alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1709 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1709

 To amend title 1, United States Code, to provide for a definition of 
 the term ``State'' and to include territories therein, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 2017

 Ms. Plaskett introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 1, United States Code, to provide for a definition of 
 the term ``State'' and to include territories therein, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. THE TERM ``STATE'' TO INCLUDE TERRITORIES FOR PURPOSES OF 
              FEDERAL LAW.

    (a) The Term ``State'' To Include Territories.--Chapter 1 of title 
1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 9. Rule of construction regarding the term `State'
    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any 
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative 
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the term `State' shall 
include any territory of the United States, unless the statute, rule, 
regulation, or interpretation explicitly excludes the territories from 
the definition of the term or otherwise precludes their inclusion.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such chapter is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``9. Rule of construction regarding the term `State'.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In
  connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Emtec, Inc. (the
  Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending August 31, 2005 as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
  I, Dinesh R. Desai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.

| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ Dinesh
  R. Desai                                           
| |                                                                 
| | Dinesh R.
  Desai
  Chief Executive Officer
        July 7, 2006

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Post-Test-Analysis and Nodalization Studies of OECD LOFT Experiment LP–LB–1 With RELAP5/MOD2 CY36–02 (NUREG/IA–0089, PSI–Bericht Nr. 91)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0089 (PDF 6.94 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** October 1992

**Prepared by:** D. Lübbesmeyer

Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) Wurenlingen and Villigen 5232 Villigen PSI Switzerland

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Experiment LP-LB-1 was conducted on February 3, 1984, in the Loss-Of-Fluid-Test (LOFT) facility at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory under the auspicies of the OECD. It simulated a double-ended offset shear of one inlet pipe in a four loop PWR and was initiated from conditions representative of licensing limits in a PWR. Additional boundary conditions for the simulation were loss of offsite power, rapid primary coolant pump coastdown, and UK minimum safeguard emergency core coolant injection rates.

This report presents the results and analysis of ten post-test calculations of the experiment LP-LB-1 by using the RELAP5/Mod2 cy36-02 computer code with different nodalizations; these calculations have been performed within the International Code Assessment Program (ICAP). Starting with the "standard nodalization" as more or less used by the code developers at EG&G, for different nodalization studies, we hate reduced the number of volumes and junctions (especially in the pressurizer, the'steam generator secondary side and the intact loop) as well as the number of radial zones in the fuel rods.

Generally, the code has calculated most of the thermohydraulic parameters of the LOFT-experiment LP-LB-1 within an accuracy of approximately ±20%, but always has underpredicted the cladding temperatures up to a value of 150 K. Except for the cladding temperatures, only small discrepancies have been observed between the results of calculations using different nodalizations. Reduced numbers of volumes and junctions usually have decreased the running time of the problem but in one case, due to numerical instabilities even has prolonged it a little bit. The time behaviours of the cladding temperatures have been significantly affected by the choosen nodalizations but surprisingly, the results for the cases with a reduced number of volumes and junctions seem to be slightly closer to the experimental data.

With respect to top-down rewetting, one of the key-events of experiment LP-LB-1 during the blow-down phase, RELAP5/Mod2 was not at all able to predict this phenomenon.

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

# A Methodology for Allocating Nuclear Power Plant Control Nuclear to Human or Automatic Control (NUREG/CR-3331, ORNL/TM-8781, NRC Distribution Category RX)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7331 (PDF – 39.89 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 17, 1983**Date Published:** August 1983

**Prepared by:**R. PulliamH. E. PriceJ. BongarraC. R. SawyerR. A. KisnerA. Diaz

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

**Prepared for the**U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory Researchunder Interagency Agreement No. 40-550-75

NRC Fin No. 80438

 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report describes a general method for allocating control functions to man or machine during nuclear power plant (NPP) design, or for evaluating their allocation in an existing design.

The research examined some important characteristics of the systems design process, and the results make it clear that allocation of control functions is an intractable problem, one which increases in severity with the increasing complexity of systems. The method is reported in terms of specific steps which should be taken during the early stages of a new system design, and which will lead to an optimal allocation at the functional design level of detail.

The procedures described are not expected to provide an ultimate solution to the allocation-of-functions problem. However, these procedures can at least assure that allocation of control functions is considered during design in an orderly and rational way. They should substantially advance the general understanding of this problem and the ability of the design community to allocate control functions to humans or automation in complex systems.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 15, 2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Albert Gillman, Also Known as Ronald Green, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 337]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County *506(Joseph Mazur, J., at *Mapp*hearing, trial, and sentence; Frank Diaz, J., on omnibus motion), rendered March 26, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years, 2 to 6 years, and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court did not err in summarily denying defendant’s motion for a *Wade*hearing, where the complainant was already in pursuit of defendant when police accompaniment became available, and she identified defendant a short distance away *(see, People v Dixon,*85 NY2d 218, 223, citing *People v Rios,*156 AD2d 397). Nor is there merit to defendant’s largely unpreserved claim that the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof by his questioning of defendant’s alibi witness and comments during summation, which constituted proper impeachment of the alibi witness and comment thereon *(see, People v Tankleff,*84 NY2d 992, 994; *People v Fuller,*211 AD2d 468, *lv denied*85 NY2d 862). In any event, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, the prosecutor’s remarks, if at all improper, were harmless *(see, People v Morgan,*66 NY2d 255, 259). We also reject defendant’s contention that he was denied a fair trial by the arresting officer’s singular and inadvertent reference to him by another name in contravention of the court’s prior ruling that defendant should be referred to only as Ronald Green, the court having promptly corrected the officer and later instructed the jury not to engage in any speculation *(see, People v Perez,*203 AD2d 123, 124, *lv denied*83 NY2d 970, citing *People v Davis,*58 NY2d 1102, 1104). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
Order entered December 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00340-CV

T. CHRISTIAN COOPER, Appellant

V.

SANDERS H. CAMPBELL/RICHARD T. MULLEN, INC. 

D/B/A THE MULLEN COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-15127

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s December 7, 2015 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. 

We ORDER the brief tendered to this Court by appellee on December 3, 2015 filed as of the 

date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# RELAP5/MOD2 Calculations of OECD LOFT Test LP-SB-2 (NUREG/IA-0021)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0021 (PDF 1.48 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** April 1990

**Prepared by:** P.C. Hall

Central Electricity Generating Board Generation Development & Construction Division Barnwood, Gloucester GL4 7RS United Kingdom

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

To help in assessing the capabilities of RELAP5/MOD2 for PWR Fault Analysis, the code is being used by CEGB to simulate several small LOCA and pressurised transient experiments in the LOFT experimental reactor. The present report describes an analysis of small LOCA test LP-SB-02, which simulated a 1% hot leg break LOCA in a PWR; with delayed tripping of the primary coolant pumps. This test was carried out under the OECD LOFT Programme.

An important deficiency identified in the code is inadequate modelling of the quality of the fluid discharged from the hot leg into the break pipework. This gives rise to large errors in the calculated system mass inventory. The effect of using an improved model for vapour pull-through into the break is described.

A second significant code deficiency identified is the failure to predict the occurrence of stratified flow in the hot leg at the correct time in the test. It is believed that this error contributed to gross errors in the loop flow conditions after about 1300s.

Additional separate effects data necessary to resolve the code deficiencies encountered are identified.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Bleul, Appellant, vs. The Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Respondent.

*December 7, 1936*

January *12, 1937.*

*415For the appellant there was a brief by *Lecher, Michael, Whyte & Spohn,*and oral argument by *Herman E. Friedrich,*all of Milwaukee.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Shaw, Muskat & Paulsen,*attorneys, and *F. H. Prosser*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Prosser.*

Fowler, J.

The only ground of liability claimed by the plaintiff is that the train was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, which was placed by witnesses as high as seventy miles per hour. The case is ruled by *Brager v. Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co.*220 Wis. 65, 264 N. W. 733, unless we can say that the fact that the interurban car was derailed by the collision and overturned distinguishes this case from that. The injuries involved in the *Brager Case*were sustained by the driver of an automobile which was struck by an interurban car at a highway crossing. Here they were sustained by a passenger in the interurban car who was injured by the over*416turning of the car. Piad there been no collision and the car had overturned and been derailed because of its speed, we would have a different case.. But as the overturning of the car was caused by the collision with the automobile, there is, as was held in the *Brager Case,*no causal connection between the speed and the plaintiff’s injuries. It is true that a speed may be assumed that would have prevented the derailment by the collision. But this does not reach the point of the case. The conduct of the motorman, to have been negligent in an actionable sense, must have been such that derailment because of the speed ought reasonably to have been foreseen by him. But to hold that it ought to have been so foreseen in the instant case would require us to hold that the motorman ought to have foreseen that the driver of the automobile would not stop for the car to pass. The court held in the *Brager Case*that this could not be imputed to him. It was there held that the motorman might rightly assume that the automobile would stop until he observed to the contrary, and that it was then too late to do anything to prevent the collision. This element of negligence is as wanting in the instant case as in the *Brager Case.*There are here no special circumstances to differentiate the two cases. The driver of the automobile had an unobstructed view of two thousand feet toward the approaching train for the last five hundred feet of his approach to the intersection. There is no need to add to the discussion of the point involved contained in the opinion of the *Brager Case.*

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# An Assessment of the CORCON-MOD3 Code Part I: Thermal-Hydraulic Calculations (NUREG/IA-0129, Part I)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0129 (PDF 7.09 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** September 1996

**Prepared by:** V. Strizhov, V. Kanukova, T. Vinogradova, E. Askenov Institute of Nuclear Safety Russian Academy of Sciences

V. Nikulshin Kurchatov Institute Russian Research Center

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report deals with the subject of CORCON-Mod3 code validation (thermal-hydraulic modeling capability only) based on MCCI experiments conducted under different programs in the past decade. Thermal-hydraulic calculations (i.e., concrete ablation, melt temperature, melt energy, concrete temperature, and condensible and non-condensible gas generation) were performed with the code, and compared with the data from 15 experiments, conducted at different scales using both simulant (metallic and oxidic) and prototypic melt materials, using different concrete types, and with and without an overlying water pool. Sensitivity studies were performed in a few cases involving, for example, heat transfer from melt to concrete, condensed phase chemistry, etc. Further, special analysis was performed using the ACE L8 experimental data to illustrate the differences between the experimental and the reactor conditions, and to demonstrate that with proper corrections made to the code, the calculated results were in better agreement with the experimental data.

Generally, in the case of dry cavity and metallic melts, CORCON-Mod3 thermal-hydraulic calculations were in good agreement with the test data. For oxidic melts in a dry cavity, uncertainties in heat transfer models played an important role for two melt configurations - a stratified geometry with segregated metal and oxide layers, and a heterogeneous mixture. Some discrepancies in the gas release data were noted in a few cases. These discrepancies were attributed, in part, to condensed phase chemical reactions modeling and, in part, to experimental uncertainties. In the case of wet cavity, good agreement was found between the experimental data and code calculations except, again, for the gas release data. With proper corrections made to the code to account for correct condensed phase chemistry and with corrections made to the input data to account for experimental uncertainties, better agreement between code calculations and experimental data was noted.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Edward W. Stone, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter and nine months ended March 29, 2008,of Velocity Express Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 ensurethat 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 theeffectiveness 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 anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

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 the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor 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 controlover financial reporting. 

Date: May 19, 2008 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to VelocityExpress Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.