alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11065 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DAROLD ELLSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-30-1-Y

-------------------- April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Darold Ellsworth appeals his sentence of 139 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release after pleading guilty to possession of Ephedrin with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred by increasing his offense level based on the quantity of drugs and his possession of a weapon. This court specifically rejected Ellsworth’s argument that Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) rendered 21 U.S.C.No. 01-11065 -2- § 841(b) facially unconstitutional. United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000 ). Apprendi is not authority for invalidating Ellsworth’s sentence for the additional reason that Ellsworth’s sentence of 139 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release does not exceed the statutory maximum of twenty years provided in 21 U.S.C. § 841(d)(1). United States v. Keith , 230 F.3d 784, 787 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[A] fact used in sentencing that does not increase a penalty beyond the statutory maximum need not be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) As the Government correctly points out, Ellsworth’s sentence was not determined based on drug quantity and weapon possession as he contends. Ellsworth was determined to be a career offender, and his offense level was determined based on the career offender provisions of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, making Ellsworth’s arguments on appeal irrelevant.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on FormF-3 (No. 333-130230) and Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.333-176935, 333-137838, 333-116670 and 333-85290) of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD of our report
dated April 18, 2016 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers, Taiwan
|Taipei, Taiwan Republic of
China  
|April 18, 2016
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of license: Crawford, Charles E, Station NEW, Facility ID 191560, BMPH-20140929AAX, From Sonora, TX, To Christoval, TX; Everglades City Broadcasting Company, Inc., Station WBGY, Facility ID 47386, BPED-20140825ABL, From Naples, FL, To Everglades City, FL; Penfold Communications, Inc., Station KRTM, Facility ID 91840, BPED-20150113AAE, From Yucca Valley, CA, To Banning, CA; Rudex Broadcasting Limited Corporation, Station KSDT, Facility ID 36830, BP-20141124BHJ, From Hemet, CA, To Redlands, CA; Solid Rock Foundation, Station KBDW, Facility ID 176883, BPED-20141120AGW, From Wheeler, TX, To Lefors, TX; Sunrise                               ( print page 4571)                            Broadcasting, LLC, Station WILT, Facility ID 74159, BPH-20141119AAN, From Wilmington, NC, To Carolina Beach, NC.                    

# DATES:

The agency must receive comments on or before March 30, 2015.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System,                     *http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/​prod/​cdbs/​pubacc/​prod/​cdbs_​pa.htm.*                     A copy of this application may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or                     *www.BCPIWEB.com.*

Federal Communications Commission.

James D. Bradshaw,

Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 2015-01596 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000031

06-MAR-2018

11:27 AM
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of R24 Legacy.
    Date: February 26, 2015.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Room 3An.12K, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Nina Sidorova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3An.12K, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-2783, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8abb1bcb7aab7aeb998b6b1bfb5abf6b6b1b0f6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f98a909d968b968f98b997909e948ad7979091d79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: January 21, 2015.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-01368 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7709

HERMAN C. NEWMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-941-AM) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman C. Newman, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The order from which Newman appeals was filed on October 26, 1998, and entered on the district court’s docket sheet on October 27, 1998. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a), October 27, 1998 is therefore the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Herman C. Newman 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’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Newman v. Angelone , No. CA-98- 941-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 27, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# NRC — Independent Regulator of Nuclear Safety (NUREG/BR-0164, Revision 9)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0164, Revision 9 (PDF - 7.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**June 2012

Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

## Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), created by Congress, began operating in 1975. Its mission is to regulate commercial and institutional uses of nuclear materials, including nuclear power plants. The agency succeeded the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, which was responsible for both developing and regulating nuclear activities. Now, federal research and development, and nuclear weapons production are done by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The NRC's overall responsibility is to protect public health and safety. Its main regulatory functions are to:
        - establish standards and regulations;
        - issue licenses for nuclear facilities and users of nuclear materials; and
        - inspect facilities and users of nuclear materials to ensure compliance with the requirements.

These regulatory functions relate to both nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials — such as nuclear medicine programs at hospitals, academic activities at educational institutions and research. They also relate to such industrial applications as gauges, irradiators and other devices that contain radioactive material.

The NRC places a high priority on keeping the public informed of its work. The agency maintains a Web site and has a Public Document Room at its headquarters in Rockville, Md. It also holds public meetings throughout the country.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of the Test OECD-PKL2 G7.1 with the Thermal-Hydraulic System Code TRACE (NUREG/IA-0432)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0432 (PDF - 14.56 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2013**Date Published:** September 2013

**Prepared by:** S. Belaïd, J. Freixa, O. Zerkak

Paul Scherrer Institut 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

Division of Systems Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The test OECD-PKL2 G7.1 is a counterpart of the OECD/NEA ROSA-2 Test 3. These tests consisted of a small break loss-of-coolant-accident experiment concurrent with additional system failures, namely the total failure of the High Pressure Safety Injection system combined with the absence of an early manual secondary side cool down. To prevent a core meltdown a manual secondary depressurization (cooldown) is needed to restore the heat sink through fast reduction of the secondary pressure inducing similar primary pressure behavior, and thus leading to passive accumulator injection and low pressure safety injection. The core exit temperature parameter can be used to detect a core heat up and trigger such accident management procedures.

The test OECD-PKL2 G7.1 was performed to assess the reliability of the core exit temperature measurement and its correlation to the peak cladding temperature, and to investigate the physical processes affecting the performance of the core exit temperature measurement.

In this report, the analysis of test OECD-PKL2 G7.1 using the US-NRC thermal-hydraulics best estimate system code TRACE and based on an existing PKL Mark III model is presented and the obtained results are compared with the experimental data. A good agreement with the experimental data is observed, especially for relevant parameters such as the primary pressure. The predicted core exit and peak cladding temperatures evolutions could also capture the experimental data, although some discrepancies in the shapes of the evolution curves are observed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
NO. 07-03-0158-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	APRIL 16, 2003

	_________________________

	WALTER DAILEY, APPELLANT

	V.

	WAYNE TURNER, ET AL., APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 86287-D; HONORABLE DON EMERSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	Appellant filed his notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment that he take nothing in his suit against appellees.  By letter dated April 3, 2003, the Court directed appellant’s counsel to pay the required filing fee of $125 before any further action could be taken in this appeal and also requested that a docketing statement be filed as required by Rule 32.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  The Court also notified appellant that failure to comply might result in dismissal pursuant to Rule 42.3(c).  In response, appellant’s counsel sent a letter indicating that appellant has relocated without notifying him of a forwarding address or any contact information.  Counsel concludes that he will be unable to prosecute appellant’s appeal and requests that this appeal be dismissed.

	Although the filing of the notice of appeal invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, if a party fails to follow the prescribed rules of appellate procedure, the appeal may be dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b).  Thus, because the filing fee has not been paid and counsel indicates that appellant is unable to prosecute this appeal, we must dismiss.

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

						Don H. Reavis	

						    Justice
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Methods for External Event Screening Quantification: Risk Methods Integration and Evaluation Program (RMIEP) Methods Development (NUREG/CR-4839,SAND87-7156)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4839 (PDF - 5.28 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**February 1985**Date Published:**July 1992

**Prepared by:** M.K. Ravindra, H. Banon NTS/Structural Mechanics Associates 5160 Birch Street Newport Beach, California 92660

**Under Contract to:** Sandia National Laboratories  P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque. New Mexico 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC04-76DP00789

**Prepared for:** Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

 Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN A-1386

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In this report, the scoping quantification procedures for external events in probabilistic risk assessments of nuclear power plants are described. External event analysis in a PRA has three important goals:
        - The analysis should be complete in that all events are considered.
        - By following some selected screening criteria, the more significant events are identified for detailed analysis.
        - The selected events are analyzed in depth by taking into account the unique features of the events: hazard, fragility of structures and equipment, external-event initiated accident sequences, etc.

Based on the above goals, external event analysis may be considered as a three-stage process:
> 
Stage I: Identification and Initial Screening of External Events

Stage II: Bounding Analysis

Stage III: Detailed Risk Analysis

In the present report, first, a review of published PRAs is given to focus on the significance and treatment of external events in full-scope PRAs. Except for seismic, flooding, fire, and extreme wind events, the contributions of other external events to plant risk have been found to be negligible. Second, scoping methods for external events not covered in detail in the NRC's PRA Procedures Guide are provided. For this purpose, bounding analyses for transportation accidents, extreme winds and tornadoes, aircraft impacts, turbine missiles, and chemical release are described.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Stephanie Blauvelt, Appellant, v Joel Blauvelt, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 760]

In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated May 6, 1994, as directed the continuation of the appointment of Charles Brofman as the Law Guardian for the parties’ child in any future proceedings, and reserved jurisdiction in the Supreme Court or Family Court of Putnam County for all future proceedings involving the child.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the fourth and fifth decretal paragraphs thereof are deleted.

Since the appointment of a Law Guardian in a custody proceeding is discretionary *(see, Matter of Del Sordo v Maholsic,*199 AD2d 1038, 1039; *Frizzell v Frizzell,*177 AD2d 825; *Matter of Evans v Evans,*127 AD2d 998), the court exceeded its authority in appointing Charles Brofman as the Law Guardian for any and all future proceedings involving the parties’ child. The determination as to whether a Law Guardian will be necessary in a future proceeding should be made at the time of the proceeding.

Although a court may retain jurisdiction over the enforcement of the provisions of a divorce judgment *(see, Matter of Silane v Silane,*173 AD2d 708; *Matter of H.H. v P.G.,*156 Misc 2d 730), it was improper for the court to direct that all future proceedings involving the child, not necessarily related to the enforcement of the judgment, must be maintained in Putnam County. Sullivan, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00098-CV

EX PARTE TIMOTHY E. HO

On Appeal from the 196th District Court

Hunt County, Texas

Trial Court No. 85199

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant has filed a motion with this Court seeking to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. 

Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: February 4, 2019

Date Decided: February 5, 2019
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of RELAP5/MOD3.3 Prediction of 2-Inch Loss-of-Coolant Accident at Krško Nuclear Power Plant (NUREG/IA-0222)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0222 (PDF - 1.84 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**December 2005**Date Published:**April 2010

**Prepared by:** Iztok Parzer, Borut Mavko Jožef Stefan Institute Jamova cesta 39 SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The purpose of this analysis was to perform calculations of the loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) for simulator verification and validation and to study the thermal-hydraulic response of the reactor coolant system.

For the thermal-hydraulic analysis, the RELAP5/MOD3.3 code and input model provided by Krško Nuclear Power Plant was used. A small-break LOCA scenario was analyzed to estimate plant response to the opening of a break in cold leg No. 2 between the reactor coolant pump and the reactor pressure vessel. For the purpose of the analysis, the equivalent diameter of the cross-sectional area of the break was set to 5.08 centimeters (2 inches).

In the presented study, the 2-inch LOCA scenario for the Krško Nuclear Power Plant was analyzed with regard to the differences between the Henry-Fauske and the Ransom-Trapp critical flow model. In addition, the study investigated the effect of the special offtake flow model at the break. Some variation cases were also run to capture the effect of flow bypasses in the reactor vessel on the loop seal clearing phenomena.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021