alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Happy Landing Lounge, Inc., Petitioner, v State of New York Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 466]

Spain, 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 canceled petitioner’s liquor license.

Petitioner is a corporate holder of an on-premises liquor license for a small bar located at 98 Washington Street in the City of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County. Cleveland Gardener is the sole owner of petitioner and the premises, and is the only principal of petitioner on record with and approved by respondent. From January 1992 through March 1992, Gardener left his bar business with Charles Carpenter to operate while he left the country to care for his ailing mother in Jamaica. From December 1992 through September 1993, Gardener left the bar under the care of Vernal Hamilton while he again went to care for his mother. On both occasions, Gardener left the bar in a turn-key state and the individuals, who had not previously run or worked in the bar, were left in total control to operate the business on a cash basis without any accounting to Gardener. Gardener provided no direction, supervision or oversight of the business during his sojourns, leaving the affairs and finances of the bar in the unfettered discretion of Carpenter and Hamilton, respectively.

These uncontroverted circumstances provided an ample basis to support respondent’s determination that petitioner permitted Carpenter and Hamilton to avail themselves of its liquor license in contradiction of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 111 *(see, Matter of Dumbarton Oaks Rest. & Bar v New York*
      *787
      *State Liq. Auth.,*58 NY2d 89; *see also, Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland,*282 NY 256, 274). Despite petitioner’s contention that both Carpenter and Hamilton were merely unpaid voluntary managers who did not profit from the operation of the bar and who ran the bar only as a personal favor for Gardener, these circumstances do not alter the fact that individuals unapproved by respondent operated the bar for extended periods of time without Gardener’s participation *(see, Matter of South Shore Yacht Club v State Liq. Auth.,*34 AD2d 794). Based on our review of the record, we find that there was substantial evidence to support respondent’s determination *(see, Matter of Macagnal Orecchio Props. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*216 AD2d 468).

In light of all the circumstances and in view of the State’s public policy concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages, the sanction imposed, the cancellation of petitioner’s liquor license and the imposition of a $1,000 bond forfeiture, was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Moore, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 94]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (McGrath, J.), rendered July 18, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

In exchange for his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, defendant was promised a sentence of 2 to 4 years in prison. However, as a result of defendant’s failure to appear in court on the date scheduled for his sentencing, County Court refused to impose the agreed-upon sentence and instead imposed a sentence as a second felony offender of 31/2 to 7 years in prison. County Court further denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On appeal, defendant claims that County Court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea since the court reneged on the original sentencing agreement. We disagree. At the plea hearing, County Court informed defendant that if he did not appear for sentencing "all deals are off”. In view of *745defendant’s failure to comply with an explicit condition of the plea agreement, we find that County Court was free to impose a harsher sentence and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see, *People v Radek,*202 AD2d 847, *lv denied*84 NY2d 939; *People v Webster,*202 AD2d 710).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Post-Test Analysis of ROSA-2 Test 2 (IBLOCA) with TRACE (NUREG/IA-0503)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0503 (PDF – 1.37 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2018**Date Published:** February 2019

**Prepared by:**

S. Gallardo, A. Querol, M. Lorduy and G. Verdú Universitat Politècnica de València Instituto Universitario de Seguridad Industrial, Radiofísica y Medioambiental Camí de Vera s/n 46022 Valencia, SPAIN

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 Radiation Protection Computer Code Analysis and Maintenance Program (RAMP)

**Published by:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The purpose of this work is to overview the results obtained by simulating a 17% cold leg Intermediate Break Loss-Of-Coolant Accident (IBLOCA) in the Large Scale Test Facility (LSTF) using the thermal-hydraulic code TRACE5 patch 2. This IBLOCA transient corresponds to the Test 2 (IB-CL-03 in JAEA) and it is performed in the frame of the OECD/NEA ROSA-2 Project. During this transient, the single-failure of the High and the Low Pressure Injection systems (HPI and LPI, respectively) in the broken loop and the total failure of Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) are assumed. 

A detailed model of the LSTF and the chronology of events following these assumptions have been developed with TRACE5 patch 2. A comparison between the simulation and the experimental results is provided throughout different graphs. Acceptable general behavior is observed in the entire transient.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134401 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134401 

 COA: 269294 

Oakland CC: 2005-205109-FC 

ROSCOE DEWAYNE WEST, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 22, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0917 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process (NUREG/BR-0298, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0298, Revision 2 (PDF - 266 KB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**July 2009

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

## Introduction

In order for a commercial nuclear power plant to operate in the United States, it has to obtain a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Among other things, the NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating the operation of nuclear power plants. In the past five decades, the NRC (formed in 1975) and its predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, have issued 126 operating licenses for nuclear power plants. Of these, 103 are currently operating, 1 is temporarily closed, and 22 have been shut down after operating and are in various stages of decommissioning. In addition, four plants have NRC-issued permits that would allow them to complete construction. About 100 additional plants began the licensing process but did not complete it for various reasons.

In the past, nuclear power plants were licensed under a two-step licensing process. This process required both a construction permit and an operating license. In 1989, the NRC established an alternative licensing process that essentially combines a construction permit and an operating license, with certain conditions, into a single license. Under either process, before an applicant can build and operate a nuclear power plant, it must obtain approval from the NRC.

Other licensing alternatives established in 1989 are early site permits, which allow an applicant to obtain approval for a reactor site and "bank" it for future use, and certified standard plant designs, which can be used as pre-approved "off-the-shelf" designs.

Public involvement is a key element in all of the NRC's reactor licensing processes. Consequently, the agency holds numerous public meetings during the course of the licensing process, and the law requires that the NRC must hold a public hearing before issuing a construction permit, early site permit, or combined license for a nuclear plant. In addition, all documents and correspondence related to an application are placed in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) in Rockville, Maryland, which can be accessed through the Public NRC Library. Members of the public may access the NRC Library libraries from computers with Internet access. The agency issues press releases announcing receipt of applications, as well as public meetings, opportunities for hearings, and other major actions taken by the NRC. In addition, copies of key documents and notifications are sent to Federal, State, and local officials; published in the *Federal Register* and local newspapers; and made available electronically.

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

# Burnup Credit PIRT Report (NUREG/CR-6764)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6764 (PDF 4.96 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2001**Date Published:** May 2002

**Prepared by:** G. H. Bidinger, R. J. Cacciapouti, J. M. Conde, P. Cousinou, T. Doering, P. Grimm, H-R Hwang, W. J. Lee, D. Marloye, R. L. Murray, J-C Neuber, M. B. Raap, J. Saptya, D. A. Thomas, S. Turner,  R. E. Wilson, B. Boyack, D. J. Diamond

Brookhaven National Laboratory P.O. Box 5000 Upton, NY 11973-5000

R. Y. Lee, NRC Project Manager

**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 Y6587

Availability Notice

## Abstract

When fuel is irradiated in a reactor, the isotopic composition, and therefore the reactivity, of the fuel changes with burnup. Nevertheless, until recently, the NRC's approval of the criticality safety evaluations for commercial spent fuel in casks had been based on analyzing the spent fuel as though it were unirradiated. This "fresh fuel" assumption provided a well-defined, straightforward, and bounding approach that eliminated the need for information on the reactor operating conditions and reactor power history and the core history of individual fuel assemblies. However, while being bounding, the fresh fuel assumption leads to overly conservative cask designs. To address this conservatism, the NRC issued the Spent Fuel Project Office Interim Staff Guidance - 8 Rev. l based on information available at the time. ISG8R1 allows limited bumup credit (BUC) in the criticality safety analyses of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) spent fuel in transport and storage casks. In the same time frame of ISG8R1, the NRC initiated a research program to: clarify guidance on acceptable technical approaches to BUC; develop approaches for expanding the range of BUC; and address regulatory needs for safe, simple, and cost-effective implementation of BUC. As an element in this research program, the NRC commissioned the formation of a Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) panel. Two objectives of the PIRT panel were to 1) identify and rank phenomena, processes, and parameters, that influence the effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) for irradiated nuclear fuel in transport and storage configurations, and 2) assess the worth of experimental measurement facility classes for validation of calculational methods. Results of the panel's findings are presented in this report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 35.1


SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


CAPITAL ONE PRIME AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST 2023-2





Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2023-2


c/o Capital One Auto Receivables, LLC


1600 Capital One Drive, Room 27907-B


McLean, Virginia 22102





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2023-2 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One, National Association (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:





1. A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement dated as of October 11, 2023 (the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2023-2, as Issuer, the Servicer and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.





2.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 26 th day of March, 2024.





CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION


By:/s/ SANJIV YAJNIKName:Sanjiv YajnikTitle:President, Financial Services
Amendment Number One to the United Rentals, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10(j) 
 AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE 
 TO THE UNITED RENTALS, INC. 

ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN, 
 AS AMENDED AND RESTATED, 
 EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 16, 2008 

WHEREAS, United Rentals, Inc. (the “Company”) has established the United Rentals, Inc. Annual Incentive Compensation Plan, as
amended and restated, effective December 16, 2008 (the “Plan”); 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company
has the authority under Section 9.2 of the Plan to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the Plan to
clarify certain payment terms for purposes of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and to correct certain provisions in accordance with IRS Notice 2010-6. 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment set forth in the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective on and after
January 1, 2005: 
 1. The second sentence of Section 7.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to read as follows:

 “Any election to defer shall be made prior to the end of the calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the
Performance Period begins; provided that, to the extent permitted under Treasury Regulation section 1.409A-2(a)(7), for the year in which an executive of the Company first becomes eligible to participate in the Plan, such election to defer must be
made by a Participant not later than 30 days following the date he or she is selected by the Committee to participate in the Plan.” 
 2. Section 8.3 of the Plan is hereby amended to add the following phrase to the end thereof: 
 “or, if earlier, the date of the Participant’s death.” 
 3. The
Plan is hereby amended by adding a new Section 10.11 to read as follows: 
 “If for any reason, such as imprecision in
drafting, any provision of the Plan does not accurately reflect its intended establishment of an exemption from (or compliance with) Code Section 409A, as demonstrated by consistent interpretations or other evidence of intent, such provision
shall be considered ambiguous as to its exemption from (or compliance with) Code Section 409A and shall be interpreted by the Committee in a manner consistent with such intent. To the extent that the right to any payment under the Plan provides
for deferred 







 
compensation within the meaning of Code Section 409A that is not exempt from Code Section 409A as a short-term deferral (or otherwise), a termination of employment shall not be deemed
to have occurred for purposes of any provision of the Plan providing for any payment upon or following a termination of employment unless such termination is also a “separation from service” within the meaning of Code Section 409A
and, for purposes of any such provision, references to a “termination,” “termination of employment,” or like terms shall mean “separation from service.” Each payment made under the Plan shall be designated as a
“separate payment” within the meaning of Code Section 409A.” 
 4. Except as hereinabove amended and
modified, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,807
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,170
<PP&E>                                         308,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 740,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          327,317
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           297
<OTHER-SE>                                     242,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   740,674
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               177,453
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,389)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,393)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.92)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch

,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23 , 2021 

# Order

Clerk June 23 , 2021

16 2 932 ( 8 7 )

BRIAN WEBB,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., doing business as

DETROIT MEDICAL CENTER,

Intervening Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 162932

v COA: 351048

Wayne CC: 18

- 012887

- NF

PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE

COMPANY, and MICHIGAN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PLACEMENT FACILITY, also known as

MICHIGAN ASSIGNED CLAIMS PLAN,

De fendants

- Appellees,

and

UNNAMED SERVICING INSURER,

Defendant

.

_______ ______________________________ ___ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to extend the time

for filing h i s reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted

on or before Ju ne 2 8, 2021.
Exhibit 24.4

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the 2006 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the 2006 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20thday of March, 2007.



/s/ Ronald A. FickRonald A. Fick




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 20thday of March, 2007, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came Ronald A. Fick, known to me to be
the identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



/s/ Kristine C. WackerNotary PublicMy commission expires: 2-28-2010