alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Randall L. HAMMERER, Debtor and Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and Department of Revenue, Defendants.

Bankruptcy Nos. 81-1440, 81-01095.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

March 16, 1982.

Robert N. Meyeroff, Milwaukee, Wis., for debtor and plaintiff.

Nelson E. Shafer, Dist. Counsel, Internal Revenue Service, Milwaukee, Wis., and Atty. Nancy Morgan, Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for Internal Revenue Service.

John Fliss, Wis. Dept, of Revenue, Madison, Wis., for Wis. Dept, of Revenue.

ORDER

D. E. IHLENFELDT, Bankruptcy Judge.

The debtor filed this action seeking either to have his 1977 federal income tax liability discharged in bankruptcy or to voluntarily dismiss his original petition in bankruptcy in order to refile. The United States filed a motion to dismiss.

The debtor filed his federal individual income tax return (Form 1040) for the year 1977 on February 27, 1978. The debtor’s Form 1040 for 1977 was timely filed in that the due date was April 17, 1978.* The *525debtor filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy on April 10, 1981, and was ordered discharged on July 20, 1981.

Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C.) Section 523(a)(1)(A) provides that individuals are not discharged under Bankruptcy Code Section 727 for claims which fall within Bankruptcy Code Section 507(a)(6). Code Section 507(a)(6)(A)(i) renders nondischargeable claims for federal income taxes for which a return was due less than three years before the voluntary petition was filed. Because the debtor’s Form 1040 was due on April 17, 1978, which was less than three years before debtor filed his petition in bankruptcy on April 10, 1981, the debt- or’s 1977 income taxes are nondischargeable.

Alternatively, the debtor sought dismissal of the bankruptcy case in order that he might refile later and thereby obtain a discharge of the government’s tax claim. Normally, a debtor’s request to dismiss rests within the sound discretion of the court and will be granted where there is no prejudice to other interested parties. Contrariwise, where such dismissal would cause some plain legal prejudice to the creditors, the motion should be denied unless all creditors affirmatively consent to the dismissal. *In re Hall*(9th Cir. Bkrtcy.App., 1981) 15 B.R. 913, 5 CBC2d 1028; *In re Keller*(W.D.Wis., 1978) 3 BCD 1261; *In re Shell*(Bkrtcy.E.D.Wis., 1981) 14 B.R. 1010, 5 CBC2d 588. Further, dismissal should be denied where the debtor’s purpose is to file a new petition and in effect obtain an enlarged discharge, in violation of the limitations that Congress has placed on chapter 7 relief. *In re Underwood*(Bkrtcy.S.D., W.Va., 1981) 7 B.R. 936, 3 CBC2d 640.

IT IS ORDERED that the debtor’s complaint, asking that his 1977 income tax liability be declared discharged, be and the same is hereby dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the debtor’s motion to dismiss the chapter 7 case be and the same is hereby dismissed.

*

 Because April 15, 1978 fell on a Saturday, the due date was the following business day, April 17. 1978.
Exhibit 13.02  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the
Annual Report of Sadia S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,  José Luis Magalhães Salazar, Chief Financial
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Administrative, Investor Relations and
Information Technology Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:  (i)            the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii)           the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.   /s/ José Luis Magalhães SalazarName: José Luis Magalhães SalazarTitle: Chief Financial
  Officer, Administrative, Investor Relations and Information Technology
  Officer  July 30, 2009  A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sadia S.A.
and will be retained by Sadia S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Submitted on briefs, November 20,

affirmed as modified December 3, 1973

#### In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Marriage of HOCHSTETLER, *Respondent, and*HOCHSTETLER (No. 77164), *Appellant.*

516 P2d 482

Dale D. Liberty, Sr., Oregon City, for appellant.

William J. Claussen, Salem, for respondent.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Fort, Judges.

*530FORT, J.

Respondent-wife appeals from a decree of dissolution of the marriage. She attacks only the awards of alimony, certain items of personal property and the amount of the attorney fees.

Respondent concedes in her brief that “[t]he law is not in dispute in this case.” She testified at trial, in response to a question from the court concerning the items of personal property here challenged, that “[i]f he wishes to have them, he can have them.” The award was correct.

The parties, married 25 years, had four children, all emancipated at the time of trial. Petitioner-husband had a gross income in excess of $1,500 per month. Respondent was unemployed and resided with one of her married daughters.

About six years prior to the trial, respondent contracted cancer. She had to give up her job and underwent major surgery. At the time of her last medical examination and prior to trial, the doctor recommended continued close supervision because of some continuing symptoms.

The trial court awarded her alimony for four years: $300 a month for the first two years and $150 a month for the next two years. At the time of trial, respondent, who had a high school education, contemplated a four-year, work-training course to become an interior decorator. From our review of the testimony we are of the opinion that the alimony provision should be modified to award respondent the sum of $400 per month for four years and $200 per month thereafter, pending respondent’s death or remarriage or substantial change in circumstances of the parties. Petitioner *531contends Ms continued employment is problematic in view of possible substantial budget cuts. OES 107.135 (1) (a) provides for modification of alimony support awards under appropriate circumstances.

We find no abuse of tbe court’s discretion in the award of attorney fees.

Affirmed as modified.
No. 82-5932.

#### Watnick *v.*Elgin State Hospital.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-5872.

#### Caruth *v.*Pinkney, Warden, et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

            CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Joseph W. Kaufmann, 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.

Date:    November 14, 2003          /s/ Joseph W. Kaufmann
                                    ----------------------
                                    Joseph W. Kaufmann
                                    Chief Executive Officer



                                       22
No. 86-728.

#### Honig, California Superintendent of Public Instruction *v.*Doe et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to Questions 1 and 3 presented by the petition.
IIB 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1684 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide technical assistance to common interest communities regarding eligibility for disaster assistance, 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, 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1684 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Assistance 

3 Support for Communities and Homeowners Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 

5 (a) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Administrator of 

6 the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall provide 

7 technical assistance to a common interest community that 

8 provides essential services of a governmental nature on ac9 tions that a common interest community may take in 

10 order to be eligible to receive reimbursement from a grant11 ee that receives funds from the Agency for certain activi12 ties performed after an event that results in a disaster 

13 declaration. 

14 (b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later than 90 days 

15 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

16 shall provide to the Committee on Transportation and In17 frastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com18 mittee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

19 of the Senate a legislative proposal on how to provide eligi20 bility for disaster assistance with respect to common areas 

21 of condominiums and housing cooperatives. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### State ex rel. Continental Insurance Company and others, Petitioners, vs. Chester A. Fowler, Circuit Judge, Defendant.

*May 15*

June *18, 1928.*

The cause was submitted for the petitioners on the brief of *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan*of Milwaukee, and for the defendant Chester A. Fowler and the Art Wall Paper Company (plaintiff below) on that of *Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison, attorneys, and *Julius Moses*of Chicago, of counsel.

Eschweiler, J.

The question here presented is the same as that in the companion petition decided herewith of *State ex rel. Ætna Ins. Co. v. Fowler, Judge (ante,*p. 451, 220 N. W. 534), and the decision in that case rules this.

*By the Court.*— Petition for a writ of prohibition denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Loss of Flow Analysis of Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant With RELAP5/SNAP (NUREG/IA-0483)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0483 (PDF – 2.13 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2017**Date Published:** October 2018

**Prepared by:** Chunkuan Shih, Jong-Rong Wang, Shao-Wen Chen, Jian-Ting Chen, Yuh-Ming Ferng, Ting-Yi Wang*, Hsien-Lang Chiu*

Nuclear and New Energy Education and Research Foundation Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University 101 Section 2, Kuang Fu Rd., HsinChu, Taiwan

*Department of Nuclear Safety, Taiwan Power Company 242, Section 3, Roosevelt Rd., Zhongzheng District, Taipei, Taiwan

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 objective of this study is to assess the applicability of the RELAP5/MOD3.3 model of Maanshan NPP on Loss of Flow transient. Maanshan NPP was the first three-loop PWR in Taiwan constructed by Westinghouse. For the last few years, the TRACE model of Maanshan NPP was developed and several kinds of transients were performed. Recently, the RELAP5/MOD3.3 code is another important development priority for our group. In 2015, the RELAP5/MOD3.3 model of Maanshan NPP was developed with SNAP interface. To expand the applicability of Maanshan RELAP5/MOD3.3 model, the loss of flow transient was analyzed in this research. Hence, two analyses- Partial Loss of Flow (PLOF) and Complete Loss of Flow (CLOF) were performed in this research. From the analysis results, including power, core flow, pressurizer pressure and cladding average temperature, were similar to the results of TRACE model. It indicates that Maanshan RELAP5/MOD3.3 model can predict this transient well.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 82-5867.

#### Piatkowska *v.*Employers Insurance of Wausau.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-5681.

#### Minshew *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1997

# NRC, TMI to Discuss Quality Control at Middletown, Pa. Plant

----

----

I-97-80

July 11, 1997

**NRC, TMI TO DISCUSS QUALITY CONTROL AT MIDDLETOWN, PA. PLANT**

Quality control issues at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant will be discussed by Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and the operator of the Middletown, Pa., facility at a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 16.

The meeting, which will begin at 10 a.m. in the public meeting room at NRC Region 1 offices in King of Prussia, Pa., will be open to the public for observation only.

Representatives of plant operator GPU Nuclear Corp. will provide a presentation regarding a root cause assessment of the quality control issues. The NRC requested the assessment earlier this year in a confirmatory action letter sent to the utility.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC to Discuss Humboldt Bay Decommissioning Plans with Public

----

----

RIV: 98-15

April 22, 1998

**NRC TO DISCUSS HUMBOLDT BAY DECOMMISSIONING PLANS WITH PUBLIC**

**Interested citizens and media invited to attend**

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with the public on Wednesday, April 29, from 7-10 p.m. to discuss proposed decommissioning activities at the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, a permanently-closed nuclear power plant near Eureka, Calif.

The meeting will be held at the Eureka Inn, 518 7th Street, Eureka. All interested citizens are invited to attend and participate in the discussion. A sign-up period will begin at 6:30 p.m. for anyone wishing to make comments to the NRC during the meeting or obtain a transcript afterward.

The NRC will present a discussion of the regulatory procedures that must be followed and provide an opportunity for interested members of the public to comment on the February 27 update to the Humboldt Bay Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report. This report details decommissioning activities to date and is available at the NRC Local Public Document Room in the Humboldt County Library.

PG&E, the owner of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, will describe the decommissioning program that has been proposed.

The Humboldt Bay plant began operating in 1963 and was permanently shut down in 1976. In 1985 it was placed in "SAFESTOR," one of the decommissioning options authorized by the NRC that mothballs the plant for a period of 30 years before dismantlement and cleanup. PG&E has proposed to begin the final steps earlier than planned.

Plans include moving used nuclear fuel, which is currently stored in a spent fuel pool at the plant, to steel containers, called dry cask storage. This storage option would be temporary until the used fuel can be moved to a permanent spent fuel repository. The remainder of the plant would be dismantled and the site cleaned up after the used fuel is safely removed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carl L. Simcox, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 956]

Judgment , unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that County Court improperly denied his request for the appointment of an expert pursuant to County Law § 722-c and abused its discretion in denying his request for an adjournment of the trial. By entering a plea of guilty rather than going to trial, defendant forfeited all of his trial rights as well as the right to challenge on appeal any alleged trial errors *(see, People v Green,*75 NY2d 902, 904, *cert denied*498 US 860). The attempt by defendant to condition his plea upon the preservation of issues that do not otherwise survive a guilty plea is ineffective *(see, People v Campbell,*73 NY2d 481, 486; *People v Fernandez, 67*NY2d 686, 688; *People v Howe,*56 NY2d 622, 624; *People v Thomas,*53 NY2d 338; *People v Mack,*53 NY2d 803, 806).

Defendant further argues that his suppression motion was improperly denied because the court’s failure to authorize the appointment of an expert deprived him of his right to present a defense. At the time the *Huntley*hearing was held, the court had not decided defendant’s request for the appointment of an expert; it had deferred decision until counsel filed an appropriate written request. Defendant did not request that the *Huntley*
      *870hearing be postponed until determination of his request for the appointment of an expert. Thus, defendant failed to preserve his present argument for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J.— Felony Driving While Intoxicated.) Present — Pine, J. P., Law-ton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR THE  QUARTERLY  PERIOD  ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANICAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>



<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                          7,324,527
<SECURITIES>                                   14,557,610
<RECEIVABLES>                                  33,494,000 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (175,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    30,653,603 <F2>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,573,645
<PP&E>                                            100,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (26,484)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 90,502,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,827,162
<BONDS>                                        66,315,415 <F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           43,911
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,316,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   90,502,806
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (1,388,940)
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,946,845
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              2,685,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (10,021,410)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,870,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (8,150,860)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 1,242,003
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (6,908,857)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (2.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.06)


<FN>
<F1> INCLUDES MATURED POLICIES RECEIVABLE,LOANS RECEIVABLE,AND TAXES RECEIVABLE.
<F2> INCLUDES PURCHASED LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES.
<F3> REPRESENTS LONG TERM BORROWINGS OF THE COMPANY.
</FN>



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          33,247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,395
<PP&E>                                         307,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 584,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,425
<BONDS>                                        374,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   584,264
<SALES>                                        141,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,361
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  160,129
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (862)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,631
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (26,346)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (26,346)


</TABLE>