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

# Order

April 15, 2016

152409

152442

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152409

COA: 320867

Roscommon CC: 12

- 006736

- FC

WILLIAM FRANK SIKORSKI, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 152442

COA: 320867

Roscommon CC: 12

- 006736

- FC

WILLIAM FRANK SIKORSKI, JR.,

Defendant

- App ellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the June 4, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu

of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE t hat part of the Court of Appeals judgment

concluding that the defendant’s conviction for first

- degree criminal sexual conduct under

MCL 750.520b(1)(d)( ii ) violates the double jeopardy protections of the United States and

Michigan Constitutions and we REMAN D this case to the Court of Appeals for

reconsideration of whether this conviction was based on the same act of penetration as

the defendant’s conviction under MCL 750.520b(1)(c), given the manner in which the

jury was instructed as to each count after the close of proofs. If, upon reconsideration,

the Court of Appeals concludes that no double jeopardy violation occurred, it shall reach

and resolve the defendant’s challenge to whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain

his conviction under MCL 750.520b (1)(d)( ii ).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.

April 15, 2016

d0412 2

Clerk We also VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment denying the

defendant sentencing relief on the basis of People v Herron , 303 Mich App 392 (2013),

and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of People

v Lockridge , 498 Mich 358 (2015).

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the remaining questions present ed should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
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 MR3 Systems, Inc., on Form
10-QSB (the "Report") for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of the undersigned
officers of MR3 Systems, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

1.       The Report 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.


Date:  February 23, 2004               /s/ BRADLEY N. ROTTER
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Bradley N. Rotter
                                       Chief Executive Officer


Date:  February 23, 2004               /s/ GARY K. ABREIM
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Gary K. Abreim
                                       Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 amended Annual Report of Galaxy Energy Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Christopher S. Hardesty, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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





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







/s/
      Christopher S.
      Hardesty


Christopher
      S. Hardesty


Chief
      Financial Officer








Date: 
      November 29, 2007
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Aging Management and Performance of Stainless Steel Bellows in Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-6726, SAND2001-1147P)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6726 (PDF - 2.72 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2001**Date Published:** May 2001

**Prepared by:**J.L. Cherry, J.M. Clauss, M. Pilch, J.J. Gregory, J.A. Smith

Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM 87185-0744

H.L. Graves III, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code W6690

Divison of Engineering TechnologyOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In commercial nuclear power plants, many containments use stainless steel bellows at piping penetrations, in drywell-to-wetwell vent lines, or as a part of the fuel transfer tube. Bellows are an integral part of the primary containment pressure boundary in nuclear power plants. These bellows allow for thermal expansion and contraction of the pipe, vent line, or fuel transfer tube, and accommodate relative motion between the containment and other structures, such as a shield wall.

Ensuring that bellows in operational plants remain leak tight is an important safety issue. A number of bellows have been replaced when transgranular stress corrosion cracking caused them to leak. Determining how to evaluate bellows for age-related damage is a critical issue that must be addressed for plants operating under their original license, as well as for plants applying for license extension.

The types of bellows, locations in a containment, and required bellows leak tests are described for major categories of boiling-water reactor (BWR) and pressurized-water reactor (PWR) power plants. Compilation of instances of bellows cracking, excessive leakage, or structural integrity questions, as well as testing issues and other degradation problems, are reviewed and summarized. The aging mechanisms that caused the degradation are discussed. Inspection methods currently in use, and a typical industry approach to managing bellows aging are described. Degradation that resulted from corrosion, misalignment, and other damage was considered. The risk and regulatory significance of containment bellows when subjected to Current License Basis (CLB), degraded, and severe accident (SA) conditions are also addressed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 27, 2022
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:43 PM 

To: Armstrong, Ashley; Anderson, Wes 

Subject: Ex-Parte Meeting Summary 

To Whom It May Concern: 

On December 12, 2011 a meeting was held amongst Wes Anderson (DOE), Ashley Armstrong (DOE), 

and J.B. Hoyt (Whirlpool Corporation). The purpose was to discuss the definition of a built-in cooking 

product which includes one conventional radiant oven cavity and one microwave oven cavity, with both 

controlled by a single control panel. Hoyt provided photos of a representative model to clarify the 

configuration. The parties agreed that this product type does not directly fit into any existing definition. 

 Anderson & Armstrong agreed to put forth a preliminary position prior to the comment deadline of 

December 23, 2011. 

The parties also discussed the MWO test procedure; DOE is seeking any data from the European testing 

experience that may help in their test procedure development. Whirlpool will seek to determine what data 

is available. 

■ J.B. HOYT // DIRECTOR, SUSTAINABILITY & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

Office 269.923.4647 // Cell 269.277.1032 // Whirlpool Corporation // www.WhirlpoolCorp.com

2000 M‐63 North // MD 3005 // Benton Harbor, MI 49022 

NOTICE: Whirlpool Corporation e‐mail is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary,

or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify the sender immediately

and delete the original. Any other use of the e‐mail by you is unauthorized.

 Please consider the environment before printing this e‐mail
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of

Apple Hospitality Two, Inc.

At December 31, 2004

(The state
of incorporation or organization of each subsidiary

is Virginia, except as noted)



A. Direct Subsidiaries



AHT Carolina GP, Inc.

AHT Carolina LP, Inc.

AHT Redmond, Inc.

AHT Res I GP, Inc.

AHT Res II GP, Inc.

AHT Res III GP, Inc.

AHT Res I LP, Inc.

AHT Res II LP, Inc.

AHT Res III LP, Inc.

AHT Residence Inn II GP, Inc.

AHT Residence Inn II LP, Inc.

AHT-SPE I GP, Inc.

AHT-SPE II GP, Inc.

Apple Hospitality Management, Inc.

Apple Res III Corporation *

Apple Suites, Inc.

Apple Suites Advisors, Inc.



B. Indirect Subsidiaries (held through direct subsidiaries or other indirect subsidiaries)



AHM Carolina GP, Inc.

AHM Carolina LP, Inc.

AHM Carolina Limited Partnership

AHM Res I GP, Inc.

AHM Res II GP, Inc.

AHM Res I LP, Inc.

AHM Res II LP, Inc.

AHM Res I Limited Partnership

AHM Res II Limited Partnership

AHM-SPE I, Inc.

AHT Carolina Limited Partnership

AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership

AHT-SPE I Limited Partnership

AHT-SPE II Limited Partnership

Apple Suites General, Inc.

Apple Suites LP, Inc.

Apple Suites Management, Inc.

Apple Suites-MO, LLC

Apple Suites Pennsylvania Business Trust **

Apple Suites REIT Limited
Partnership

Apple Suites SPE I, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE II,
Inc.

Apple Suites SPE III, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE IV, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE V, Inc.

Apple Suites SPE Holding, Inc.

Apple Suites Services General, Inc.



---

Apple Suites Services Limited, Inc.

Apple Suites Services Limited Partnership

Marriott Residence Inn Limited Partnership *

Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership *

Marriott Residence Inn USA
Limited Partnership *

Residence Inn III LLC *



|* | State of organization is Delaware.
|- | ----------------------------------

|** | State of organization is Pennsylvania.
|-- | --------------------------------------
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Secretary of the Air Force and Top Philippine Defense Officials Discuss Alliance, Security Cooperation

U.S. Embassy in the Philippines

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01096]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation No. 731-TA-1131-1132, and 1134 (Review)]


Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Brazil, 
China, and the United Arab Emirates

Determination

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping 
duty orders on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (``PET 
film'') from China and the United Arab Emirates would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission 
further determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on PET 
film from Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or 
recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Vice Chairman Dean A. Pinkert determines that revocation of 
the antidumping duty order on PET film from Brazil would be likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an 
industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 2013 (78 FR 
60311) and determined on January 23, 2014 that it would conduct full 
reviews (79 FR 9276, February 18, 2014). Notice of the scheduling of 
the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in 
connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on 
July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43509). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on 
November 18, 2014, and all persons who requested the opportunity were 
permitted to appear in person or by counsel.
    The Commission completed and filed its determination in these 
reviews on January 16, 2015. The views of the Commission are contained 
in USITC Publication 4512 (January 2015), entitled Polyethylene 
Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Brazil, China, and the United 
Arab Emirates: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1131-1132, and 1134 (Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 16, 2015.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-01096 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffGeneric  Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants  (NUREG-1437)

# Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding Callaway Plant, Unit 1 – Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 51)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 51, Final Report (PDF - 37.3 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 2014**Date Published:** October 2014

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This supplemental environmental impact statement has been prepared in response to an application submitted by Union Electric Company, a subsidiary of Ameren Corporation and doing business as Ameren Missouri (Ameren) to renew the operating license for Callaway Plant, Unit 1 (Callaway), for an additional 20 years.

This supplemental environmental impact statement 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 (NGCC) generation; new supercritical pulverized coal-fired generation; new nuclear generation; a combination alternative that includes NGCC generation, wind power, and energy efficiency; and not renewing the license (the no-action alternative).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Callaway are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers. This recommendation is based on the following:
        - (a) the analysis and findings in NUREG–1437, Volumes 1 and 2,  Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants ;
        - (b) the environmental report (ER) submitted by Ameren;
        - (c) consultation with Federal, state, and local agencies; and
        - (d) the NRC's environmental review and consideration of public comments received during the reviewing process.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
*December 8, 1936.*

#### Bitzan, Respondent, vs. Rowbottom and others, Appellants.

For the appellants : *Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mit-telstaed*of Kenosha.

For the respondent: *David L. Phillips,*attorney, and *Matt Taylor*of counsel, both of Kenosha.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1169 CAF 14-00547**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF KAYLA F., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. --------------------------------- MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MONROE COUNTY PRESENTMENT AGENCY, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

BRIAN STRAIT, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ROCHESTER, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MERIDETH H. SMITH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (BRETT GRANVILLE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an amended order of the Family Court, Monroe County (John B. Gallagher, Jr., J.), entered December 11, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The amended order adjudicated respondent to be a juvenile delinquent and placed her in the custody of the Commissioner of Health and Human Services of Monroe County for a period of 12 months.

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the facts and the law by substituting for respondent’s adjudication as a juvenile delinquent a finding that she is a person in need of supervision and as modified the amended order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent appeals from an amended order adjudicating her a juvenile delinquent based upon the finding that she committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). Respondent contends that Family Court abused its discretion in denying her motion pursuant to Family Court Act § 311.4 (2) to substitute a finding that she is a person in need of supervision (PINS) for a finding that she is a juvenile delinquent, inasmuch as she demonstrated no danger to the community at large and could have received the same placement under a PINS disposition. We agree ( see Matter of Devon R. , 278 AD2d 15, 15, lv denied 96 NY2d 707). A PINS is “[a] person less than eighteen years of age who[, inter alia,] . . . is incorrigible, ungovernable or habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of a parent or other person legally responsible for such child’s care” (Family Court Act § 712 [a]; see Matter of Gabriela A. , 103 AD3d 888, 889, affd 23 NY3d 155). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that respondent’s conduct was consistent with PINS behavior, not with juvenile delinquency ( see Matter of Jeffrey C. , 47 AD3d 433, 434, lv denied 10 NY3d 707; see also Matter of Daniel**-2- 1169 CAF 14-00547** 

I ., 57 AD3d 666, 668). We therefore modify the amended order by substituting a finding that respondent is a person in need of supervision for the adjudication that she is a juvenile delinquent. We have reviewed respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.

Entered: November 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6830** 

TERRY LEE DAVIS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. ROBERT STEVENSON, III , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Henry F. Floyd , District Judge. ( 9:10

- cv - 00719

- HFF )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published pe r curiam opinion

. Terry Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Terry Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the n otice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on th e docket

on March 3 1 , 2011 . The notice of appeal was filed on June 8, 2011
. *

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the ea rliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). Because Davis failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument becaus e the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 82-5990.

#### Johl *v.*Johl et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.