alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING 

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

DIRECTIVE SYSTEM 

REG-35- 1 

798 

OCT 2 6 1993 

To re<r;., the policies and procedures concerning collection and disposition of permit fees for 

consistency with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) Directive 

FIN-4, "Collection Activities." 

Sections Affected: 

3. 

3.a.- 3.f. 

3.c. 

(formerly 3.b.) 

J.d. 

4.b.(4) 

Change: 

Add: 3.a. Accountable Employee. An employee, other than a Collection Officer, 

who may receive or have temporary custody of Don-c;adt funds, such as 

negotiable instruments, remittances, repayments, and collections of loans and 

other funds received as a result of Government activities and who forwards same 

to an appropriate Lockbox or OSM's Division of Financial Management (DFM) 

on the same day of receipt. 

Reletter as J.b.- 3.g. 

Change to read as follows: 

"J.c. Collection Officer. An employee who receives, bas custody of, or 

accounts for monies, negotiable instruments, remittances, repayments, and 

collections of loans and other funds received as a result of Government activities, 

and deposits same into an appropriate commercial depository which has been 

authorized to maintain a U.S. Treasury demand account, or secures such funds 

overnight in safe storage fur deposit or forwarding the next business day. 

Collection Officers are designated per the instructions in paragraph 2.a.(l) of 

OSM Directive FIN-4." 

Change "Division of Tennessee Pennitting" to "Branch of Technical Assistance.' 

Change "Division of Tennessee Permitting (DTP)" to "Branch of Technical 

Assistance (BTA)" and change "(DFO)" to "(DFP)." 
4.b.(5) 

4.d. 

Change to read as follows: 

"OSM Collection Officers or Accountable Employees in each FPE are 

responsible for promptly notifying the Chief, BTA or DFP, as 

applicable, upon receipt of pennit fees from permit applicants, and for 

forwarding such fees to DFM in confonnance with this directive and 

other established guidelines. • 

Change the first paragraph to read as follows: 

"d. Dispoojtjon of Pennit fees. Upon receipt of partial or full 

payment of permit fees from an applicant, the OSM Collection Officer 

or Accountable Employee should immediately notify the Chief, BTA or 

DFP, as applicable. The Collection Officer or Accountable Employee 

should then promptly forward such payment to DFM for deposit into an 

approved commercial depository. The Collection Officer or 

Accountable Employee must submit an "Abstract of Remittance• to 

DFM at the time of forwarding of the permit fee. The DFM Collection 

Officer will return a signed and dated copy of the Abstract to the 

sender." 

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MICHELLE B. CASTILLO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50254 

D.C. No. 3:20-cr-00180-LAB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. 

Michelle B. Castillo appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for 

importation of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-50254 

Castillo contends that the district court erred by denying her request for a 

minor-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review the district court’s 

interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its 

application of the Guidelines for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Diaz, 

884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018). Contrary to Castillo’s claims, the record 

reflects that the district court identified and applied the correct legal standard, 

recognized its obligation to compare Castillo’s conduct to that of other known or 

likely participants in her criminal scheme, and considered each of the guideline 

factors. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A), (C); Diaz, 884 F.3d at 916-17. Given 

the totality of the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that Castillo was not “substantially less culpable than the average 

participant.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 

823 F.3d 519, 523 (9th Cir. 2016) (sentencing court may deny a minor-role 

adjustment “even if some of the factors weigh in favor” of granting it).

Castillo also contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The significantly below-Guideline sentence is substantively reasonable 

in light of the totality of the circumstances and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors, including the circumstances of Castillo’s offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Moreover, contrary to Castillo’s assertion, the record reflects that the court 
3 20-50254 

considered her mitigating arguments and the section 3553(a) factors. See United 

States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1640 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure uniformity in procurement 

terminology, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 20, 2017 

Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to ensure uniformity in 

procurement terminology, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. UNIFORMITY IN PROCUREMENT TERMI4 NOLOGY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 15(j)(1) of the Small 

6 Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(j)(1)) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘greater than $2,500 but not greater than $100,000’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘greater than the micro-purchase threshold, but 

9 not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1640 IH

1 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Section 3(m) of the 

2 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(m)) is amended to 

3 read as follows: 

4 ‘‘(m) DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO CON5 TRACTING.—In this Act: 

6 ‘‘(1) PRIME CONTRACT.—The term ‘prime con7 tract’ has the meaning given such term in section 

8 8701(4) of title 41, United States Code. 

9 ‘‘(2) PRIME CONTRACTOR.—The term ‘prime 

10 contractor’ has the meaning given such term in sec11 tion 8701(5) of title 41, United States Code. 

12 ‘‘(3) SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD.— 

13 The term ‘simplified acquisition threshold’ has the 

14 meaning given such term in section 134 of title 41, 

15 United States Code. 

16 ‘‘(4) MICRO-PURCHASE THRESHOLD.—The 

17 term ‘micro-purchase threshold’ has the meaning 

18 given such term in section 1902(a) of title 41, 

19 United States Code. 

20 ‘‘(5) TOTAL PURCHASE AND CONTRACTS FOR

21 PROPERTY AND SERVICES.—The term ‘total pur22 chases and contracts for property and services’ 

23 means the total number and total dollar amount of 

24 contracts and orders for property and services.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Assessment of Noise Level for Eddy Current Inspection of Steam Generator Tubes (NUREG/CR-6982)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6982 (PDF - 35.63 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** January 2008**Date Published:** March 2009

**Prepared by:** S. Bakhtiari, D.S. Kupperman, and W.J. Shack 

Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue  Argonne, IL 60439

M. Stambaugh, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6588

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides an overview of research activities associated with eddy current (EC) inspection of steam generator tubes that was carried out at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) as part of the Steam Generator Tube Integrity Program sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Results of recent studies on assessing the influence of noise on detection of EC flaw signals are presented. In particular, methodologies for measuring the level of noise in bobbin-coil inspection data are examined. Although the primary focus is on spatially one-dimensional calculations for bobbin probe noise, limited investigations on the measurement of noise in rotating probe data are also discussed. In the first part of the report, the basic concepts and common sources of signal distortion in EC data from in-service inspection are initially reviewed. Next, various algorithms for the simulation, superposition, and measurement of noise that were developed at ANL are described. Results of studies on the effect of measurement variables (e.g., measurement window size and region of interest) on various measures of noise level are also presented. Based on these investigations, viable indicators of the noise level are identified and the associated measurement procedures are outlined. A distinction is made between the global noise levels that are important for data quality assessment and the more localized noise levels that directly affect detection capability. The second part of the report deals with measurement of the level of noise present in the tube bundle mock-up at ANL. Selected tubes were identified as having flaw signals that were borderline for detectability, i.e., they were missed by at least one of the round–robin teams or by a number of individual analysts from different teams. By analysis of these signals and the associated noise levels, inferences were made regarding the limit of detection. The implications of the results concerning the detection probability are discussed. Finally, application of the proposed methodologies for the measurement of noise level is addressed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1312** 

MARVIN ANTONIO OBAN DO, a/k/a Marvin Antonio Toledo , Petitioner ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : December 12, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Timothy W. Davis, LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY W. DAVIS, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland , for Petitioner. Joyce R. Branda , Acting Assistant Attorney General , John S. Hogan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Roger Thomas Severino , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marvin Antonio Obando, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appea l from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying reopening and rescission of the in absentia order of removal. We deny the petition for review.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(iv) (20 14 ) ; INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323

- 24 (1992); Barry v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 741, 744 (4th Cir. 2006). We will reverse the denial of a motion to reopen only if the denial is “arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” Barry , 445 F.3d at 745 (internal quot ation marks omitted)

. Because Obando waited twelve years to file his motion to reopen and rescind, he must show that he is eligible for equitable tolling. See Kuusk v. Holder , 732 F.3d 302, 305 (4th Cir. 2013) (the principles of equitable tolling apply t o the time limits for motions to reopen). We conclude that the record does not support the finding that it was “impossible” for Obando to have acted earlier. Id. We further conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Obando was not dili gent in seeking relief from the removal order

. See Neves v. Holder , 613 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2010) (whether Petitioner was3 diligent in seeking relief is reviewed for substantial evidence). Obando also claims he was denied due process because the Board did not consider his claim that the IJ erred denying sua sponte reopening. We find this claim to be without merit because the Board clearly considered the IJ’s decision, albeit in a footnote a nd without the analysis Obando was hoping for. Also, Obando’s contention that the IJ’s denial of sua sponte reopening was an error as a matter of law is clearly not supported by the record. Because the decision to deny sua sponte reopening was a matter o f discretion, we are without jurisdiction to review it. See Mosere v. Mukasey , 552 F.3d 397, 400

- 01 (4th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pr esented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 12.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Shih-Jye Cheng, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial
reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: June 4, 2010



/s/ Shih-Jye ChengName:

Shih-Jye ChengTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
8 June 2010

Mr Paul Gretch

Director

Office of International Aviation

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington DC 20590

Dear Paul,

CHART ER OPERATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA

This letter is to confirm that the UK Government, on the basis of reciprocity,

will approve requests from US

- designated airlines to perform fifth, sixth and

seventh freedom charter operations on the understanding that the US Government

will approve similar requests from UK

- designated airlines.

The UK Government also confirms that approval for similar charter operations by US

airlines to the UK's Overseas Territories will also be gr anted, where reciprocity

applies.

Yours sincerely,

Judith

Judith Ritchie

First Secretary (Transport Policy)

cc: Mary Street, DoT

James Gilderoy, DfT London Tel: (202) 588

- 6696

Fax: (202) 588

- 7901

E

- mail: Judith.Ritchie @ fco.gov.uk
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Issues License Amendment Approving Stabilization Plan for Atlas Uranium Mill Tailings Pile in Utah

----

----

No. 99-113 May 28, 1999

**NRC ISSUES LICENSE AMENDMENT APPROVING STABILIZATION PLAN FOR ATLAS URANIUM MILL TAILINGS PILE IN UTAH**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has signed a license amendment approving a plan for the Atlas Corporation to stabilize in place its uranium mill tailings pile near Moab, Utah.

The tailings pile resulted from operations of a uranium mill at the Moab site from 1956 until 1984. The facility has been owned by Atlas since 1962. Uranium is no longer processed at the site, and the mill has been dismantled except for one building.

The Atlas plan includes (1) re-grading the tailings to enhance drainage off the pile and (2) installing an earth and rock cover system over the pile. This cover system is intended to minimize radon escape, infiltration of rain water into the tailings (thus minimizing infiltration of tailings contaminants into the groundwater), and tailings erosion potentially caused by surface runoff from rain or flooding of the Colorado River.

The NRC issued a draft environmental impact statement on the proposal for public comment in January 1996 and held public meetings in Moab in April 1994, February 1996, and September 1998 to discuss the proposal. The agency issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on the plan in March.

The NRC also issued a final technical evaluation report in March 1997, which concluded that Atlas' plan to dispose of mill tailings on site met NRC technical requirements.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Cable Heat Release, Ignition, and Spread in Tray Installations During Fire (CHRISTIFIRE) (NUREG/CR-7010)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**
Exhibit 31.2
     I, Michael G. McGrath, Chief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd (the“Registrant”), certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Accenture Ltd (this“Annual Report”);
     2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual Report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this AnnualReport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theRegistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;
     4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Annual Report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this Annual Report based on such evaluation; and
          c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
     5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.              /s/ Michael G. McGrath   Chief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd   (principal financial officer)   
Dated: November 4, 2004