alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DALE R . STEIN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. G. W OODS, DDS; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16968 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01243-JSW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Da le R . Ste in, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate indiffe re nc e to his se rious de nta l ne e ds. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo, Toguc hi v . C hung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th C ir.



# FIL ED FEB 2 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2004), a

nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt be c a

use Ste in fa ile d to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r de fe nda

nts we re de libe rat e ly

indiffe re nt to his denta l proble m s a nd a ssoc iate d pa in. Se eid. at 1057- 58 (a prison offic i a l a c ts with de libe rate indiffe re nc e only if he or she knows of a

nd disre ga rds a n e xc e ssive risk to theprisone r’ s he a lth a nd sa fe t y ; ne glige nc e and a m e re diffe re nc e in m e dic a l o p inion a re insuffic ie nt); J

ac k son v . Mc Intosh , 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th C ir. 1996) (to e sta blish tha t a diffe re nc e of opinion a

m ounte d to de libe rat e indiffe re nc e , a

prisone r “ m

ust show tha

t the c ourse of tre atm e nt the doc tors c hose wa s m e dic a l ly una c c e pta

ble unde r the c irc um s ta

nc e s” an d “ that the y c hose t his c ourse i n c onsc i ous disre ga rd of a n e xc e ssive risk to [theprisone r’ s] he a lth” ); se ealso Pe ralta v . Dillard , 744 F.3d 1076, 1086-88 (9th C i r. 2014) (e n ba nc ) (offic ia l whose only

role wa s re vie wing inte rna l a ppe a l doe s not a c t with de libe rat e indiffe re nc e a

bse nt knowle dge of a

substa ntia l risk of se rious ha

rm ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 9 6 8 2
#### JAMES ALBRITTON, ADM’R. vs. WILLIAM SUTTON.

A testator devised as follows: “I give to my son, Benjamin D. Harper, a'5 my estate after settling my debts, except the $300 above mentioned. If Benjamin does not live till of age, then I dispose of my estate as follows: I give to my sisters, &c.” Benjamin died under age. *Held,*that he was entitled to the profits of Iho estate, (except tire $300) during his life.

The cases of *Turner*v. *Whitted,*2 Hawks, 613, and *Spruill*v. *Moore, !i*Ired. Eg. 2S4.

Appeal from tbe Superior Court of Law of Greene County, at the Fall Term 1848, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.

Hugh J. Harper made his will and therein bequeathed $300 to Samuel W. Scarbrough, and then disposed as follows : “I give unto my son Benjamin D. Harper all my estate after settling my debts, except the $300 above mentioned. If Benjamin does not live till of age, then I dispose of my estate as follows: I give to my sisters, if ^live, or their children, etc.: all to have an equal share.”

The testator’s estate consisted of land, negroes, and other chattels, and some debts, and cash. The defendant, Sutton, was appointed the guardian of the infant Benjamin, and in that character entered into the land, and 'also settled with the executor of the testator and received the slaves and other personal property on behalf of his ward. Benjamin afterwards lived several years, and then died under 21; and the plaintiff administered on his estate, and filed this petition, praying for an account of the profits of the estates, accrued during the life of his intestate, and payment of the balance, that might be found due, alter deducting disbursments for the maintainance of the infant, The defendant put in a demurrer, which, *390on argument, was over-ruled; and the defendant appealed.

*Rodman,*for the plaintiff.

*J. H. Bryan*and *J. W. Bryan,*for the defendant.

Rufpin, C. J.

The decree must be affirmed. For al- • though it be a general rule, that when particular legacies are payable at a future day, the legatee is not entitled to interest before the day, yet there is an established exception to that, when the gift is to an infant child, and the parent makes no other provision for his maintainance in the mean while. *Crickets*v. *Dalby,*3 Ves, 10. *Chamber*v. Goldwin, 11 Ves. 1. *Wynch*v. *Wynch,*1 Cox 433. *Heath*v. *Perry,*3 Atk. 101. *Sheledon*v. *North,*3 Atk. 430.

But here the words plainly import an immediate gift of the whole estate, except a small pecuniary legacy, and vested it immediately in the son, but defeasible upon the contingency of his dying under 21; and in that case it is perfectly settled, that the legatee takes the profits, until the divesting of his estate by the happening of the contingency. *Nicholas*v. *Osborne, 2*P. Wms. 419. *Shepherd*v. *Ingram,*1 Arab. 448. *Skey*v. *Barnes,*3 Meriv. 340. *Turner*v. *Whitted, 2*Hawks. 613. *Spruill*v. *Moore,*5 Ired. Eq. 284.

Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs.
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### Office of the Secretary

                    Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

                    The current rate of 10                    1/2                    %, as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended December 31, 2014. This rate is based on the Interest Rates for Specific Legislation, “National Health Services Corps Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 250(B)(1)(A))” and “National Research Service Award Program (42 U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).” This interest rate will be applied to overdue debt until the Department of Health and Human Services publishes a revision.                

Dated: January 15, 2015.

David C. Horn,

Director, Office of Financial Policy and Reporting. 

[FR Doc. 2015-01429 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2013

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, April 28, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### 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 Thursday, April 28, 2022
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# NRC Inspector Field Observation Best Practices (NUREG/BR-0326, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Purpose

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0326, Revision 1 (PDF - 1.23 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**August 2009

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

## Purpose

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) developed this booklet for new inspectors. In user-friendly language, this booklet provides guidance and contains tips for an effective inspection. In writing this booklet, the author sought to combine information from veteran inspectors with best practices from all four NRC regions.

***NOTE:****This guidance is not intended to be all inclusive, but rather to supplement existing inspection procedures, to heighten inspector awareness of some common inspection attributes, and to improve the effectiveness of plant walkdowns. Official agency guidance or policy is promulgated in NRC's Inspection Manual.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1682 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1682

To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 
  a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star 
                    program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2017

 Mr. Latta (for himself and Mr. Welch) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 
  a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star 
                    program, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Star Program Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. NO WARRANTY.

    Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6294a) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) No Warranty.--
            ``(1) In general.--Any disclosure relating to participation 
        of a product in the Energy Star program shall not create an 
        express or implied warranty or give rise to any private claims 
        or rights of action under State or Federal law relating to the 
        disqualification of that product from Energy Star if--
                    ``(A) the product has been certified by a 
                certification body recognized by the Energy Star 
                program;
                    ``(B) the Administrator has approved corrective 
                measures, including a determination of whether or not 
                consumer compensation is appropriate; and
                    ``(C) the responsible party has fully complied with 
                all approved corrective measures.
            ``(2) Construal.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
        construed to require the Administrator to modify any procedure 
        or take any other action.''.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Reschedules Meeting on Indian Point 2 Inspection Findings

----

----

 

**NRC RESCHEDULES MEETING ON INDIAN POINT 2 INSPECTION FINDINGS**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is postponing a meeting planned for next week to discuss the results of a review performed by a team of NRC inspectors at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant.

The NRC had scheduled the meeting for 11 a.m. on Monday, September 20, at the Buchanan, N.Y., plant. However, the agency has decided to postpone the session for several reasons, including observance of Yom Kippur and the need for NRC personnel to respond to Hurricane Floyd.

The meeting will now be held at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, September 29, in the Visitors Center Auditorium at the site, at Broadway and Bleakley Avenue.

At the meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, an NRC Augmented Inspection Team will present the findings of its review of a reactor trip with complications that occurred at Indian Point 2 on August 31.

Following the meeting, NRC officials will be available to answer questions from local officials and members of the press and public.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

ZORAN CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zoran Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Levy Gerzberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herebycertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  August 14, 2002

 

| /s/ Levy Gerzberg                     |
|---------------------------------------|
| Levy Gerzberg                         |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

 

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00499

- CR
Rudy Gutierrez v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR

- 5235

- 07

- D(2)

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this c ause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 31, 2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7332

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FERNANDO ROCHO FUENTES, a/k/a Fernando Ortega Fuentes, a/k/a 

Fernando Fuentes Ortega,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:07-cr-00012-sgw-mfu-2)

Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 13, 2010

Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Rocho Fuentes, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Rocho Fuentes seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Fuentes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                        CKS GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                OF NET INCOME AND PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED        NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                        ------------------        -----------------
                                                      AUGUST 31,   AUGUST 31,   AUGUST 31,   AUGUST 31,
                                                        1997         1996         1997         1996
                                                        ----         ----         ----         ----
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income                                             $ 2,380
                                                       =======
Pro forma net income*                                               $ 2,225      $ 6,133      $ 5,564
                                                                    =======      =======      =======
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding    14,694       14,006       14,530       13,731

Number of common stock equivalents as a result of
  stock options outstanding using the
  treasury stock method                                    939          563          812          591
                                                       -------      -------      -------      -------
Shares used in per share computation                    15,633       14,569       15,342       14,322
                                                       =======      =======      =======      =======
Net income per share                                   $  0.15
                                                       =======
Pro forma net income per share                                      $  0.15      $  0.40      $  0.39
                                                                    =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>

*Pro forma net income gives effect to the pooling of interests business
combinations between the Company, McKinney & Silver ("M&S") and SiteSpecific,
Inc. ("SiteSpecific"). M&S was a general partnership and, as a result, M&S's
historical results of operations, which have been included with the Company's
under the pooling of interests method, do not include a provision for income
taxes. Pro forma income and net income per share include a tax provision as if
M&S had been a taxable "C" corporation for all periods presented.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Environmentally Assisted Cracking in Light Water Reactors: Annual/SemiannualReports (NUREG/CR-4667)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Seismic Failure and Cask Drop Analyses of the Spent Fuel Pools at Two Representative Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-5176)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-5176 (PDF - 5.85 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 1988**Date Published:** January 1989 

**Prepared by:** P. G. Prassinos, C. Y. Kimura, D. B. McCallen, R. C. Murray/LLNL M. K. Ravindra, R. D. Campbell, P. S. Hashimoto, A. M. Nafday, W. H. Tong/EQE

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7000 East Avenue Livermore, CA 94550

Subcontractor: EQE Engineering, Inc. 3150 Bristol, Suite 350 Costa Mesa, CA 92626

**Prepared for:** Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

NRC FIN A0814

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report discusses work done in support of the resolution of Generic Issue-82, "Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools". Specifically the probability of spent fuel pool failure due to earthquakes was determined for the pools at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (BWR) and the H. B. Robinson S.E. Plant, Unit 2 (PWR). The dominant failure mode for each pool was gross structural failure caused by seismic motion resulting in the loss of pool liner integrity. The resulting sudden loss of water was then assumed to lead to a self-propagating cladding failure and fission product inventory release from the spent fuel elements in the pool. The mean annual frequency of failure due to this failure mode was found to be 6.7E-06 at Vermont Yankee and 1.8E-06 at H. B. Robinson. Other earthquake induced failure modes studied but found to be less important were loss of pool cooling and make-up capability, fuel rack damage and loss of liner integrity due to a cask drop accident.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021