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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6330

ARTHUR JAY GOULETTE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ADMINISTRATOR AT CHERRY HOSPITAL; GEORGE T. SOLOMAN; C/O 

POWELL; J. LUCKEY WEISH, JR.; DEBORAH L. MCSWAIN,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03002-FL)

Submitted: June 22, 2017 Decided: June 27, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part, and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Jay Goulette, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Goulette appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012) and denying his postjudgment motions. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Goulette’s appeal of the order 

dismissing his § 1983 action because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties 

are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note 

an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period 

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order dismissing the 

§ 1983 action was entered on the docket on August 4, 2016. The notice of appeal was 

filed on March 7, 2017.

*

 Goulette’s post-judgment motions had no impact on the time 

allotted to file the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Because Goulette’s 

notice of appeal was not timely as to the August 4, 2016, order and judgment, we dismiss 

the appeal of this order.

The notice of appeal is timely, however, for the March 2, 2017, order denying 

Goulette’s post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Goulette v. 

Adm’r at Cherry Hosp., No. 5:16-ct-03002-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 2, 2017). We deny 

 * For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
3

Goulette’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,697
<ALLOWANCES>                                        88
<INVENTORY>                                         29
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,375
<PP&E>                                          50,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,625)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  78,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,382
<BONDS>                                          5,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    78,874
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                43,074
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,438)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (817)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,621)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,621)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Nuclear Power Plant Fire Protection - Ventilation (Subsystems Study Task 1) (NUREG/CR-0636)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-0636 (PDF - 1.93 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** September 1979

**Prepared by:** John A. Milloy

Sandia Laboratories  Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy

NRC FIN A-1080

**Prepared for:** Engineering Methodology Standards Branch Office of Standards Development U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555

Under Interagency Agreement DOE 40-50-75 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report examines the role of compartment ventilation from the standpoint of nuclear power plant fire protection safety. Based on a review of numerous design standards which consider the influence of controlled ventilation on reducing fire severity, the report concludes that current standards and regulatory guidelines inadequately define criteria for design of ventilation systems and their operation under fire emergencies. To resolve this deficiency, the report evaluates four candidate design bases for ventilation systems: smoke removal, smoke dispersion control, fire spread control, and fire temperature control. It is concluded that the lack of existing fire technology precludes the implementation of all but one of these criteria--fire temperature control. On this basis the report presents an example design calculation for applying the temperature control criterion.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
#### Crown Realty Company, Appellant, v Crown Heights Jewish Community Council et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. David Fischer, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 539]

In an action and a third-party action, *inter alia,*to determine the ownership of real property, the plaintiff and third-party defendant appeal from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated April 23, 1993 which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendants third-party plaintiffs imposing a constructive trust upon the subject property, directing that the subject property be conveyed to the defendant third-party plaintiff Crown Heights Jewish Community Council upon payment of the sum of $115,977.62, and dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

While the plaintiff and the third-party defendant, David Fischer, take issue with the trial court’s conclusion that a constructive trust should be imposed upon the subject property, all of the requisite elements for imposing a constructive trust *(see, Sharp v Kosmalski,*40 NY2d 119, 121; *Reiner v Reiner,*100 AD2d 872, 874) were established and imposition of a constructive trust was warranted.

Furthermore, on the record before us, we conclude that the court’s findings are supported by credible evidence and that the judgment is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, Matter of Fasano v State of New York,*113 AD2d 885, 887-888; *see also, Marren v State of New York,*142 AD2d 717, 718-719).

The remaining contentions of the parties are either without merit or not properly before this Court. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

140) IV-C-106 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:58 AM Sheet 140 of 232 
—-••" —• F"\2_ 

^osr4% 7&-C-IQC, 

• J 1 

r

i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN AR>SOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

APR 2 2 1988 

Dr. J. J. Liu 

National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Dr. Liu: 

At our briefing to NHTSA on April 12, 1988 we briefly 

reviewed the video tapes submitted by General Motors (GM) as 

part of its comments on the EPA onboard proposal. During our 

discussion of the tape showing the possible effects of 

tampering with the onboard vapor lines for a canister located 

under the hood, we mentioned some followup correspondence which 

we have had with GM concerning the possible existence of a 

safety risk for similar occurrences with current evaporative 

systems. At that time you requested copies of this 

correspondence. 

Enclosed are three documents concerning the GM video 

tape. The first is a memo to the record, dated March 9, 1988, 

from Mr. John Anderson of my staff. This memo describes our 

first contacts with GM about questions we have had about the 

video. Second is our letter of March 17, 1988 to GM requesting 

further explanations of the events on the video tape, and how 

they might apply to current GM evaporative control systems. 

Lastly is the GM reply of April 6, 1988, with an attached 

analysis by Failure Analysis Associates dealing with the 

matters raised in our letter. The Failure Analysis Associates 

report documents the generation of a fire with the current 

evaporative system under similar conditions. 

Sincerely yours, 

- TT7 

Charles L. Gray^Jr. 

Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Enclosures 

cc: Docket A-87-11 
P.3 

«Gl:Nc\rOT£CT,0N 

MAY - 9 loop
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Results and Insights on the Impact of Smoke on Digital Instrumentation and Control (NUREG/CR-6597)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6597 (PDF - 20.28 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**September 2000**Date Published:**January 2001

**Prepared by:** T. J. Tanaka, S. P. Nowlen

Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185-0748

C. Antonescu, NRC Project Manager

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

 NRC Job Code W6051

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Smoke can cause interruptions and upsets in active electronics. Because nuclear power plants are replacing analog with digital instrumentation and control systems, qualification guidelines for new systems are being reviewed for severe environments such as smoke and electromagnetic interference. Active digital systems, individual components, and active circuits have been exposed to smoke in a program sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The circuits and systems were all monitored during the smoke exposure, indicating any immediate effects of the smoke. The major effect of smoke has been to increase leakage currents (through circuit bridging across contacts and leads) and to cause momentary upsets and failures in digital systems. This report summarizes two previous reports and presents new results from conformal coating, memory chip, and hard drive tests. The report describes practices for mitigation of smoke damage through digital system design, fire barriers, ventilation, fire suppressants, and post fire procedures.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Karl Schneider, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zoran Corporation;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with a respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)           designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 

(b)           evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)           disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

(a)           allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport information; and

 

(b)           anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Dated:  May 10, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Karl  Schneider                 |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Karl  Schneider                     |
|   | Senior Vice  President, Finance and |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer            |

 

1

----
Exhibit 32.2

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

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

In connection with the Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-KSB of AmeriChip International Inc.
(the "Company") for the period ended November 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc
Walther, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001,
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 Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. .

Dated: June 14, 2005

                                        /s/ Marc Walther
                                        ----------------
                                        Marc Walther, Chief Accounting Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6923** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

– Appellee ,
v. ENOC ALCANTARA

- MENDEZ , Respondent

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:11

- hc

- 02178

- BR )

Submitted : September 28, 2012 Decided: October 22, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Enoc Alcantara

- Mendez, Appellant Pro Se. David T. Huband , BUREAU OF PRISONS , Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Enoc Alcant a ra - Mendez appeals the district court’s order s committing him to the custody of the Attorney General under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (2006) and denying his motions for reconsideration. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in finding that Alcant a ra - Mendez met the c riteria for commitment and did not err in denying his motions for reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 FORM 10-QSB OF WASHINGTON BANCORP AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             313
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,002
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,320
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         54,918
<ALLOWANCE>                                        229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,146
<DEPOSITS>                                      46,283
<SHORT-TERM>                                     1,450
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                644
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,875
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               74
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,813
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  66,146
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,140
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  145
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,285
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 549
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 682
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              603
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       25
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    261
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         157
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       157
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.79
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       139
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   226
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        9
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  247
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               247
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20492]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Proposed subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of section 
131a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereinafter ``the 
Act''). The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent 
arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government 
of the United States of America and the Government of Japan Concerning 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and the Agreement for Cooperation 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan Concerning Peaceful Uses of 
Nuclear Energy.

DATES: This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 
September 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sean Oehlbert, Office of 
Nonproliferation and International Security, National Nuclear Security 
Administration, Department of Energy. Telephone: 202-586-3806 or email: 
Sean.Oehlbert@nnsa.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This subsequent arrangement concerns the 
retransfer of 700,888 g of U.S.-origin natural uranium oxide material, 
containing 5,005 g of the isotope U-235 (0.71% enrichment) and 
18,699,112 g of U.S.-origin enriched uranium oxide material, containing 
654,386 g of the isotope U-235 (less than five percent enrichment) in 
the form of uranium fuel fabrication scrap from Nuclear Fuel 
Industries, Ltd. in Minato-Ku, Tokyo, Japan, to Ulba Metallurgical 
Plant Joint Stock Company in Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan. The material, 
which is currently located at Nuclear Fuels Industries, Ltd. in Japan, 
will be transferred to Ulba Metallurgical Plant for the purpose of 
recovering uranium from fuel fabrication scrap where it will be 
fabricated into fuel pellets to be used by six electric utilities 
(Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc., The Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., 
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc., Hokuriku Electric Power Company, The 
Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc., and the Japan Atomic Power Company). 
The material was originally obtained by Nuclear Fuel Industries, Ltd. 
from nuclear fuel manufacturers in the United States pursuant to 
several Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses.
    In accordance with section 131a. of the Act, it has been determined 
that this subsequent arrangement concerning the retransfer of nuclear 
material of United States origin will not be inimical to the common 
defense and security.

    Dated: August 9, 2013.

    For the Department of Energy.
Anne M. Harrington,
Deputy Administrator, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2013-20492 Filed 8-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```