alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01441]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 15-54]


Notice of Intent To Terminate 214 Authorization

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice serves as final opportunity for ACT 
Telecommunications, Inc. (ACT) to respond to the Department of Justice, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Department of Homeland 
Security (Agencies) request that the Commission terminate and declare 
null, void and no longer in effect, the international 214 authorization 
issued to ACT by the Commission. The Agencies state that ACT has failed 
to comply with commitments and undertakings with these Agencies, which 
is a condition on the 214 authorization issued by the Commission. The 
FCC now provides final notice to ACT that it intends to declare ACT's 
international 214 authorization terminated for failure to comply with 
conditions of its authorization.

DATES: Submit comments on or before February 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: ACT should address its response to the Chief, International 
Bureau and file it in File No. ITC-214-20081201-00519 via IBFS at 
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/pleading.do. It should also copy the 
Associate Chief of the Policy Division, International Bureau at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e9ad889f808dc7a29b8c8a81a98f8a8ac78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6f2d7c0dfd298fdc4d3d5def6d0d5d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Krech, Policy Division, 
International Bureau, at (202) 418-7443 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b1f3a2d323f7510293e38331b3d3838753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0d496c7b646923467f686e654d6b6e6e236a627b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proceeding in this Notice is treated as 
a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

Federal Communications Commission.
Howard Griboff,
Acting Chief, Policy Division, International Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2015-01441 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### M‘Murphey *v.*Campbell.

Process returned by the Deputy Sheriff, should be in the name of the High Sneriff, anduiot m the name of the Deputy, for the High She. riff; but a return in the latter mode was supported.

Campbell had been summoned on the part of *M‘Mur-phey*to attend this court as a witness in his behalf; and when the (rial came on, failing to appear, was called upon his *subpoena,*and his default recorded j whereupon a *sci. fa.*issued against him, and now his defence was, that he never was summoned by any proper officer. The *subpoena*when produced, appeared to have been served fay tu'- 0 puty Sheriff, and returned by him in his own name for i.ne High Sheriff, and not in the name of fhe High Sheriff, as it should have bren- — whereupon *Mr. Spiltar*objected that the Deputy Sheriif was not a sworn officer, which was conceded in the present case, and that *209therefore s.s the return was made by him, and not in the name of Hie principal, it was no1, a good service. *Per curiam,*the return here is for the principal by th i Deputy, which is nearly the same tiling as if the return had been “executed,” and the name of the principal subscribed, and ¡he words “ by B. Deputy .Sheriff” added, which b- the usual course. This return is indeed a little irregular, but it, cannot now be amended, ¡lie principal being dead, and file Deputy removed out of the State. Such returns however, though irregular, have prevailed very generally through the country for along time, and the disallowing them, would be productive of terrible inconvenience. *Communis error facit jus,*is a maxim we do not. approve of, but it must sometimes be submitted to for the sake of avoiding confusion. Tin* course of practice frequently makes the law, and must, be given way to where a sudden disallowance of i¡ would be followed by a great public evil, in strictness however, there is no doubt, hut that ail returns should be made in the name, of the High Sheriff *Salk.*06. *Bac.*Mr. 43 *7. 1777. e.*8, 5. *5.*So the objection was overruled, and the Plaintiff had judgment.

*Vide State*v. *Johnston, post*293. *Holding*v. *Holding. 2 Cur. Law Rep.*440,
No. 91-660.

#### Downtown Auto Parks, Inc. *v.*City of Milwaukee et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-6015.

#### Nurse *v.*Department of the Air Force.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 annual report on Form 10-K of Nile Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Daron Evans, 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, as amended; and

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



/s/    DARON
EVANS Daron EvansChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated: March 12, 2009


THIS CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANIES THE REPORT, IS NOT DEEMED FILED WITH THE SEC AND IS NOT TO BE
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO ANY FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE REPORT), IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL
INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING. A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Technical Basis for Regulatory Guide 1.145, "Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG/CR-2260)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-2260 (PDF - 7.59 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 1981**Data Published:** October 1981

**Prepared by:** W. G. Snell R. W. Jubach

NUS Corporation 4 Research Place Rockville, MD 20850

NRC FIN B7116

**Prepared for:** Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office Of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Regulatory Guide 1.145, *Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants*, presents several substantial changes in the previous methodology of atmospheric dispersion analyses described in Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4. This new methodology discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.145 includes, 1) the reduction in estimated ground-level concentrations due to plume meandering during the occurrence of stable atmospheric stability conditions and light wind speeds, and 2) the recognition that atmospheric dispersion conditions are directionally dependent. As a result of these developments, the NRC Meteorology Staff conducted a parametric study to examine the consequences of these changes on previous and future licensing activities. This parametric study was instrumental in the determination of appropriate probability levels for the risk assessment methodology discussed in the guide. The technical basis for the new methodology and the results of the parametric study are documented in this NUREG. This documentation includes the relationship of the new approach to the previous methodology.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
1Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-60466

Summary Calendar

FRANK O’BRIEN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

WAL-MART STORES INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

(5:95-CV-26-Br-S) 

December 23, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Wal-Mart Inc. appeals the adverse judgment against it entered

by the district court pursuant to the jury’s verdict in this slip

and fall case. Wal-Mart assigns three errors: (1) Exclusion of

evidence that Plaintiff failed to disclose prior related litigation

in answers to interrogatories; (2) refusal to give part of a charge

requested by Wal-Mart; (3) insufficiency of the evidence to support
2

the amount of damages awarded by the jury. We affirm.

In answers to interrogatories Plaintiff failed to identify the

suit entitled State Life Insurance Co. v. O’Brien in which O’Brien

sought disability benefits resulting from injuries sustained in the

fall at Wal-Mart, and in which the court had found that O’Brien had

engaged in a scheme to defraud the insurance company by over

insuring himself to gain a profit. The parties do not make clear

whether Wal-Mart wished only to cross examine O’Brien about why he

had not declared this suit, or whether it also wanted to get before

the jury the court’s finding in that suit. The record indicates

both. Wal-Mart’s counsel admitted no prejudice from the failure to

disclose (because he became aware of the matter through other

means) and the district court ruled that the order and reasons in

that case were not material to the instant trial. We see no abuse

of discretion.

Wal-Mart argues that the court’s instruction to the jury did

not permit the jury to find that the accident may have been

entirely the fault of Plaintiff. Technically, the instruction can

be read that way. However, Appellant did not object to the

comparative negligence instruction given by the court (and indeed

it was a correct instruction) and, in the charge objected to, the

court was obviously trying to allow for the fact that Mississippi

has done away with the “open and obvious” defense. We also note

that the jury did not assign any negligence at all to the

Plaintiff. The error in the instruction, if any, was therefore
3

harmless.

Finally, Appellant’s contention that the damage award is

excessive is without merit. The record fully supports the amount

awarded. The fact that the verdict was general does not change

that result.

AFFIRMED.
November 4, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BARBI DENISE BROWN, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00831-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONOFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of XELR8 Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John D. Pougnet,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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| /s/          *John D. Pougnet* |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John D. Pougnet                                                                  |
| Chief Financial Officer                                                          |
|                                                                             |
| March 28, 2008                                                              |

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Open Secondary Testing of Window-Type Current Transformers (NUREG/CR-7228)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7228 (PDF – 12.3 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2016**Date Published:** May 2017

**Prepared by:** M. Subudhi, P. Joshi1, S. Dimaiuta1 and W. Gunther2

Department of Nuclear Science and Technology Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973

1 Superconducting Magnet Division2 Retired BNL Staff

G. Taylor, NRC Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Two AMRAN Current Transformers (CTs) were tested to characterize the propensity of an opencircuited CT secondary to cause a fire in a location remote to the open circuit. Also evaluated was the magnitude of the secondary winding peak (crest) voltage1 when the CT's secondary circuit transitioned to an open circuit condition, and its dependencies on the primary voltage, primary current and the CT's turn ratio2. Parameters identified as having an effect on the CT's open secondary crest voltage include:
        - Material and construction of the CT's magnetic core,
        - CT's primary voltage,
        - CT's primary current, and,
        - CT's turn ratio.

The primary objective of this testing, however, was to better understand the following scenario:
> 
Will fire-induced open circuit in the secondary circuit of a wound-type CT, which is operating within its rated continuous primary current limits, result in an excessively high voltage in the secondary circuit sufficient to start a fire in the form of explosion or arcing in the circuit's insulation at the location of the CT itself or at some other location in the secondary circuit?

For the configurations tested, the results indicated that an open circuited CT was incapable of starting a secondary fire based on the criteria established in the test plan. This observation applies to the CT, CT taps, cabling, and burden devices. Additionally, when an arc was deliberately initiated in the secondary circuit, it was observed that the crest voltage diminished significantly. 

The test results provide supplemental information to the JACQUE-FIRE Volume 3 working group for developing technical recommendations to possibly extend the limit on the 1200:5 CT turns ratio limit as stated in the NUREG/CR-7150, Volume 1.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
VERNON LAUGHTER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5723

________ _____________________/

Opinion filed March 16, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County

. Don H. Lester , Judge

.

Vernon Laughter, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CUR IAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
AP9 R04-30-92 S:\FormsLib\Civil Bureau\Civil Courts & Post Judgment\Post Trial\Appeal Status Card Revised 01-18-2013

RDATE 12/21/2017

 NOTICE OF APPEALS

ASSIGNMENT OF COURT THE COURT OF APPEALS

TO: 14TH COURT OF APPEALS 

From: Deputy Clerk: SHEMEKA LEE

 Chris Daniel, District Clerk

Harris County, T E X A S

CAUSE: 2013-22591 

VOLUME PAGE OR IMAGE # 76866436

DUE 1/30/2018 ATTORNEY 24088251

NOTICE OF APPEAL HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE 14TH COURT OF APPEALS

DATE JUDGMENT SIGNED: 10/2/2017 

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL DATE FILED 10/10/2017

REQUEST TRANSCRIPT DATE FILED 12/18/2017

NOTICE OF APPEAL DATE FILED 12/18/2017

NUMBER OF DAYS: ( CLERKS RECORD ) 120 DAYS

FILE ORDERED: YES NO IMAGED FILED: YES NO 

CODES FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL: BC, C, O

CHRIS DANIEL 

Harris County, District Clerk

By: /s/ SHEMEKA LEE 

 SHEMEKA LEE, Deputy

BC NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

BG NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED – GOVERNMENT

C JUDGMENT BEING APPEALED

D - ACCELERATED APPEAL

OA NO CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED

O CLERK’S RECORD REQUEST FILED (W/NOTICE OF APPEAL)

NA AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/21/2017 11:31:18 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk








(11) CONNECTION(S) FOUND.

CASE NUM: 201322591 PJN: TRANS NUM: CURRENT COURT: 295 PUB: Please Select

CASE TYPE: BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE STATUS: DISPOSED (FINAL)

STYLE: CAPITAL PLASTIC & BAGS INC VS ZHANG, FRANK

**** INACTIVE PARTIES ****

PJN PER/CONN 

NO

COC BAR PERSON NAME PTY STAT ASSOC. ATTY

00007 - 0002 3PD 09019000 QUAN, JEFF HARMEYER, WILLIAM F.

00006 - 0002 3PP 24052012 DAXWELL LLC CRUZ, JUVIE A.

00007 - 0001 XDF QUAN, JEFF

00006 - 0001 XPL 24052012 DAXWELL LLC CRUZ, JUVIE A.

00001 - 0003 XDF CAPITAL PLASTIC & BAGS INC

00001 - 0002 XDF CAPITAL PLASTIC & BAGS INC

00005 - 0001 AGT DAXWELL GROUP LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAXWELL GROUP LP) (TEXAS LIMITED

00004 - 0001 DEF 00784581 DAXWELL GROUP LP MCQUEEN, DENNIS ALBERT

00003 - 0001 DEF 00784581 DAXWELL GROUP LLC (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAXWELL GROUP LP) MCQUEEN, DENNIS ALBERT

00002 - 0001 DEF 00784581 ZHANG, FRANK MCQUEEN, DENNIS ALBERT

00001 - 0001 PLT 09019000 CAPITAL PLASTIC & BAGS INC HARMEYER, WILLIAM F.

INT6510 - Harris County (JWEB) Justice Applications Page 1 of 1

http://civil.jweb.harriscountytx.gov/INT/INT6510.aspx 12/21/2017
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




I, J. Earl  Terris,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Foothills  Resources,  Inc.,  for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB  fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the
financial condition and results of operations of Foothills Resources, Inc.

Date: March 15, 2006                        /s/ J. Earl Terris
                                            ------------------------------
                                            J. Earl Terris
                                            Secretary, Treasurer & C.F.O.
                                            (Principal Financial Officer and
                                            Principal Accounting Officer)
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0074. DANIEL ERIC COBBLE v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS et al.

Daniel Eric Cobble filed this direct appeal from the superior court’s order

denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in a civil action. Because Cobble is

incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996,

OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, an appeal in a civil action filed by

a prisoner “shall be as provided in Code Section 5-6-35.” And under OCGA § 5-6-35,

the party wishing to appeal must file an application for discretionary appeal to the

appropriate appellate court. Because a prisoner has no right of direct appeal in civil

cases, we lack jurisdiction to consider this direct appeal from the superior court’s

order. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). This appeal

is therefore DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 16, 2019

08/16/2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO LIZALDE RODRIGUEZ;

MARISELA LIZALDE,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 71180

Agency Nos. A075

- 668

- 891

A075

- 668

- 892

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Lizalde Rodriguez and Marisela Lizalde , native s and citizen s of

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying t he i r motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the deni al of a motion to reopen and review de novo

* 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

JUL 23 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 71180

questions of law, including claims of due process violations

. Iturribarria v. INS

,

321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners ’ untimely motion

to reopen for failing to demonstrate they acted with the due diligence required for

equitable tolling , where they contacted counsel only annually for approximately 12

years and only sought a second opinion upon the election of President T rump

. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.

2011) (due diligence depends on when a reasonable person would suspect the

attorney ’ s misconduct and whether the petitioner took reasonable steps to

investigate prior counsel’s suspected error, or, if petitioner was ignorant of

counsel’s shortcomings, made reasonable efforts to pursue relief).

Petitioners ’ contention s that the BIA erred and violated due process by

utiliz ing the incorrect legal standard

, ignor ing or misstating evidence

, relying on

speculation, and failing to provide sufficient reasoning are without merit. See Lata

v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiri ng error to prevail on a due

process claim) ; Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) ( “What is

required is merely that [the BIA] consider the issues raised, and announce its

decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceiv e that it has heard

and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation omitted) )

.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.