alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Burgos, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 336]

Judgment, Supreme *505Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered November 19, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and reckless endangerment in the first degree, sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years on the weapon count and 21/3 to 7 years on the remaining counts, unanimously affirmed.

Evidence at the hearing was that defendant shot in the direction of the fleeing victim with whom he had gotten into an argument, hitting that person as well as a bystander. As police responded within seconds, a witness immediately climbed into the patrol car and led the officers in the direction of the fleeing suspects, who, although they had momentarily passed out of the witness’s sight, were apprehended within a few moments. During this brief chase, the officers concentrated on following the witness’s directions, and did not even take time to record information about the witness himself, although they did receive from him a brief and sufficient description of the suspects before he pointed out defendant. We find that this identification was the result of a "witness-initiated procedure” in which the officers acted at the witness’s direction within short spatial and temporal limits, rather than a "police-arranged procedure” such as might occur in a more extended canvass of a neighborhood during which direction over the search would gravitate increasingly to the police *(cf., People v Dixon,*85 NY2d 218, 223, citing *People v Rios,*156 AD2d 397). The witness’s momentary entry into a police car, and the subsequent short pursuit to apprehend the suspects in the direction of flight specified by the witness when the suspects momentarily passed out of the witness’s direct line of sight, should not convert what was a witness-initiated procedure into a "canvassing of the crime area”, held to be police-arranged in *Dixon (supra,*at 223). Since the identification was not police arranged, CPL 710.30 notice of that identification was not required *(People v Kavanaugh,*207 AD2d 719, *lv denied*84 NY2d 937).

Defendant’s challenge to the hearing court’s finding of independent source to support the in-court identification of one of the victims is meritless.

We find no basis to disturb the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Culture Policy Statement (NUREG/BR-0500, Revision 4)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Policy Statement

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0500, Revision 4 (PDF - 304 MB)  |  Spanish Version, Revision 2 (PDF - 1.48 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** May 2018

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

## Policy Statement

The Safety Culture Policy Statement sets forth the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) expectation that individuals and organizations performing regulated activities establish and maintain a positive safety culture commensurate with the safety and security significance of their activities and the nature and complexity of their organizations and functions.

This policy statement applies to all licensees, certificate holders, permit holders, authorization holders, holders of quality assurance program approvals, vendors and suppliers of safety-related components, and applicants for a license, certificate, permit, authorization, or quality assurance program approval subject to NRC authority. In addition, the Commission encourages the Agreement States (States that assume regulatory authority over their own use of certain nuclear materials), their licensees, and other organizations interested in nuclear safety to support the development and maintenance of a positive safety culture within their regulated communities.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                      ADVANCED LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

         Exhibit 11 -- Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share

                (In thousands, except per share dollar amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           Three Months Ended September 30,
                                             --------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1997                          1997
                                             --------------------------------------------------------
                                              Shares    Amount    EPS       Shares    Amount     EPS
                                             --------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                          <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>      <C>       <C>
NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON
  SHAREHOLDERS                                          $2,490                        $1,470
                                                        ======                        ======

Sharebase:
  Shares deemed outstanding at beginning
    of period                                13,435                          10,845
  Weighted average shares issued pursuant
    to public offering                        2,772                           1,953
  Weighted average shares issued for 
    exercise of stock options                    18                              -
  Weighted average common share
    equivalents                                 365                             201
  Weighted average shares issuable               35                              35
                                             ------                          ------

                                             16,625                          13,034
                                             ======                          ======

NET EARNINGS PER SHARE                                           $  .15                       $  .11
                                                                 ======                       ======
</TABLE>



                                       30
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CURTIS CLAY PHILLIPS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 220 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01480]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer 
Assistance Center Improvements Project Committee will be conducted. The 
Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Owsley at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(317) 685-7627.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Wednesday, February 
11, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Robin Owsley. For more information please contact: Robin Owsley at 
1-888-912-1227 or (317) 685-7627or write: TAP Office, 575 N. 
Pennsylvania, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or contact us at the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.
    The committee will be discussing various issues related to the 
Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.

    Dated: January 21, 2015.
Otis Simpson,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2015-01480 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Lena Miccarelli et al., Respondents, v David Fleiss et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[631 NYS2d 159]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered April 21, 1994, which denied defendant physicians’ motion seeking to strike plaintiffs’ response in their verified bills of particulars to item #8 of defendants’ demand for a verified bill of particulars, and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to the extent of striking, nunc pro tunc, item #10 from said demand, unanimously reversed, on the law, defendants’ motion granted and plaintiffs’ cross motion denied, plaintiffs to serve a response to item #8 of the demand specifying the acts and omissions upon which their claims of negligence against the physician defendants are based, and item #10 reinstated and plaintiffs directed to respond thereto, without costs.

*470The IAS Court’s denial of defendant physicians’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3042 (d) to strike plaintiffs’ response to item # 8 of the demand for a verified bill of particulars was an abuse of discretion. The purpose of a bill of particulars being to amplify the pleadings, limit the proof and prevent surprise at trial *(Twiddy v Standard Mar. Transp. Servs.,*162 AD2d 264, 265), responses to a demand for a bill must clearly detail the specific acts of negligence attributed to each defendant *(Batson v La Guardia Hosp.,*194 AD2d 705; *Lamb v Rochester Gen. Hosp.,*130 AD2d 963; *Brynes v New York Hosp.,*91 AD2d 907). Plaintiffs’ response to item # 8 does not do, this, setting forth only identical vague, nonresponsive allegations of negligence against the physician defendants that cover every conceivable medical malpractice claim without distinguishing their separate alleged acts and omissions. Should plaintiffs lack, as they claim, present knowledge of relevant information requested by the demand, they should be as responsive as possible, stating their inability to respond if such is the case, and upon acquiring the information after disclosure, serving a supplemental bill of particulars *(Brynes v New York Hosp., supra).*

The court also abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs’ cross motion and striking item #10 from the demand, which sought a statement of "how it will be claimed each of said injuries was caused by the alleged negligence”, finding that such improperly sought evidentiary information. Although there are occasions when a party properly may be required to set forth evidentiary matter in a bill of particulars *(Twiddy v Standard Mar. Transp. Servs.,*162 AD2d 264, *supra),*in our view, item # 10 does not seek evidentiary information but only a general explanation of causation. In any event, plaintiffs concede that they did not timely object to item # 10 by moving to vacate or modify the demand within 10 days of service, as required by CPLR 3042 (former [a]). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.
No. 90-505.

#### California Public Utilities Commission *v.*Federal Energy Regulatory Commission et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2022

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, January 23, 2024

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 Tuesday, January 23, 2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Application of RELAP5/MOD3.1 Code to the LOFT Test L3-6 (NUREG/IA-0024)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0024 (PDF 2.88 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** February 1998

**Prepared by:** S.S. Pylev and V.L. Roginskaja

Nuclear Safety Institute Russian Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute" Kurchatov Square, 1 123182, Moscow Russia

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the Code Assessment and Maintenance Program

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

A calculation of LOFT Experiment L3-6, a small break equivalent to a 4-in. diameter rupture in the cold leg of a four-loop commercial pressurized water reactor, has been performed to help validate RELAP5/MOD3.1 for this application.

The version of the code to be used is SCDAP/RELAP5/MOD3.1.8d0.

Three calculations were carried out in order to study the sensitivity to change break nozzle superheated discharge coefficient.

Conducted comparative analysis of the LOFT L3-6 experiment shows on the whole a reasonable agreement between calculated and measured data. Some discrepancies in the system pressure do not distort a picture of the transient.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC ContractorsReview of NUREG-0654, Supplement 3, "Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accid

# Review of NUREG-0654, Supplement 3, "Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accidents" - Focus Groups and Telephone Survey (NUREG/CR-6953, Volume 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6953, Volume 2 (PDF - 10.5 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 2008**Date Published:** October 2008

**Prepared by:**1J.A. Jones and F. Walton2R.L. Sullivan

1Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque, NM 87185

R. Sullivan, NRC Technical Lead

**Prepared for:**2Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code R3137 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In the assessment of alternative protective actions for use in response to nuclear power plant (NPP) emergencies, consideration is given to the likelihood of the public implementing these actions. Understanding the public’s knowledge and confidence in protective actions informs the decision process on development of protective actions. Focus groups were conducted to research the views of the public and emergency response personnel. A national telephone survey of residents living within NPP Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) was conducted to obtain data for use in developing an understanding of public tendencies towards emergency preparedness. The conclusions of this research support the decision to update Supplement 3 to NUREG-0654 / FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. Additional observations and insights were gained from this research that may benefit NPP emergency preparedness programs.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No. 84-6504.

#### Mack *v.*Illinois.

Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Griffith*v. *Kentucky, ante,*p. 314.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 September 27, 2016

s0919

Order 

Clerk

September 27, 2016

152211

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152211

COA: 321000

Wayne CC: 13-009215-FC

AKEI LEVORN CHAPMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2015 

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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Pounds, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 1022]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a forged *880instrument in the second degree, defendant contends that the suppression court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained by the police from Bell’s Supermarket. Specifically, defendant challenges the suppression court’s reliance on the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule. We reject defendant’s challenge. The People established "a very high degree of probability that the evidence in question would have been obtained independently of the tainted source” *(People v Payton,*45 NY2d 300, 313, *revd on other grounds*445 US 573, *on remand*51 NY2d 169; *see, People v Fitzpatrick,*32 NY2d 499, 506, *cert denied*414 US 1033,1050; *People v Watson,*188 AD2d 501). Moreover, the challenged evidence "was not evidence illegally obtained during or as the immediate consequence of the challenged police conduct” *(People v Stith,*69 NY2d 313, 318). Rather, it was "evidence obtained indirectly as a result of leads or information gained from [the] primary evidence” *(People v Stith, supra,*at 318). Thus, the record supports the suppression court’s application of the inevitable discovery exception to the challenged evidence. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J. — Attempted Criminal Possession Forged Instrument, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
No. 86-179.

No. 86-401.

#### Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints et al. *v.*Amos et al.; and United States *v.*Amos et al.

D. C. Utah. [Probable jurisdiction postponed, *ante,*p. 929.] Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument granted, and the time is to be divided as follows: 15 minutes for appellants in No. 86-179 and 15 minutes for the Solicitor General in No. 86-401.
Exhibit 10.36



Schedule

Setting Forth Information on

Twenty Additional and Substantially Identical Indemnity and Guaranty Agreements



(Except as set forth below, documents are substantially identical to the

document included as Exhibit 10.35 of this filing, except for immaterial variations)



|                                     |  |                          |               |                       |       
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------ | ------------- | --------------------- | ------
|Location                             |  | Principal Sum (Recitals) |               | Pool Number (Heading)
|Greensboro, North Carolina           |  | $                        | 4,875,000.00  |                       | Pool 2
|Lubbock, Texas                       |  | $                        | 2,500,000.00  |                       | Pool 2
|Akron/Copley Ohio                    |  | $                        | 5,460,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Kalamazoo, Michigan                  |  | $                        | 3,938,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Clearwater/St. Petersburg, Florida   |  | $                        | 3,540,000.00  |                       | Pool 2
|Boston/Danvers, Massachusetts        |  | $                        | 4,620,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Irvine, California                   |  | $                        | 12,750,000.00 |                       | Pool 2
|Arcadia, California                  |  | $                        | 14,850,000.00 |                       | Pool 2
|Chicago-Deerfield, Illinois          |  | $                        | 8,100,000.00  |                       | Pool 2
|Memphis, Tennessee                   |  | $                        | 2,535,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Birmingham, Alabama                  |  | $                        | 5,573,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Placentia, California                |  | $                        | 7,650,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Pensacola, Florida                   |  | $                        | 3,540,000.00  |                       | Pool 2
|Santa Fe, New Mexico                 |  | $                        | 8,050,000.00  |                       | Pool 1
|Boca Raton, Florida                  |  | $                        | 3,750,000.00  |                       | Pool 2
|Columbia/Spartanburg, South Carolina |  | $                        | 4,380,000.00  |                       | Pool 2





---

|                                   |  |   |               |  |       
|---------------------------------- |  | - | ------------- |  | ------
|Philadelphia/Berwyn, Pennsylvania  |  | $ | 5,979,000.00  |  | Pool 2
|Las Vegas, Nevada                  |  | $ | 20,625,000.00 |  | Pool 1
|Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana |  | $ | 4,050,000.00  |  | Pool 1
|Jackson, Mississippi               |  | $ | 3,360,000.00  |  | Pool 1