State Bd. of Elections,*275 AD2d 589, 590 [2000]; *Matter of Jacobson v Schermerhorn,*104 AD2d 534 [1984]; *Matter of Denn v Mahoney,*64 AD2d 1007, 1008 [1978]). The fact that two judicial districts are contained in the 127th Assembly District does not compel a contrary result inasmuch as the judicial convention delegates are nonetheless selected based upon such Assembly district *(see*Election Law § 6-124). Inasmuch as the title of the office being sought cannot be discerned by recourse to information contained in the designating petition *(see Matter of Bliss v Nobles, supra*at 458; *Matter of Denn v Mahoney, supra*at 1008), respondent’s designating petition was properly invalidated by Supreme Court.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.