alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6652
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GERALD VAUGHN BEASLEY, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-92-30, CA-95-465-R) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Vaughn Beasley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no revers ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Beasley , Nos. CR-92-30; CA-95-465-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
No: 19-001 January 2, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC to Hold Public Pre-Decisional Enforcement Conference with

Holtec to Address Spent Fuel Storage Canister Design Issues

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will hold a pre-decisional enforcement conference 

Jan. 9 with representatives of Holtec International to discuss apparent violations of NRC regulations 

stemming from changes Holtec made to one of its spent nuclear fuel storage canister designs.

The conference will be held in the Commission Hearing Room at NRC Headquarters, 

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., from 1-5 p.m., Eastern Time. The conference will be open to the 

public and will be webcast.

The apparent violations stem from an incident last March, when workers at the San Onofre 

Nuclear Generating Station discovered a loose four-inch stainless steel pin at the bottom of a canister as 

it was being prepared to be loaded with spent fuel. The pin was part of a shim designed to support the 

fuel basket and allow airflow to the fuel assemblies within the canister. As such, the shim is considered 

essential to the function of the fuel basket. 

An NRC inspection report issued Nov. 29 described two apparent violations of NRC’s quality 

assurance regulations. The NRC determined Holtec, when it changed the shim to the pin design in 

2016, failed to establish adequate design control measures for selecting and applying materials, parts, 

equipment and processes essential to the function of safety-related structures, systems and components. 

Holtec also failed to maintain written records of changes to its canister design, including an evaluation 

of why the design change could be implemented without applying to the NRC for an amendment to the 

canister’s Certificate of Compliance. 

The NRC offered Holtec a choice between the pre-decisional enforcement conference or 

third-party mediation. Holtec chose the conference, at which its officials will be able to present 

additional information for the NRC staff to consider in assessing the significance of the subject 

violations. No final action will be taken at the Jan. 9 conference.
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 the Annual Report of Galaxy Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc E.
Bruner, President (Chief Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
      Company.







/s/ Marc E.
Bruner


Marc E.
Bruner


President
(Chief Executive Officer)







April 28,
2008


Date
Opinion issued June 27, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00245-CV

———————————

RACINE JONES, Appellant

V.

TARA FILLA JONES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 312th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2011-20915

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Racine Jones, has neither established indigence, nor paid or made 

arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault); see also TEX. GOV’T 
2

CODE §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order Regarding Fees Charged in the 

Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2015). 

Appellant failed to respond to our notice of August 22, 2022, concerning the failure 

to pay for the clerk’s record. In that notice, the Court advised appellant that failure 

to pay the fee for the clerk’s record could result in dismissal of this appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule), 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if 

no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal of case). Appellant has not responded to this Court’s notice.

We dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40225

LARRY MICHAEL MAPLES,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CV-560

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Michael Maples, Texas prisoner # 1965775, moves for a certificate 

of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application 

challenging his conviction of capital murder. He contends that the district 

court erred by dismissing on the merits and without holding an evidentiary 

hearing on claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by 

(a) failing to hire a ballistics expert or a medical expert and (b) advising Maples 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 21, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40225 Document: 00515424912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2020
No. 19-40225

2

not to testify at trial, and (2) his trial and appellate counsel rendered 

ineffective assistance by failing to mount a defense based on sudden passion.

To obtain a COA with respect to the denial of a § 2254 application, a 

prisoner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). If 

a district court has rejected a claim on its merits, the petitioner “must 

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment 

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. 

Maples fails to make the necessary showing. To the extent that he requests a 

COA regarding the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing, we 

construe his motion as a direct appeal of that issue, see Norman v. Stephens, 

817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016), and affirm. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 

563 U.S. 170, 185-86 (2011).

Accordingly, Maples’s motion for a COA is DENIED, and the district 

court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40225 Document: 00515424912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2020
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Pre-Investigation Alternative Dispute Resolution Program  (NUREG/BR-0313, Revision 2)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Overview

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0313, Revision 2 (PDF – 4.26 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** May 2018

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

## Overview

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Pre-Investigation Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program consists of three parts: (1) the NRC's Early ADR process, (2) specific interfaces with licensee-sponsored ADR programs, and (3) specific aspects of U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) processes. This brochure describes each of these parts and anyone interested in resolving allegations of discrimination or filing a discrimination complaint is encouraged to become familiar with all three.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
EXHIBIT 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin Ericksteen, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2001 of
Desert Sky Consulting, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  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 annual report
          is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented   in  this   annual   report  our   conclusions   about  the
          effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  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  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: October 31, 2003
/s/ Kevin Ericksteen
------------------------
By: Kevin Ericksteen, CEO
No. 90-6404.

#### Paden *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2015065EN.01002201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 65/22 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 of 10 October 2014 on exceptional support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 295 of 11 October 2014](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2014_295_R_TOC)
)

On page 53, Article 1, third paragraph, point (e)(ii):

for:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(ii) | EUR 0,162354 per chick of roosters for a maximum of 436 247 heads;’ |

,

read:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| ‘(ii) | EUR 0,162354 per chick of rural chickens for a maximum of 436 247 heads;’ |

.

---
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Shou-Kang Chen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officer(s)
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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 24, 2015



/s/ Shou-Kang ChenName:

Shou-Kang ChenTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40351

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM GEOVANI VIVAR-LOPEZ,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 1:18-CR-713-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

William Vivar-Lopez appeals his 30-month, below-guidelines sentence

for illegal reentry. He contends that the district court erred by considering 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-40351 Document: 00515246134 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2019
No. 19-40351

2

Application Note 3 of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which indicates that if a defendant receives offense-level enhancements for prior convictions under § 2L1.2(b), those 

prior convictions may garner criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. 

Vivar-Lopez urges that, in light of Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019), the 

court should have given no deference to the commentary because the language 

of § 2L1.2 is unambiguous. In addition, Vivar-Lopez maintains that because 

§ 2L1.2 is the guideline that specifically addresses illegal-reentry offenses, the 

court should not have applied criminal history points per § 4A1.1 for offenses 

that resulted in offense level enhancements under § 2L1.2(b).

As Vivar-Lopez concedes, we review for plain error, so he must show, as 

the first requirement, a forfeited error that is clear or obvious. See Puckett v. 

United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Kisor addressed the continuing viability of deference to an agency’s interpretations of its own regulations under 

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). The Court in Kisor did not overrule Auer

deference but merely restated the limitations on applying deference to an 

agency’s interpretations. Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415−16, 2423. Kisor did not 

address the Sentencing Guidelines or the caselaw holding that the commentary to the Guidelines is authoritative unless it violates federal law or the Constitution, it is inconsistent with the Guideline being interpreted, or it constitutes a plainly erroneous reading of the Guideline. See Stinson v. United 

States, 508 U.S. 36, 38 (1993). 

Because there is no caselaw from the Supreme Court or this court addressing the effect of Kisor on the Sentencing Guidelines in general or on Application Note 3 of § 2L1.2 in particular, there is no clear or obvious error. See

United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc); 

United States v. Gonzalez, 792 F.3d 534, 538 (5th Cir. 2015). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-40351 Document: 00515246134 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2019
## NO. 29598
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
In the Matter of the Tax Appeal of REEL HOOKER SPORTFISHING, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

----------------------------------------------------------------- EXACT GAME FISHING, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

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

FINEST KIND, INC., Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI # I, DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CASE NOS. 07-0072, 07-0073, AND 07-0074) Electronically Filed Supreme Court 29598 19-OCT-2010 10:16 AM

## ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Duffy, J., for the court ) 1 

## Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants Reel Hooker Sportfishing, Inc., Exact Game Fishing, Inc., and Finest Kind, Inc.’s application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 7, 2010, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, October 19, 2010.
FOR THE COURT: /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. Associate Justice Dennis Niles and Elizabeth E. Bray for petitioners/ plaintiffs-appellants on the application Hugh R. Jones and Damien A. Elefante, Deputy Attorneys General,for respondent/defendantappellee on the response

C o n s i d e r e d b y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , A c o b a , a n d D u f f y , J J . a n d 1 C i r c u i t J u d g e K i m , a s s i g n e d b y r e a s o n o f v a c a n c y . 

## 2
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNMSS Procedures

# NMSS Background (BK) Procedures

**Note:** The Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) merged with NMSS on October 5, 2014. All previously issued FSME and Office of State and Tribal Program (STP) procedures are considered effectively NMSS procedures and remain in effect until they are reviewed and reissued. These procedures can be referenced as NMSS procedures even though the procedures still have FSME or STP titles and references.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, January 13, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Background Procedures
          - State Agreement Procedures
          - State Liaison Procedures
          - Administrative Support Procedures
          - Temporary Instructions
          - Tribal Procedures
          - Management Directives (select)
          - Rescinded Procedures

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, January 13, 2023