alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50807

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PAULINA ESCARSEGA-DIAZ, also known as Paulina Leonor Escarcega-Diaz

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2110-ALL

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Paulina Escarsega-Diaz

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 2008 WL 59441 (Jan.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 30, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50807

2

7, 2008) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of TX Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Mark S.
Neuhaus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his
knowledge:

         (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.


/s/ Mark S. Neuhaus
-----------------------
Mark S. Neuhaus
Chief Executive Officer
January 23, 2007

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TX Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by TX Holdings, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Simulation of PKL Loss of RHRS Experiment F2.2 Run 2 with RELAP5 and TRACE Codes – Application to a PWR NPP Model (NUREG/IA-0257)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0257 (PDF - 734 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**June 2011**Date Published:** September 2011

**Prepared by:**César Queral1, Antonio Expósito1, and Alberto Concejal1,

1 Universidad Politécnica de MadridAlenza 4. 28003 MadridSPAIN

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

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:**Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

An analysis of PKL midloop test F2.2 has been performed with TRACE and RELAP5/MOD3 codes. This test, included within the OECD/PKL project, tries to analyze the phenomenology and different accident management actions after a loss of RHRS at midloop conditions with primary side closed. The comparison between the results obtained with both codes shows that, in general, the main phenomena are well reproduced. However, there are still a few phenomena that are not well predicted, like pressurizer level. The good results obtained simulating another similar test (PKL test E3.1) enables to confirm that the modelling methodology is adequate for this kind of transients. This modelling methodology has been also applied to a TRACE model of a Spanish PWR, Westinghouse design, simulating a similar transient to test F2.2 run2, obtaining similar results than in PKL models.

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

36.531425
Order filed May 2, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00353-CV

__________

IN THE INTEREST OF G.C. AND J.C., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC2-2991-PC

O R D E R

The trial court terminated the parental rights of both parents of G.C. and J.C. 

Both parents filed an appeal. This appeal is accelerated, and so far as reasonably 

possible, this court must ensure that the appeal is brought to final disposition 

within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; 

TEX. R.JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). 

Appellants’ briefs are past due. This court previously extended Appellants’ 

briefing deadline and informed Appellants by letter dated March 28, 2013, that 

their briefs were due to be filed on or before April 15, 2013, and that “no further 
2

extensions shall be filed.” Despite this court’s March 28 letter, neither Appellant 

has filed a brief, and Appellant (J.C.) has filed in this court a motion for extension. 

Upon consideration of the importance of the rights at issue in this case, we 

grant in part the motion for extension. Appellants’ briefs are now due to be filed in 

this court on or before May 9, 2013. Appellee’s brief will be due for filing on or 

before May 29, 2013. The court considers this to be a serious matter in light of the 

Texas Supreme Court guidelines in cases of this nature. The court will not look 

upon further requests for extension with favor, and the court will not grant such 

requests except in cases of extreme necessity. Workload is not a case of extreme 

necessity. This case will be submitted on briefs on May 30, 2013. 

PER CURIAM

May 2, 2013

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# A Preliminary Report on Fire Protection Research Program Fire Barriers and Fire Retardant Coatings Tests (NUREG/CR-0381, SAND78-1456)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-0381 (PDF - 4.57 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**August 1978 **Date Published:**September 1978

**Prepared by:** Leo J. Klamerus Sandia Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy

**Prepared for:** Division of Reactor Safety Research  Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Under Interagency Agreement DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN A1010

Availability Notice

## Abstract

An exposure fire test at Sandia Laboratories showed that the Regulatory Guide 1.75 separation guidelines and IEEE-383 fire retardancy standards for safety cables are not sufficient, in themselves, to protect against such fires. Additional measures have been required by NRC to protect essential safety systems against the effects of fires. Two of these measures are fire barriers or fire-retardant coatings on cabling. This report describes the second phase of a small scale and full scale testing program which has been undertaken to assess the adequacy of coatings. In addition, full scale tests are described using exposure fires to appraise the adequacy of some fire barriers placed between horizontal cable trays. The preliminary results show that all coatings and barriers offer some measure of additional protection. Their relative effectiveness is demonstrated by quantitative information obtained in the donor and donee cable trays. An evaluation of other protective measures will be undertaken in future studies.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 8

- 00 139

- C V



### ____________________

FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC.

, Appellant

V.

KEVIN GOATS, LORI GOATS AND AFSHIN "SEAN" FARSHAD

, Appellee s

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. B

- 198,294

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 27, 2018, we abated this accelerated appeal and remanded the case

to the trial court for further proceedings to effectuate the parties’ settlement

agreement. On July 19, 2018, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. , Appellant, and Kevin Goa ts,

Lori Go ats and Afshin “Sean” Farshad , Appellees, filed a joint motion to reinstate

and dismiss th e appeal in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.2

We grant the parties’ joint motion, reinstate the appeal, and dismiss the

accelerated appeal in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

A PPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on August 15, 2018

Opinion Delivered August 16, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
exv10w43






Exhibit 10.43




MEMORANDUM




	 	 	 	 	 

	TO:

	 	Board of Directors
	 	 
	FROM:

	 	Bob Licht	 	 
	DATE:

	 	July 2, 2010 (revised October 7, 2010)	 	 
	SUBJECT:

	 	Director Fees and Expenses	 	 





The following is a summary of the retainers and meeting fees payable to directors effective July 1,
2010.



Retainers and Fees




     Annual Retainers



	 	 	 

	$35,000
	 	Board retainer
	$20,000
	 	additional annual retainer for chair of Finance and Audit Committee
	$5,000
	 	additional annual retainer for
members of Finance and Audit Committee (other than Chair)
	$15,000
	 	additional annual retainer for chairs of Corporate Governance Committee, Compensation and Management Development Committee and Science and Technology Committee
	$60,000
	 	additional annual retainer for Chairman of the Board





Annual retainers will be paid in four equal quarterly installments.




     Meeting Fees



	 	 	 

	$2,500
	 	each Board meeting attended (in person or by videoconference)
	$1,500
	 	each Board meeting attended (by teleconference)
	$1,500
	 	each committee meeting attended (in person or by teleconference)





Meeting fees will be paid for attendance at formal meetings of the Board or its committees,
i.e., those for which meeting minutes are prepared. Meeting fees will not be paid for informal
gatherings of directors.




     Special Service Fee (extraordinary)



	 	 	 

	$1,000
	 	each full day of service





The special service fee is for a full day of service, excluding services (and travel) relating to
Board or committee meetings, at the request of the Board or the Company and which involves
extensive travel by a director. It is expected that situations for which a special service fee is
due will be infrequent.
No. 90-6331.

#### Hawkins et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

             Certification of Bertrand Loy, Chief Financial Officer,
           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

<PAGE>

In connection with the Annual Report of Mykrolis Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bertrand Loy,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to SS. 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

3.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                                /s/ Bertrand Loy
                                ----------------
                                Bertrand Loy
March 13, 2003                  Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffGeneric  Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants  (NUREG-1437)

# Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Seabrook Station — Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 46)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 46, Volume 1, Final Report (PDF 6.98 MB)
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 46, Volume 2, Appendices (PDF 50.3 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 2015**Date Published:**July 2015

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) to renew the operating license for Seabrook Station (Seabrook) for an additional 20 years.

This final SEIS includes the analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include replacement power from new natural-gas-fired combined-cycle generation; new nuclear generation; a combination alternative that includes some natural-gas-fired capacity, and a wind-power component; and the no-action alternative of not renewing the license.

The NRC’s preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Seabrook are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers. This recommendation is based on the following:
        - analysis and findings in the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS);
        - the Environmental Report (ER) submitted by NextEra;
        - consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies;
        - the NRC staff’s own independent review, as documented in the 2011 draft SEIS and the 2013 supplement to the draft SEIS;
        - the NRC staff’s consideration of public comments received during the scoping process; and
        - consideration of public comments received on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement and the 2013 supplement to the draft SEIS.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000031 06-MAR-2018 11:27 AM
By order of the Bankruptcy Appella te Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8024-1(b). See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8014-1(c).
File Name: 17b0004n.06 

## BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: J OHN J OSEPH L OUIS J OHNSON III, Debtor

.

___________________________________________ J OHN J OSEPH L OUIS J OHNSON III, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v

.

RFF F AMILY L IMITED P ARTNERSHIP , LP, Defendant-Appellant

. ┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┘ 

### No. 16-8035

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 14-57104—John E. Hoffman, Judge. Argued: May 9, 2017
Decided and Filed: June 2, 2017
Before: HARRISON, OPPERMAN and WISE , Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

_________________ COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Clev eland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, fo r Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, Marc J. Kessler, Daniel A. DeMarco, Rocco I. Debite tto, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. 

### >

### No. 16-8035 In re Johnson Page 2

_________________ OPINION

_________________ MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. RFF Family Partnership, LP (“RFF”), appeals the decision of the bankrup tcy court to enter summary judgment for John Joseph Louis Johnson, III (“debtor”) on his complaint for declarator y relief seeking a declaration that: (1) RFF does not have a valid security interest in, or assignmen t of, debtor’s player contract or the salary payments under the contract; and (2) even if it did, RFF’s interest with respect to the salary debtor earned postpetition was cut off by Bankruptcy Code § 552.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, the Panel finds that the bankruptcy court co rrectly set forth the facts and the governing law. This Panel’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisp rudential purpose and would be duplicative, and so we affirm the grant of summary judgment, adopting the reasoning of the bankruptcy court’s August 16, 2016, opinion, 554 B.R. 448 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2016). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtor’s mo tion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION 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 Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and
Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel P. Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) 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 results of operations of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |  |  |                                        |  |                                      
|----------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|            |  |  |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.               
|            |  |  |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY              
|            |  | 
|            |  |  |  | By: KESTREL HEAT LLC (General Partner)
|            |  |  | 
|May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                                    |  | /s/ DANIEL P. DONOVAN                
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | Daniel P. Donovan                    
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P.              
|            |  |  |  |                                        |  | Star Gas Finance Company
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# TRACE Analysis on Heat Removal Decrease Accidents for AP1000 (NUREG/IA-0439)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0439 (PDF - 1.59 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**September 2013**Date Published:** March 2014

**Prepared by:** Jong-Rong Wang, Chun-Yu Chen*, Hao-Tzu Lin, Chunkuan Shih*

Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Atomic Energy Council, R.O.C. 1000, Wenhua Rd., Chiaan Village, Lungtan, Taoyuan, 325, Taiwan

*Institute of Nuclear Engineering and Science, National Tsing Hua University 101 Section 2, Kuang Fu Rd., HsinChu, 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:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This research presents the applicability of TRACE to simulate AP1000's heat removal decrease accidents. The AP1000 nuclear power plant (NPP) TRACE model containing the essential components of the primary, secondary loop and passive safety systems with corresponding control systems is established through the interface code -SNAP based on the Westinghouse design. The steady-state calculation of TRACE is conducted to testify the accuracy of model and the results show a good coherent with the design parameters. Two condition II events categorized as the decrease in heat removal by secondary system are simulated and TRACE‘s results are consistent with Westinghouse's LOFTRAN results. The results of TRACE also reveal that the availability of reactor coolant pumps has a significant influence on the passive heat removal performance. Moreover, even without any AC power source, the passive core cooling system is capable of extracting all the core decay heat without the operator intervention. In conclusion, the passive safety system has a strong capability coping with the long-term heat removal decrease by secondary systems, further preventing the occurrence of severe consequences.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 76-5462.

#### Wright *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-5940.

#### Bailey et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

ZORAN CORPORATION

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Zoran Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karl Schneider, Senior VicePresident, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: August 9, 2005 |                                |
|-----------------------|-------------------------------------|
|                  | /s/ Karl Schneider                  |   |
|                  | Karl Schneider                      |
|                  | Senior Vice President,  Finance and |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer             |

 

----
No. 82-5942.

#### Ballance *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.