alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Dale Lee HINKLE, Debtor. FIRST NATIONAL BANK CHANUTE, KANSAS, Plaintiff, v. Dale Lee HINKLE, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 81-40633.

Adv. No. 81-0217.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas.

Nov. 25, 1981.

*573Wallace M. Buck, Jr., Topeka, Kan., for First National Bank, Chanute.

Cary L. Standiferd, Topeka, Kan., Trustee.

Robert L. Reed, Topeka, Kan., for Dale Lee Hinkle.

ORDER

JAMES A. PUS ATERI, Bankruptcy Judge.

In the above captioned matter, the debtor received a sum of $15,756.21 from the sale of his wheat. The debtor listed this sum under Schedule B-2 of his chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy. This sum of money was turned over to the trustee, Cary L. Standiferd. The First National Bank of Chanute, Kansas filed its proof of claim, asserted a security interest in the wheat and the proceeds generated from the sale of the wheat, and attached a security agreement and various financing statements to its claim verifying its security interest in the wheat.

The trustee agrees the proceeds are secured, are valueless to the estate, and should be abandoned to the First National Bank. The trustee does request, however, statutory trustee’s fees pursuant to § 326(a) for disbursement of money to a party in interest, including secured creditors.

This Court has recently held that when the trustee abandons property to a secured claimant, there is no actual or constructive disbursement and the trustee cannot collect any compensation under § 326(a). *In Re SMS, Inc.,*15 B.R. 496, (D.Bankr.Kan. 1981). If the collateral in question was any item of secured goods or realty, the trustee, in the normal course of performing his duties, would have no problem abandoning the collateral to the secured creditor, and would not request, and in the past has not requested a trustee’s fee for the abandonment under § 326(a). Here, the trustee has collected cash, money, proceeds, and upon abandoning the cash to the secured creditor seeks a trustee’s fee from the cash. The Court can find no equitable or statutory distinction between abandoning goods or realty, and abandoning cash, when disbursement fees are in issue. In fact, the legislative history contains the following:

> *It should be noted that the base on which the maximum fee is computed includes moneys turned over to secured creditors, to cover the situation where the trustee liquidates property subject to a lien and distributes the proceeds. It does not cover eases in which the trustee simply turns over the property to the secured creditor, nor where the trustee abandons the property and the secured creditor is permitted to foreclose. The provision is also subject to the rights of the secured creditor generally under proposed 11 U.S.(C.) § 506, especially section 506(c).*H.R. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. (1977) 327, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6283.

Therefore, under the holding of *SMS, Inc., supra,*the trustee’s request for fees under § 326(a) is denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Claudio M. Guazzoni, Chief Executive Officer of Zanett, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, of the
Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2006 (the Company Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that
information contained in the Company Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Claudio M. Guazzoni                       |  | March 30, 2007   
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|--------------------------------------------  |  | -----------------
|Claudio M. Guazzoni  Chief Executive Officer |  | Date             

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-41164

Summary Calendar

JESSE HERRERA,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

BRIAN SMITH; ANTONIO ANINAO,

Respondents-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:18-CV-21

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Herrera, Texas prisoner # 684864, is serving a 45-year sentence

for a 1994 murder conviction. He appeals the dismissal of his petition under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenged the result of his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

proceeding. The district court construed the petition as a successive and 

unauthorized § 2254 petition. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-41164 Document: 00515097965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2019
No. 18-41164

2

A threshold question is whether a state prisoner is required to obtain a 

certificate of appealability (COA) before appealing the dismissal of a habeas 

petition purportedly brought under § 2241. In this case, Herrera is required 

to obtain a COA because he is challenging a “final order in a habeas corpus 

proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued 

by a State court.” § 2253(c)(1)(A); see Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 

(5th Cir. 1998). However, we have no jurisdiction to grant or deny a COA 

where the district court did not deny or grant a COA. See Black v. Davis, 902 

F.3d 541, 545 (5th Cir. 2018). 

Accordingly, this appeal is HELD IN ABEYANCE and the case is 

REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to consider 

whether Herrera should be granted a COA from the dismissal of his § 2241 

petition. Herrera’s motion to supplement the record is carried with the case. 

 Case: 18-41164 Document: 00515097965 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2019
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# BWR Anticipated Transients Without Scram in the MELLLA+ Expanded Operating Domain, Part 2: Sensitivity Studies for Events Leading to Instability (NUREG/CR-7180)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7180 (PDF - 3.39 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2014**Date Published:** June 2015

**Prepared by:** Lap-Yan Cheng, Joo Seok Baek, Arantxa Cuadra, Arnold Aronson, David Diamond, and Peter Yarsky*

Nuclear Science and Technology Department Brookhaven National Laboratory

*U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Tarek Zaki, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job CodesV6150 and F6018

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This is the second in a series of reports on the response of a BWR/5 boiling water reactor, operating in the expanded operating domain “MELLLA+,” to anticipated transients without reactor scram (ATWS). Herein, ATWS events initiated by a turbine trip are considered at two points in the fuel cycle: the beginning of cycle (BOC), and at peak hot excess reactivity (PHE, close to the middle of the cycle). We evaluate the effects of modeling the gap conductance (between the fuel pellet and clad), the turbine bypass fraction, and the initial core flow rate. We compare two limiting fixed values of gas-gap conductance, a low value of 5,000 W/m2-K at BOC and a high value of 161,000 W/m2-K at PHE with corresponding base cases that utilize a dynamic gas-gap model. We analyze two turbine bypass fractions, viz., 10% and 25% at PHE, and compare them with the 100% bypass base case. A reduced core flow of 75% of the rated core flow is analyzed at PHE and compared with the base case of 85%.

The simulations were carried out using the TRACE/PARCS code system and models developed for a previous study with all relevant BWR/5 systems. Modeling in the core is particularly detailed (four types of fuel rods are included in each fuel assembly, and 382 thermal-hydraulic channels to represent all assemblies, taking into account half-core symmetry) so as to capture the complex neutronic thermal-hydraulic coupling during periods of instability.

The study offers insights into the behavior of the reactor during these events, including the impact of the operator’s assumed actions on its oscillatory behavior due to instabilities in the reactor, and on its eventual shutdown. It shows the effect of gap conductance, turbine bypass fraction, and initial flow rate.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)


OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





I, Thomas A. Feil, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2020-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and


5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wilmington Trust, National Association.





Date: March 25, 2022


By:/s/ THOMAS A. FEILName:*Thomas A. FeilTitle:PresidentCapital One Auto Receivables, LLC* Thomas A. Feil is the senior officer in charge of securitization of Capital One Auto Receivables, LLC
#### Donald J. DEVINE, Director, Office of Personnel Management, Petitioner, v. Edward LEVIN, Arbitrator, and American Federation of Government Employees Local 1917, Respondents.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 13.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 25, 1983.

ON MOTION

BALDWIN, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Respondents’ MOTION TO DISMISS in the above-captioned case is denied.

*Discussion*

In recent orders, the court held that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, when seeking judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(f) and 7703(d) (1978), is required to petition the arbitrator for reconsideration within 30 days after the arbitrator’s decision and, upon denial, to file a petition for review within 30 days thereafter. *Devine v. Nutt et al.,*Appeal No. 83-589 (order of April 12, 1983); *Devine v. Sutermeister et al.,*Appeal No. 83-813 (order of April 12, 1983).

In this case, petitioner’s petition for review was filed within 30 days of the denial of his petition for reconsideration by respondent Levin, but his petition for reconsideration was itself filed more than 30 days after respondent Levin’s original decision. Accordingly, the petition for reconsideration was not timely submitted under our holding in *Sutermeister,*supra.

Nevertheless, the issue of timeliness under § 7703(d) was heretofore subject to conflicting judicial pronouncements. *Compare Parton v. Merit Systems Protection*

*Board,*684 F.2d 530, 533 (C.A.8 1982), *with Devine v. White,*697 F.2d 421 (D.C.Cir. 1983). Under the circumstances, the court believes it would be improper to apply our holding in *Sutermeister*retroactively. See *Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson,*404 U.S. 97, 107, 92 S.Ct. 349, 355, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). Therefore, petitioner’s failure to seek reconsideration in a timely fashion is excused.

Finally, the court rejects respondents’ contention that this case does not merit discretionary review by this court. The court is unconvinced that there is nothing more between the parties than a mere disagreement with the factual determinations and judgments made by the arbitrator.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01519]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January 
29, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has 
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Consideration of amicus participation; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: January 22, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01519 Filed 1-23-15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Oversight of Radiological Emergency Response Programs(NUREG/CR-7195)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7195 (PDF - 2.37 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2014**Date Published:** May 2015

**Prepared by:** Randolph Sullivan, Thomas Park*, Abbey Jorstad*, Douglas Hoell*

*Obsidian Analysis, Inc. 1776 Eye Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006

R. Sullivan, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code R3151

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides a concept for performance-based oversight of offsite radiological emergency response preparedness in jurisdictions surrounding commercial nuclear power plants. That is, it provides the framework for development of an alternative oversight regimen in which regulators consider inputs and enablers of performance (such as plans and training) only when jurisdictions cannot demonstrate adequate performance. The report proposes an initial set of objective performance indicators for demonstration in drills and exercises. It further proposes differential levels of oversight intervention based on the degree to which the jurisdictions meet or fail to meet performance targets. The report considers whether this performance-based oversight regimen would enable better integration of offsite radiological emergency response preparedness with all-hazards preparedness. Finally, the report briefly considers aspects of implementing the concept, such as potentially required regulatory changes. While the ingestion pathway is important to public health and safety, it is not considered for regulation in the scope of this report. The report concludes that a performance-based oversight system is feasible and could enhance all-hazards integration along with reasonable assurance. However, implementation of a performance-based oversight regimen likely would require more resources than are currently applied in order to ensure a high level of emergency preparedness.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Exhibit 32.2Certification     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Foothills Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the periodended December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.        Dated: March 28, 2008 By:  /s/ W. Kirk Bosché    Name:  W. Kirk Bosché    Title:  Chief Financial Officer        The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Ewan, Respondent, vs. Zettler, and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Edward J. Byrne*of Appleton, and *Lehner ■& Lehner*and *Adolph P. Lehner*of Oconto Falls.

For the respondent: *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner*of Wausau.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on September 12, 1939.
LLL Coverage Linero, Alvaro

to:
Keith Barnett

01/12/2006 09:36 AM

Show Details

AttachedBelow is a diagram of a typical cement facility . The basic raw materi als such as crushed limestone, clay, and sand from mining are genera lly stored in the Raw Materials Storage Areausually it is the Raw Materials Storage Building (RMSB) and is typically a closed or semienclosed building encompassing several acres. It often provides cover as well for raw

material additives such as iron ore, mill scale, shale, bauxi te, coal power ash, etc. The RMSB is the point designated as “01” and typically c ontains limestone, clay, and sand. Initial proportioning of limestone, clay and sand can be done in the RMSB followed by blending of additives (iron ore, mill scale, etc.) from storag e “03” through bins “02”. For reference, the ground product from the raw mill at “04” is further homogenized at “05” and is the raw meal that is actually fed to the pyroprocessing steps beginning at “06”. The only non-metallic mining activities subject to the NSPS Subpart OOO are obviously at point “00”, i.e. the quarry and

crusher.

We have always understood the raw materials storage to be the mentioned very large RMSB (such as “01”) and not the much smaller additives storage “03” or bins “02” or raw mix storage associated with the raw mill building shown as “04”. The alternative to EPA’s interpretation would shield “02 and “03” and the conveyors from “01” and “03” to “02” from Subpart LLL and not even include them in Subpart OOO.In addition, often “01” and “03” are consolidated. The left hand side of the following figure shows “00” and “01”. The right hand side is a scheme that includes “01” through the conveyor

between “05” and “06”. It is clear that se veral steps characteristi c of cement manufacturing rather than non-metallic mining are accomplished that would not be included in Subpart LLL under the alternative interpretati on. Of note are the “on-line” measurement devices such as cross-belt neutron analyzers that are used in the preblending and proportioning steps.

Clearly the raw mix fed to the raw mill is the product of the very careful instrumentally-aided proportioning and blending operation that is one the most important series of steps in the cement manufacturing process. We are not aware of any company in claiming that proportioning, blending and conveyance to the raw mill build ing are steps outside of Subpart LLL.

It is understandable that an untrained person could identify the RMSB, the additives storage and bins, or even the homogenizing silo as raw material storage. However, based on numerous site inspections and discussions with plant personnel, there has never been any ambiguity about

what and where is the raw material storage referred in Subpart LLL.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle: A Task Force Report (NUREG-0116, Supplement 1 to WASH-1248)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Approach To This Supplement

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0116 (PDF – 20.53 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** October 1976

**Editors:**William P. BishopFrank J. Miraglia, Jr.

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

Availability Notice

## Approach To This Supplement

This Supplement deals with the reprocessing and waste management portions of the nuclear fuel cycle for uranium-fueled reactors . The scope of the report is limited to the illumination of fuel reprocessing and waste management activities, and examination of the environmental impacts caused by these activities on a per-reactor basis. The approach is to select one realistic reprocessing and waste management system and to treat it in enough depth to illuminate the issues involved, the technold9y available, and the relationships of these to the nuclear fuel cycle in general and its environmental impacts.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021