alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6230

MARCUS J. LEWIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-04-104) Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcus J. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Ryan Robert McKinstry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marcus Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration and to amend. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Technical Guidelines for Aseismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-6241, BNL-NUREG-52422)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6241 (PDF – 17.57 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 1994**Date Published:** June 1994

**Edited by:** Y. J. Park, C. H. Hofmayer

Brookhaven National Laboratocy Upton, NY 11973-5000

NRC FIN A3301

**Prepared for**: Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document is a translation, in its entirety, of the Japan Electric Association (JEA) publication entitled "Technical Guidelines for Aseismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants - JEAG 4601-1987." This guideline describes in detail the aseismic design techniques used in Japan for nuclear power plants. It contains chapters dealing with: (a) the selection of earthquake ground motions for a site, (b) the investigation of foundation and bedrock conditions, (c) the evaluation of ground stability and the effects of ground movement on buried piping and structures, (d) the analysis and design of structures, and (e) the analysis and design of equipment and distribution systems (piping, electrical raceways, instrumentation, tubing and HV AC duct). The guideline also includes appendices which summarize data, information and references related to aseismic design technology.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
(September 29, 1995)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Richard M. Gutierrez, on Behalf of Jamal Pinchback, Petitioner, v Michael P. Jacobson, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 466]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application for bail reduction upon Queens County Indictment No. 4424/94.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, was not an improvident exercise of discretion, and did not violate "constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Kruger, 25*NY2d 497, 499; *see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Augustine Crimes, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1015]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. —Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
No: 19-017 March 19, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Potential Meeting Locations to Discuss

Community Engagement Panels for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking comments from the public on potential 

locations for a series of public meetings to discuss best practices for community engagement panels 

near decommissioning nuclear power plants.

The request is an initial step under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, 

signed into law in January. NEIMA included, among other things, a requirement that the NRC submit a 

report to Congress on best practices for community engagement panels in areas surrounding nuclear 

power plants that have ceased operations and begun decommissioning.

In developing a best practices report, and as required by NEIMA, the NRC plans to consult with 

host states, communities within the emergency planning zone of a nuclear power reactor, and existing 

local community advisory boards. This consultation also includes a minimum of 10 public meetings in 

locations that ensure geographic diversity across the United States, with priority given to states that 

have a nuclear power reactor currently undergoing the decommissioning process and request a public 

meeting under this provision of NEIMA.

In a March 18 Federal Register notice, the NRC gave specific instructions for submitting 

comments through the federal government’s rulemaking website, Docket Number NRC-2019-0073. 

Comments may also be mailed to Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN–7– A60M, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 0001, ATTN: Program Management, 

Announcements and Editing Staff. Comments will be accepted through April 17.

The best practices report is scheduled to be issued to Congress by June 2020, and will include a 

discussion of the composition of existing community advisory boards and best practices identified 

during the establishment and operation of such boards, such as logistical considerations, frequency of 

meetings, and the selection of board members.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Available in Adams

# Publications Available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) – 2009

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 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
          - 1980-1996

#### 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 NUREG Pubs

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# LOCAs With Loss of One Active Emergency Cooling System Simulated by RELAP5 (NUREG/IA-0516)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0516 (PDF – 18.92 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2019**Date Published:** January 2020

**Prepared by:**Andrej Prošek

Jožef Stefan Institute Jamova cesta 39 SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

Division of Systems Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

**Published by:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The second generation reactors were designed and built to withstand without loss to the structures, systems, and components necessary to ensure public health and safety during design basis accidents. There are also accident sequences that are possible but were judged to be too unlikely and therefore were not fully considered in the design process of second generation reactors. In that sense, they were considered beyond the scope of design-basis accidents that a nuclear facility must be designed and built to withstand. They were called beyond design basis accidents. After Fukushima-Daiichi in the Europe the design extension conditions were introduced as preferred method for giving due consideration to the complex sequences and severe accidents without including them in the design basis conditions. In the study, the analysis was performed to see if the plant design can prevent spectrum of loss of coolant accidents together with the complete loss of one emergency core cooling function (e.g. high pressure injection or low pressure injection). The analyzed break spectrum ranged from 1.27 cm to 30.48 cm. For calculations the latest RELAP5/MOD3.3 Patch 5 has been used and the RELAP5 input model of Krško nuclear power plant.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
On appellants’ petition for reconsideration filed August 8 of opinion filed June 6 (102 Or App 61, 793 P2d 881),

petition for reconsideration denied September 26,

petition for review allowed by memorandum opinion November 8, 1990

See 310 Or 546, 800 P2d 299 (1990)

#### Don MARCOULIER, *Appellant, v.*Jerry UMSTED, *Respondent.*Jerry UMSTED, *Third-Party Plaintiff - Respondent, v.*Don MARCOULIER and Felix Marcoulier, *Third-Party Defendants - Appellants, and*Harvey STEEN, *Third-Party Defendant.*

(37726; CA A48775)

798 P2d 260

David Gernant, Portland, for petition.

*482-aBefore Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*483PER CURIAM

Appellants have filed a petition for review, which we treat as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 9.15. It is denied.

The petition contains a statement that one of the trial court judges committed errors because he “was distracted” by a personal concern unrelated to the case. The statement is not supported by any references to the record or to anything else. Appellants’ briefs in this court, which do not contain the statement, also lack anything that would support the allegation in the petition.

In advocating that the Supreme Court grant review, the petition also refers to this court’s supposed “evident anger and emotional antipathy toward these petitioners,” to “its zeal to ‘fix’ ” the petitioners, to its “biased * * * tone” and to its “evident emotion and bias.” Nothing appears in the opinion or petition to support that intemperateness or temerariousness. It would perhaps be appropriate for this court to strike the petition; however, given that the petition is directed primarily to the Supreme Court under the Oregon Rules of Appellate Procedure, we probably lack the authority to do that. Nonetheless, counsel appears to require a warning that there are limits of reasonableness on the scope of advocacy and also to be reminded of at least one Disciplinary Rule, DR 8-102(B): “A lawyer shall not knowingly make false accusations against a judge or other adjudicatory officer.”

Petition for reconsideration denied.
No: 19-063 December 17, 2019

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Seeks Comment on Proposed Rule for Emergency Preparedness

at Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking comment on a proposed rule and associated 

draft regulatory guide to apply risk-informed, performance-based emergency preparedness 

requirements to small modular reactors and other new technologies. These technologies include 

non-light-water reactors and certain non-power production or utilization facilities. The Commission 

approved the rule for publication today. 

The NRC’s existing emergency preparedness program for nuclear power plants has focused on 

large, light-water cooled reactors. The proposed rule and related guidance consider advances in 

facility designs and safety research and their application to future operation of small modular 

reactors and other new technologies. 

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations to create an alternative emergency preparedness 

framework for SMRs and other new technologies. The alternative requirements and implementing 

guidance would adopt a risk-informed, performance-based, and technology-inclusive approach. The 

alternative requirements would include a scalable approach for determining the size of the 

emergency planning zone around each facility, based on the distance at which possible radiation 

doses could require protective actions. The public and other interested parties can use this 

rulemaking effort to comment on emergency preparedness policy issues such as:

• What planning activities should apply to the performance-based approach?

• How should hazard analysis be applied to the performance-based approach?

• What specific factors or technical considerations are needed when applying the scalable 

EPZ approach?

This proposed rule does not include within its scope emergency planning, preparation, and 

response for current power reactors, fuel cycle facilities or currently operating non-power reactors.

The NRC began considering a possible performance-based approach to emergency preparedness 

several years ago, when SMRs and other new technologies were being considered for potential 

licensing. The Commission approved a rulemaking plan for this proposed rule in June 2016. The 

NRC staff published a draft regulatory basis for public comment in April 2017, and considered the 

comments in finalizing the regulatory basis, which was issued in November 2017. 
Page | 2

The proposed rule will be published soon in the Federal Register. Comments will be accepted 

until 75 days after publication, through the federal rulemaking website regulations.gov by using 

Docket ID NRC-2015-0225.
No. 86-57.

#### Tennessee et al. *v.*Champion International Corp., dba Champion Papers.

Sup. Ct. Tenn. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *International Paper Co.*v. *Ouellette, ante,*p. 481.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) or

RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, AS AMENDED)



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended), the undersigned officer of TX Holdings, Inc.,
a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the
year ended September 30, 2015 (the “Report”), of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: January 5, 2016 | Signed: | /s/William L. Shrewsbury
|--------------------- | ------- | ------------------------
|                      | Name:   | William L. Shrewsbury   
|                      | Title:  | Chief Executive Officer
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008Page 39 of 22605/29/2009 10:01:12

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Comanche Peak 1 Docket (050- 00445)

Human-System Interface & Environmnt / IR170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 173 - Physical conditions LTA M - Mechanical Q - Fire Protection 

317

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers Q - Fire Protection 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers Q - Fire Protection 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers Q - Fire Protection 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers Q - Fire Protection 

528

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR183 - Pre-job activities LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 185 - Procedural adherence LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements G - Engineering Q - Fire Protection 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA G - Engineering H - Health Physics 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 189 - Recognition of adverse condition / questioning attitude LTA Q - Fire Protection 

D - Emergency Planning

189 - Recognition of adverse condition / questioning attitude LTA Q - Fire Protection 

G - Engineering

1056

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 18
**Exhibit 31.2** 
**CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
I, Alan H. Buckey, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of LCA-Vision Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  August 3, 2004 /s/ Alan H. Buckey   Alan H. Buckey   Chief Financial Officer
No. 86-5999.

No. 86-6032.

#### Turner *v.*Pansophic Systems, Inc. Gelb *v.*Royal Globe Insurance Co.

C. A. 7th Cir.; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *informa pau-peris*denied. Petitioners are allowed until March 16, 1987, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 45(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court.

Justice Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

For the reasons expressed in *Brown*v. *Herald Co.,*464 U. S. 928 (1983), we would deny the petitions for writs of certiorari without reaching the merits of the motions to proceed *in forma pauperis.*
No: IV-16-024 December 29, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Issues White Finding to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a white finding of low to moderate safety 

significance to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for failing to adequately maintain the emergency 

core cooling system at the plant in San Luis Obispo, Calif.

Each reactor at Diablo Canyon is equipped with two emergency core cooling systems that are 

used to provide cooling water to a reactor under certain accident conditions. During a scheduled test 

conducted in May, workers discovered that a maintenance problem had rendered one of the Unit 2 

emergency core cooling systems inoperable for an extended period of time, beginning as early as 

October 2014.

A second emergency core cooling system was available if needed. The licensee has corrected 

the condition and changes have been made to maintenance procedures to prevent recurrence. The issue 

is described in an NRC inspection report. NRC staff held a regulatory conference with representatives 

from Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Nov. 15, in Arlington, Texas, to discuss the issue.

The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear plants with a color-coded 

process that categorizes inspection findings as green, white, yellow or red in order of increasing safety 

significance. The NRC has determined that this inspection finding has low to moderate (white) safety 

significance. The NRC will conduct an inspection to verify the licensee’s corrective actions have been 

properly implemented.