alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases2000

# NRC To Meet With USEC Officials January 3 To Discuss Planned Portsmouth Plant Closure

----

----

**NRC TO MEET WITH USEC OFFICIALS JANUARY 3 TO DISCUSS PLANNED PORTSMOUTH PLANT CLOSURE**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with U.S. Enrichment Corporation officials January 3 in Piketon, Ohio, to discuss the status of the company's plans for shutting down uranium enrichment activities at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant by June 2001.

NRC and company officials have been meeting periodically to discuss the projected closure.

The meeting will be at 2 p.m. EST at the plant's XT-801 South Office Building in room 123. The plant is located at 3930 U.S. Route 23 in Piketon. The meeting is open for public observation, although participation is limited to the NRC and USEC management personnel. NRC staff members will be available after the meeting to answer questions from the public.

USEC announced in June that production would continue at both the Portsmouth plant and the Paducah, Kentucky, Gaseous Diffusion Plant until June 2001. By that date, USEC anticipates it will cease enrichment operations at the Portsmouth plant, after having upgraded the Paducah plant to produce enriched uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. The NRC staff currently is reviewing the proposed Paducah upgrade.

NRC staff, including the resident inspectors at the Portsmouth plant, will continue to monitor plant safety activities until regulatory oversight is transferred from the NRC to the Department of Energy. USEC officials have said they anticipated that transfer would occur by June 2002. USEC would continue to operate the Portsmouth product transfer facility over the next four or five years until a product transfer facility would become available at Paducah.

Directions to the plant:

From the north: Take 23 south to 32 east. Travel about two miles to Shyville Road. Turn south (right) on Shyville and travel to Perimeter Road which surrounds the plant (about two miles). Turn left onto Perimeter Road. Do NOT take the exit ramp to the Administration Building. Continue south to the second right, turn right on Hewes Street. The XT-801 building is the first building on the left. Please enter at the south door.

From the south: Take 23 north to the Wakefield exit. Turn right next to the abandoned rest stop. Take the second road to the right (Big Run Road). Travel until it ends at Perimeter Road which surrounds the plant (about two miles). Turn right onto Perimeter Road, and take the first left (Hewes Street). The XT-801 building is the first building on the left. Please enter at the south door.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T D e c e m be r 30, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14680 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 04 -006 59 -C V -F -S C H R I S T O P H E R S T O V A L L , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s C L A R K A L L U M S , in h is in d iv id u a l c ap a c ity , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, T H E C I T Y O F D O T H A N , A L A B A M A , am u n c ip a lity , D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 30, 2005) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

T hi s i s a n appe a l f

r om the de ni a l of

qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty s t e m m i ng f r om the de f e nda ntof

f i c e r ’ s a rr e s tof

the pl a i nt i f

f f ordi s or de r l y c onduc t . V i e w i ng the
e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p la in tif

f , a s w e a r e r e q u ir e d to d o a t th is
s t a ge of the pr oc e e di ngs , w e c onc l ude tha tno of f i c e rr e a s onabl y c oul d ha ve be l i e ve d tha tthe pl a i nt i f f ha d vi ol a t e d the s t a t e c ode pr ovi s i on pr ohi bi t i ng di s or de r l y c onduc t . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of s um m a ry j udgm e nt i s AF F I R ME D.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has dulycaused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized and theundersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that (1) this Report complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) theinformation contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1755 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that products derived 

from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the Federal excise tax 

on petroleum, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2017 

Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

that products derived from tar sands are crude oil for 

purposes of the Federal excise tax on petroleum, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tar Sands Tax Loop5 hole Elimination Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1755 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF TAR SANDS AS CRUDE OIL FOR 

2 EXCISE TAX PURPOSES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 4612(a) 

4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read 

5 as follows: 

6 ‘‘(1) CRUDE OIL.—The term ‘crude oil’ includes 

7 crude oil condensates, natural gasoline, any bitumen 

8 or bituminous mixture, any oil derived from a bitu9 men or bituminous mixture (including oil derived 

10 from tar sands), and any oil derived from kerogen11 bearing sources (including oil derived from oil 

12 shale).’’. 

13 (b) REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS OTHER

14 TYPES OF CRUDE OIL AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.— 

15 Subsection (a) of section 4612 of such Code is amended 

16 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

17 ‘‘(10) REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS

18 OTHER TYPES OF CRUDE OIL AND PETROLEUM

19 PRODUCTS.—Under such regulations as the Sec20 retary may prescribe, the Secretary may include as 

21 crude oil or as a petroleum product subject to tax 

22 under section 4611, any fuel feedstock or finished 

23 fuel product customarily transported by pipeline, 

24 vessel, railcar, or tanker truck if the Secretary deter25 mines that— 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1755 IH

1 ‘‘(A) the classification of such fuel feed2 stock or finished fuel product is consistent with 

3 the definition of oil under the Oil Pollution Act 

4 of 1990, and 

5 ‘‘(B) such fuel feedstock or finished fuel 

6 product is produced in sufficient commercial 

7 quantities as to pose a significant risk of haz8 ard in the event of a discharge.’’. 

9 (c) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (2) of sec10 tion 4612(a) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘from 

11 a well located’’. 

12 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

14 of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of William Flannery, Petitioner, v H. Carl McCall, as State Comptroller, New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 103]

Casey, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a detective in the Nassau County Police Department, sustained a back injury on May 29, 1991 in an on-duty automobile accident. When he returned to work about four weeks later, petitioner was placed on restrictive duty on the recommendation of the police surgeon. Following a hearing, respondent denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits on the ground that he is not permanently incapacitated for the performance of duties as a detective. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this determination, which was subsequently transferred to this Court.

We confirm. In our view, petitioner "failed to sustain his burden of proving 'that he is incapacitated for performance of the duties required of him’ ” *(Matter of Marsala v Regan,*178 AD2d 912, *lv denied*80 NY2d 755, quoting *Matter of Colligan v Regan,*128 AD2d 928, 929). Notably, while both orthopedic experts who testified at the hearing agreed that petitioner had some preexisting degenerative disc disease, they differed as to whether he was incapacitated for the performance of his duties. Petitioner’s expert opined that petitioner sustained a disc herniation that was superimposed on the preexisting disease and prevented petitioner from performing his full duties. The Retirement System’s orthopedic expert diagnosed a sprain and found no objective abnormalities. He concluded that there was no reason why petitioner could not perform either his full duties as a detective or a restricted work schedule. The psychiatrist assigned to examine petitioner found no evidence of psychiatric disturbance and opined that, from a psychiatric standpoint, petitioner could perform the duties of a detective.

Significantly, "[wjhere conflicting medical testimony is presented [respondent’s] evaluation and crediting thereof must be accepted if supported by substantial evidence” *(Matter of Catalano v New York State Comptroller,*198 AD2d 662, 663; *see, Matter of Longendyke v Regan,*195 AD2d 695, 696). The record in this case fully supports respondent’s determination. More*771over, it should be noted that petitioner’s expert never testified that petitioner was disabled from performing light duties. Since there is no indication that petitioner cannot continue on restricted duty assignment *(see, Matter of Rubinski v New York State & Local Police & Fire Retirement Sys.,*156 AD2d 888, 889), respondent’s determination is even further justified *(see, Matter of Glaski v Regan,*115 AD2d 111).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS 

REO, LLC 

 v. 

MARIANNE MEHALSHICK AND 

MICHAEL MEHALSHICK 

PETITION OF: MARIANNE MEHALSHICK 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 465 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PARTNERS 

REO, LLC 

 v. 

MARIANNE MEHALSHICK AND 

MICHAEL MEHALSHICK 

PETITION OF: MARIANNE 

MEHALSHICK 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 466 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Milestone
Enhanced Fund Ltd.

    


    2nd Terrace
West, Centreville

    P.O. Box
N-10567

    Nassau,
Bahamas

    December
28, 2010

    Tel. +1
(242) 326 2150

    Fax +1
(242) 326 2151

    


    Board of
Directors

    22nd Century
Group, Inc. (f/k/a Touchstone Mining Limited)

    11923 SW
37 Terrace

    Miami, FL
33175

    


    Re:      
 Loan Forgiveness

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    On May 8,
2009 Milestone Enhanced Fund Limited made an $80,000 loan (the “Loan”) to
22nd
Century Group, Inc. (formerly known as Touchstone Mining Limited) (the
“Company”) which is represented by a 8.25% Convertible Promissory Note in the
principal amount for $80,000 made by the Company in favor of Milestone Enhanced
Fund Limited (the “Note”).

    


    Pursuant
to the term of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization by
and among Company, 22nd Century
Acquisition Subsidiary, LLC and 22nd Century
Limited, LLC, and in consideration of the transactions contemplated thereby (the
“Merger”), and for other good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby
agrees to make a capital contribution of the Note to the Company and in so doing
forgives the entire principal balance of the Loan and the Note, together with
all accrued and unpaid interest thereon. Such contribution and associated
forgiveness shall be effective immediately prior to the closing of the
Merger.

    


    
      
        
          	
                  Very
      truly yours,

                
	 
      
	
                  MILESTONE
      ENHANCED FUND LIMITED

                
	 
      
	
                  BY:

                	
                  /s/
      Anthony A. McKinney

                
	
                  Name:
      Anthony A. McKinney

                
	
                  Title:   Director
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Technical Basis for Calculating Radiation Doses for the Building Occupancy Scenario Using the Probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 Code (NUREG/CR-6755, ANL/EAD/TM/02-1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6755 PDF - 5.77 MB)

## Publication Information

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

NRC Job Code Y6112 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The purpose of this report is to illustrate the use of the probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 code to simulate the light industrial use of a decontaminated building as one of the building occupancy scenarios described in NUREG/CR-5512 and NUREG-1727. The report illustrates how a data template file of updated input parameters and their distributions may be constructed to transition from the screening approach for dose analysis in NUREG/CR-5512 to a site-specific approach of the RESRAD-BUILD code. The intent of this illustration is not to recommend a set of "default" parameters, but to assist users in formulating a method for selecting and constructing a set of parameters to be used with the code for demonstrating compliance with the dose criteria in the license termination rule. The report describes an example of a dose analysis performed by using the probabilistic RESRAD-BUILD 3.0 code and the data template file developed for this report to provide insight into the dose values that may be obtained by simulating light industrial use as the building occupancy scenario.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No: 19-031 July 8, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Publishes Annual Report to Congress on Nuclear Security Inspections

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made publicly available an unclassified version of 

its annual report to Congress detailing the previous year’s security inspection program. The report is 

required under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The report covers the NRC’s security inspection program, including force-on-force 

exercises, for commercial nuclear power reactors and Category I fuel cycle facilities for calendar 

year 2018. It provides information regarding the overall security and safeguards performance of the 

commercial nuclear power industry and Category I fuel cycle facilities to keep Congress and the 

public informed of the NRC’s efforts to oversee the protection of the nation’s civilian nuclear power 

infrastructure and strategic special nuclear material.

In 2018, the NRC conducted 192 security inspections at commercial nuclear power plants 

and Category I fuel cycle facilities. Those included 21 force-on-force inspections, involving 

simulated attacks on the facilities to test the effectiveness of a licensee’s physical protection 

program. The NRC’s security inspection program and publicly available results are discussed in the 

report.

Whenever NRC inspectors identify a security finding during an inspection, they ensure the 

licensee implements appropriate compensatory measures to correct the situation, if not already 

implemented by the licensee. Details of security findings are considered sensitive and not released 

to the public.
**Exhibit 32.2**





**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wendy F. DiCicco, Chief Financial 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.





Date:
February 9, 2005
/s/ Wendy F. DiCicco, CPAWendy F. DiCicco, CPAChief Financial Officer
No. 86-440.

#### Bechtel, Inc. *v.*Webster et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of the parties to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari granted for 90 days.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of TRAC-PF1/MOD1 Against an Inadvertent Feedwater Line Isolation Transient in the Ringhals 4 Power Plant (NUREG/IA-0038)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0038 (PDF 3.15 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** March 1992

**Prepared by:** A. Sjoberg

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate S-61182 Nykoping Sweden

**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

An inadvertent feedwater line isolation transient in a three loop Westinghouse PWR has been simulated with the frozen version of the TRAC-PF1/MOD1 computer code. The results reveal the capacity of the code to quantitatively predict the different pertinent phenomena. For accurate predictions of the system response it was found that a careful nodalization of the steam generator downcomer was essential for accurate pressure distribution and associated level prediction. Also the core moderator temperature reactivity coefficient was recommended to be decreased somewhat (be less negative) whereas the fuel gap conductance should be rather low in order to increase the initial stored energy of the fuel rods. It was also found during the course of the calculations that some restrictions had to be imposed on the allowable maximum timestep size in order not to violate the convergence of the solution procedure.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00161

- CR Ziyad TAIYM , Appellant

v. The STATE of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2002CR8156 Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 13, 2013
MOTIO N TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Ziyad Taiym pled guilty to a charge of sexual assault pursuant to a plea agreement and was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of six years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Taiym violated various conditions of h is community supervision. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Taiym violated some of the conditions of his deferred adjudication, adjudicated Taiym guilty , and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. After the Court of Criminal Appeals granted Taiym an out

- of

- time appeal, he filed a m otion for new trial, which was overruled by operation of law. Taiym then timely filed a notice of appeal.04

- 13

- 00161

- CR Taiym’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Th e brief demonstrates a professional evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Taiym w as provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. Taiym has not done so. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Taiym ’s counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id .; Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. A pp.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). 1
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Do not publish

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretio nary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. An y petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 6 8.4.

- 2

-
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Shipping Container Response to Severe Highway and Railway Accident Conditions(NUREG/CR-4829,UCID-20733)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021