alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-86,560-01 EX P ARTE LAWRENCE DEMETRIUS S MITH, Appl icant ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 08-0306X(A ) IN THE 71 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM HARRISON COUNTY A L C A L A , J., fi led a concurring opin ion . CONCURR ING

OP INION I ag ree with this Court’s rema nd order ’s deter

mination that applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, “if true, might entitle him to relief .” I , howeve r, do not join this Cou rt ’s order beca use I would require the habe as cour

t on remand to a

ppoint counsel for a

pplicant upon reque st if he is indig ent, reg ardle ss of whether the trial court holds a hear ing. See Ex parte Pointer , 492 S.W .3d 318, 320-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (per curia m) (Alca la, J ., concur ring ). Specifica lly , in addition to the order ’s

curr ent admonition t h at the appointment of counsel is mandatory for an indige nt applicant upon reque st if the habea s court holds a hear ing, I would include a further admonishment that an indige nt appli ca n t i s “entitled” to the appointm ent of counsel upon reque st “if the court concludes that the interests of justice require repr esenta tion.” See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A R T . 1.051(d). Wit h these comments, Irespe ctfully

concur in this C ourt’s orde r. Filed: Apr il 12, 2017 Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6989

NATHANIEL SIMMONS, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

CHARLES WILLIAMS; THOMAS ROBERTSON; ALYSON GLADWELL; 

STEPHANIE MARSHALL; STANLEY TERRY; CLARISSA JONES; JUANITA 

MOSS; BELL; MYERS; BEARD; WILLIE F. SMITH; SHERMAN L. 

ANDERSON; JENNIFER FRANKLIN; SHAKIRA WILLIAMS; MICHELLE 

CHAMBERS, a/k/a Michelle Chamber; TIM E. ROGERS; DEBORAH RICHTER; 

VICTORIA NORMAN; ASHLEY MADDOX; CYNTHIA DARDEN; KENNARD 

DUBOSE; BRYAN P. STIRLING, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:19-cv-00317-HMH) 

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Nathaniel Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Nathaniel Simmons appeals the district court’s orders adopting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil action for failure 

to state a claim, denying his motion to amend, and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion 

to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simmons v. Williams, 

No. 0:19-cv-00317-HMH (D.S.C. June 4 & 24, 2019). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
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.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of registration.
 SUMMARY: Noramco, Inc. applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The DEA grants Noramco, Inc. registration as a manufacturer of those controlled substances.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  By notice dated January 14, 2014, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on January 22, 2014, 79 FR 3627, Noramco, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801-4417, applied to be registered as a manufacturer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. No comments or objections were submitted to this notice. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Noramco, Inc. to manufacture the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above-named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed: Controlled substance
ScheduleCodeine-N-oxide (9053)
II="01">Dihydromorphine (9145)
IMorphine-N-oxide (9307)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPhenylacetone (8501)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOripavine (9330)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOpium extracts (9610)
IIOpium fluid extract (9620)
IIOpium tincture (9630)
IIOpium, powdered (9639)
IIOpium, granulated (9640)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IINoroxymorphone (9668)
IITapentadol (9780)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Dated: January 9, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2015-01303 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Wendy F. DiCicco, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kensey Nash
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;

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 presented 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:  November 14, 2003          /s/ Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA
                                  -------------------------
                                  Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA
                                  Chief Financial Officer



                                       21
No. 91-6155.

#### Smith *v.*Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Alderson, Appellant, vs. Carmody and another, Respondents.

*March 15*

April *4, 1917.*

*Trial: Special verdict: Changing findings: Replevin.*

Findings in a special verdict in an action of replevin are *held,*to tie supported by the evidence, and it was error for the trial court to change them.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Grant county: Geobge Clementson, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

This was an action of replevin for a two-year-old steer brought in justice’s court, which resulted in judgment that the plaintiff and appellant was entitled to possession of the property, that the defendants unjustly took and detained the *347same, and tbat tbe damage was $1. Judgment was entered accordingly, from wbicb an appeal was taken to tbe circuit court, where tbe action was tried and tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:

“(1) Was tbe steer tbat tbe defendants drove away from tbe cattle of tbe plaintiff upon tbe 6tb day of October last tbe steer of tbe plaintiff, *Alderson?*A. Yes.

“(2) Was tbe steer tbat. tbe sheriff took possession of under tbe writ in this action and placed in the custody of James Oarmody and'took a receipt therefor from him, tbe same steer tbat tbe sheriff subsequently, on October 18th, took from James Carmody’s possession and gave to him a receipt therefor? *A.*No.

“(3) Was tbe steer tbat tbe sheriff on October 18th took from James Oarmody and proffered to tbe plaintiff as bis, tbe same steer tbat tbe sheriff bad on October 8th replevied in this case? *A.*No.”

Tbe plaintiff moved for judgment on tbe verdict and tbe defendants moved tbat tbe court change the answer to tbe first question to “No” and tbe answers to the second and third questions to “Yes,” and for judgment on tbe verdict as so amended. Tbe plaintiff’s motion for judgment was denied and tbe defendants’ motion granted.

Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of the defendants, from wbicb this appeal was taken.

*Frank 0. Meyer*and *Harry H.*Garthew, both of Lancaster, for tbe appellant.

For tbe respondents there was a brief by *Oleary & Oleary*of Rlatteville, and oral argument by *T. L. Oleary.*

Kerwin, J.

Tbe only question necessary to consider upon this appeal is whether tbe verdict was supported by tbe evidence. If it was, tbe court below was in error in changing tbe answers of tbe jury and in awarding judgment to tbe defendants. Careful examination of tbe evidence convinces us tbat there was ample evidence to support tbe verdict, and *348that the courts below committed error in changing the answers in the special verdict and denying the plaintiff’s motion for judgment upon the verdict as returned by the jury.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the action remanded with instructions to reinstate the answers in the special verdict as found by the jury, and render judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# The High Level Vibration Test Program - Final Report (NUREG/CR-5585, BNL-NUREG-52240)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-5585, (PDF - 11.36 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**April 1991**Date Published:**May 1991 

**Prepared by:** Y.J. Park, J.R. Curreri, C.H. Hofmayer Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973

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

NRC FIN A-3288

Availability Notice

## Abstract

As part of a cooperative study between the United States and Japan, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) of Japan agreed to perform a test program that would subject a large scale piping model to significant plastic strains under excitation conditions greater than the design condition for nuclear power plants. The objective was to compare the results of the tests with state-of-the-art analyses. Comparisons were done at different excitation levels from elastic to elastic-plastic to levels where cracking was induced in the test model. The vibration tests and post-test examination were carried out in Japan by the Nuclear Power Engineering Test Center (NUPEC). Input motion development and pre- and post-test analysis were carried out in the United States at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

This report describes the results of the cooperative studies performed both in Japan and the United States.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Motions Denied; Petitions for Writ of Mandamus, Injunction and Prohibition

Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 19, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00868-CV

NO. 14-12-00869-CV

NO. 14-12-00870-CV

IN RE ROBERT H. BURROUGHS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WRIT OF INJUNCTION

WRIT OF PROHIBITION

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 396,576-401

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 21, 2012, relator, Robert H. Burroughs, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus, writ of injunction, writ of prohibition and motion for emergency relief in this 

Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. 

On October 5, 2012, relator filed an amended motion for temporary relief. Relator asks

this Court to enjoin the Honorable Judge Christine Butts, presiding judge of the Probate 
2

Court No. 4 of Harris County, from enforcing her order of August 22, 2012 and 

interfering with appeal number 14-12-00627-CV in this court. 

In a probate proceeding, an order is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties 

or issues in a particular phase. See DeAyala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex. 

2006); In re Estate of Byrom, 2011 WL 590588 Tex. App. -- Tyler 2011, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.) (found order of removal final and appealable). The trial court’s order does 

not address the request for attorney fees and does not include language indicating that it 

was denying relief not expressly granted. In the absence of language of finality, a trial 

court's failure to dispose of a pending attorney's fees claim renders a judgment 

interlocutory. See McNally v. Guevara, 52 S.W.3d 195, 196 (Tex. 2001). Upon entry of 

a final order, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, writ of injunction, writ of prohibition, motion for 

emergency relief and amended motion for temporary relief. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Christopher, Jamison.

.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Post-Test Analysis of Upper Plenum 11% Break at PSB-VVER Facility using TRACE V5.0 and RELAP5/MOD3.3 Code (NUREG/IA-0449)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0449 (PDF - 7.88 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2014**Date Published:** July 2014

**Prepared by:** Petr Heralecky

TES Ltd. Prazska 597 674 01 Trebic, Czech Republic

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:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The best estimate thermo-hydraulic computer code TRACE V5.0 and RELAP5 MOD3.3 had been assessed using Upper Plenum 11% break experiment at the large-scale test facility PSB-VVER. The PSB-VVER facility is a 1:300 volume scaled model of VVER 1000 NPP located in Electrogorsk, Russia. An extensive TRACE and RELAP5 input decks of PSB-VVER facility were developed including all important components of the PSB-VVER facility: reactor, 4 separated loops, pressurizer, break units, main circulation pumps, steam generators, and important parts of secondary circuit. The TRACE (TRAC/RELAP Advanced Computational Engine) is the latest in a series of advanced, best-estimate reactor systems codes developed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in frame of CAMP (Code Application and Maintenance Program) and the RELAP5 code is its predecessor. The TRACE and RELAP5 codes are a component-oriented reactor systems analysis codes designed to analyze light water reactor transients up to the point of significant fuel damage. The original validation of both codes was mainly based on experiments performed on experimental facilities of typical PWR design. There are some different features of VVER design comparing to PWR. Therefore the validation of the thermo-hydraulic codes for VVER types of reactors is often required by national regulators. The purpose of performed analysis is to extend the validation of the TRACE and RELAP5 code focused on VVER type of NPPs. The TRACE calculation was performed in the frame of R&D project co-funded by The Ministry of Industry and Trade of Czech Republic. The RELAP5 calculation was performed to support standardization of the RELAP5 code in TES Company.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# A Risk-Informed Basis for Establishing Non-Fixed Surface Contamination Limits for Spent Fuel Transportation Casks (NUREG/CR-6841)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6841 (PDF - 4.40 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2003**Date Published:** April 2004

**Prepared by:** R.R. Rawl, K.F. Eckerman, J.S. Bogard

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6472

J.R. Cook, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code B0009

**Prepared for**: Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The current internationally accepted basis for establishing non-fixed surface contamination limits for spent fuel casks is the same as that for other transportation package types. This study examined the suitability of the currently used exposure model, taking into account exposure pathways and parameters representative of typical light-water-reactor spent fuel cask handling, loading, and transportation activities. Because the currently used model was found to be inappropriate for spent fuel casks, a new exposure model was developed using pathways and parameters specific to spent fuel casks. Results show that individual and collective doses to members of the public are very low and that worker doses dominate the total collective dose from non-fixed surface contamination. Worker doses that vary as a function of allowable surface contamination limits were calculated and were found to be dominated by doses due to decontamination and surface contamination monitoring activities performed after the cask is drained. An approach was developed for evaluating the overall dose implications of higher allowable non-fixed surface contamination limits. This approach was used to examine the reduction in doses to workers performing cask decontamination and monitoring activities necessary to offset increased doses due to other worker and public exposure pathways.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                          OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                      121,653
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               111,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                 636,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            886,046
<PP&E>                                                    1,324,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                             (753,064)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            2,391,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       556,941
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                     19,919
<OTHER-SE>                                                1,744,843
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              2,391,853
<SALES>                                                     255,290
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            289,201
<CGS>                                                       255,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               255,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            434,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            5,854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (432,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (432,561)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (432,561)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.09)
        


</TABLE>