alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Martha Boyt *v.*John Cooper.

Martin.

To an action of debt on a bond, tbe Defendant pleaded that it was given for an *illegal consideration*; and on tbe trial offered to prove that tbe bond was given in consideration of compounding a prosecution for a felony. The evidence rejected, because the plea was too indefinite to apprise the Plaintiff of the *particular illegal consideration,*intended to be relied upon.

Dut upon an affidavit filed, that the Defendant had instructed his counsel to defend the suit upon the ground that the bond was given for compounding a felony, leave was given to the Defendant to amend his pleas and set forth this special matter.

This was an action of debt on a sealed instrument. The Defendant pleaded *ce*that it was given for an *illegal*
      *287
      *consideration”*On the trial, the Defendant wished to give evidence, tiiat the bond was given in consideration of compounding a prosecution for a rape. This was opposed on the ground, that the Defendant’s plea was not sufficiently special for such evidente to be received. This point was rescued by the Court. The Defendant obtained a rule on the Plaintiff to shew cause, why he should not be permitted to add a *special*plea, upon an affidavit made by him, that he had instructed his counsel in the county court, to defend the suit on the ground that the bond was given to compound a felony.

Two questions were sent to this Court: 1st. Whether the defendant could give evidence of compounding a prosecution for a rape, under the plea of *“ illegal consi*deration»•” and 2d. Whether upon the affidavit filed, the Defendant should be permitted to add a special plea, and if so, upon what terms.

Tatxok, Chief-Justice,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Tiie memorandum of *“*illegal consideration,” made on the docket, is entirely too indefinite to apprise the Plaintiff of the point on which Defendant actually relied. Of the numberless illegal considerations for which a bond may be given, it would be highly unreasonable to expect, that in every instance, the Plaintiff should understand that one precisely, which the Defendant intended to urge, when he entered his plea. But having guessed rightly, and summoned witnesses to explain the intended defence, what should prevent the Defendant from afterwards shifting his ground, and setting up some other objection to the bond, which the Plaintiff may be altogether unprepared to repel ? But upon looking into the affidavit filed in the case, the Court are of opinion that the Defendant ought to have leave to amend the *pjea}*and as he instructed his counsel ia due season, *288what was the nature of his defence, the justice of the cause, seems to require that the amendment should'be-made without costs,
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases

# News Releases - 2000

January • February • March • April • May • June • July • August • September • October • November • December

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Search News Releases

#### Related Information

            - Speeches

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, February 04, 2021
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL

- TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0114n.06

Case No. 18

- 3811

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

STEPHEN GALES ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO AT AKRON

BEFORE: KEITH, STRANCH, and DONALD , Circuit Judges

. BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. In this case, the defendant argues that his

conviction for assault on a peace officer is not a crime of violence for sentencing purposes

. However, he acknowledges that i n United States v. Evans , 699 F.3d 858, 863 (6th Cir. 2012) , this Court held that a conviction for assault on a peace officer, in violation of Ohio Rev. Code.
§ 2903.13 (A)(1) and (C)(3) (the same code the defendant violated) , is a crime of violence under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1

. Because a panel of this Court cannot overturn

Evans , and there is no “intervening decision of the Supreme Court” that does so, we are not at liberty to find in the defendant’s favor, regardless of how persuasive his position may be

. United

States v. Havis , 907 F.3d 439, 442 (6th Cir. 2018) . For that reason alone, we AFFIRM

.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 22, 2015

No. 04-13-00548-CR

Nicolas C. FLORES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 355026

The Honorable Liza Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Appellant Flores’ motion for rehearing was due to be filed on January 7, 2015. On 

January 8, 2015, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time requested an extension of twenty 

days. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due to be filed no 

later than January 26, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        Pursuantto Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002(18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted) (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), Joseph D. Keegan,Ph.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Molecular Devices Corporation (the“Company”), and Timothy A. Harkness, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge: 

    1.            The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,     2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the     “Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section     13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

    2.            The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all     material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the     periods covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Company     for the periods covered by the Periodic Report. 

        Thiscertification accompanies the Periodic Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

Dated: October 31, 2003
No. 86-5981.

#### Fritts *v.*Federal Correctional Institute, La Tuna, Texas-New Mexico.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 82-1115.

#### Kondrat *v.*City of Willoughby Hills.

Ct. App. Ohio, Lake County. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Integrated Issue Resolution Status Report (NUREG-1762)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Review Plan for Transportation Packages for Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-1617)

 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# L_2015077EN.01001601.xml

| 21.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 77/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 77/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/486

of 20 March 2015

amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1).

1

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 22 March 2016. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 22 March 2016.

| (3) | Decision 2011/172/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2011/172/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 5 of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 22 March 2016.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2015.

For the Council

The President

E. RINKĒVIČS

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63).

1

---
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED ACCOUNTING FIRM





Janel
World Trade Ltd. and Subsidiaries


150-14
132nd
Avenue


Jamaica,
New York 11434





Gentlemen:





We have issued our report dated
December 11, 2009, except as to the last paragraph of Note 10 the date of which
is January 4, 2010, accompanying the financial statements of Janel World Trade
Ltd. and Subsidiaries contained in the Form 10K under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Form 10K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.





/S/  PARITZ & COMPANY,
      P.A.Paritz
      & Company, P.A.





Hackensack,
New Jersey


January
13, 2010
No: II-19-032 August 16, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Meeting to Receive TVA Update on Work Environment Issues 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled an Aug. 27 public meeting with 

Tennessee Valley Authority officials to be briefed on the status and progress of actions to improve 

the safety conscious work environment at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. at the Comfort Inn, 2811 Decatur Pike, 

Athens, Tenn. The plant is located near Spring City, approximately 60 miles southwest of 

Knoxville.

On March 23, 2016, the NRC staff issued a letter to TVA expressing concern that some 

operations employees may not have felt comfortable raising safety concerns at the plant. Following

a mediation session in June 2017, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order to TVA. The order requires 

specific corrective actions to address the safety conscious work environment issues. Although the 

issues were identified at the Watts Bar nuclear plant, TVA also agreed to implement actions at its 

Browns Ferry and Sequoyah nuclear power plants, as well as at its corporate offices. 

The NRC has continued to inspect and evaluate those corrective actions and held a previous 

update meeting in fall 2018. 

During the Aug. 27 meeting, TVA is expected to provide another update on those corrective 

actions and NRC officials will likely ask questions and discuss the agency’s continuing oversight 

regarding the issue.

NRC staff will be available after the business portion of the meeting to answer questions 

from members of the public and the media. Those unable to attend who would like to listen to the 

meeting via a toll-free teleconference line should contact the NRC’s Ryan Taylor by Aug. 26 at

404-997-4630 or email ryan.taylor@nrc.gov.
CASE NO. DA 22-0554

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

CHERYL VOEGEL,

Plaintiff / Appellant, 

-vsDEVYN SALSBERY,

Defendant / Appellee. 

ORDER GRANTING

APPELLEE’S UNOPPOSED MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time, 

there being no objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including March 8, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellee’s 

Answer Brief.

Electronically dated and signed below.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

January 24 2023

01/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0554
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Information on the Confinement Capability of the Facility Disposal Area at West Valley, New York (NUREG-1164)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1164 (PDF – 13.78 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 1985**Date Published:** December 1985T. J. Nicholson / RESR. D. Hurt / NMSS

Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report summarizes the previous NRC research studies, NRC licensee source term data and recent DOE site investigations that deal with assessment of the radioactive waste inventory and confinement capability of the Facility Disposal Area (FDA) at West Valley, New York. The radioactive waste inventory for the FDA has a total radioactivity of about 135,000 curies (Ci) and is comprised of H-3 (9,500 Ci), Co-60 (64,000 Ci), SR-90/Y-90 (24,300 Ci), Cs-137/Ra-137m (24,400 Ci), and Pu-241 (13,300 Ci) . These wastes are buried in the Lavery Till, a glacial till unit comorised of a clayey silt with very low hydraulic conductivity properties. Recent studies of a tributylphosphate-kerosene plume moving through the shallow ground-water flow system in the FDA indicate need to better assess the fracture flow components of this system particularly the weathered and  fractured Lavery Till unit. The analysis of the deeper ground-water flow system studied by the USGS and NYSGS staffs indicates relatively long pathways and travel times to the accessible environment. Mass wasting, endemic to the glacial-filled valley, contributes to the active slumping in the ravines surrounding the FDA and  also need attention.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, February 05, 2021
(September 21, 1995)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Noah Lipman, on Behalf of Jorge Castellano, Petitioner, v Patrick Mahoney, as Sheriff, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 537]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application to reduce bail upon Suffolk County Indictment No. 1846/95.

Adjudged that the writ is sustained, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of reducing bail on Suffolk County Indictment No. 1846/95 to the sum of $25,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing the same sum as a cash bail alternative. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Phenomena Identification Ranking Tables for Accident Tolerant Fuel Designs Applicable to Severe Accident Conditions (NUREG/CR-7283, ERI/NRC 21-204)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7283 (PDF – 3.80 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: **April 2021**Date Published:** July 2021

**Prepared by:**Mohsen Khatib-RahbarEnergy Research, Inc.P.O. Box 2034Rockville, MD 20847-2034S. Campbell, NRC Project ManagerOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, August 27, 2021
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

32 34 36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
No. 90-6360.

#### Ice *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Exhibit 13.1

ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned, Shih-Jye Cheng, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda)
LTD. (the Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Report.

The foregoing certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 solely for purposes
of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

Date: April 25, 2014



/s/ Shih-Jye
ChengName:

Shih-Jye ChengTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

3 Plaintiff-Appellee,

4 v. NO. 33,976

5 BENJAMIN DIMAS,

6 Defendant-Appellant.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge 

9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

10 Santa Fe, NM 

11 for Appellee

12 Law Offices of the Public Defender

13 Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender

14 Santa Fe, NM 

15 Steven J. Forsberg, Assistant Appellate Defender

16 Albuquerque, NM 

17 for Appellant

18 MEMORANDUM OPINION

19 VANZI, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge

11 _________________________________

12 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Kirk A. Benson, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Headwaters
Incorporated;

         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 Headwaters as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4. Headwaters' other certifying officer 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)) for Headwaters 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 Headwaters, 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)       Evaluated the effectiveness of Headwaters' 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

         c)       Disclosed in this report any change in Headwaters' internal
                  control over financial reporting that occurred during the
                  quarter ended March 31, 2004 that has materially affected, or
                  is reasonably likely to materially affect, Headwaters internal
                  control over financial reporting; and

         5. Headwaters' other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
Headwaters' auditors and the audit committee of Headwaters' board of directors:

         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
                  Headwaters' 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 Headwaters'
                  internal control over financial reporting.


Date: May 3, 2004

/s/ Kirk A. Benson
--------------------------
Kirk A. Benson
Chief Executive Officer