alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
GEORGE SPRINGER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

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

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:07

- cr - 00116

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
George Springer , Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

- Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorne y, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Springer appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion f or compassionate release. We review a district court’s order granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and
conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied Springer’s motion after discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained the
reasons for the denial. See United States v. High , 997 F.3d 181, 188

- 91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussin g amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We 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.
AFFIRMED
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0629

_____________________________ S OMBOON T ED P OOMARAT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Brantley S. Clark , Judge

. April 3, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Joseph v. State , 157 So. 3d 546, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

W OLF , L EWIS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Somboon Ted Poomarat, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<PAGE>
                                                                Exhibit 10.54(a)



              LIST OF REGISTRANT'S DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                   WHO ENTERED INTO INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
                 REFERENCED IN EXHIBIT 10.54 WITH THE REGISTRANT


1.      Raymond C. Musci
2.      Anthony R. Williams
3.      Stephen M. Ambler
4.      Robert W. Holmes, Jr.
5.      George M. Sundheim, III
6.      Mark Dyne
7.      David E. Tobin
8.      Anthony G. Williams
9.      Steven J. Massarsky
10.     Robert T. Slezak
11.     Bernard Stolar
12.     Yves Legris
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsManagement Directives

# Volume 4 - Financial Management

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Volume 1
          - Volume 2
          - Volume 3
          - Volume 4
          - Volume 5
          - Volume 6
          - Volume 7
          - Volume 8
          - Volume 9
          - Volume 10
          - Volume 11
          - Volume 12
          - Volume 13
          - Volume 14

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 20, 2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# BWR Anticipated Transients Without Scram in the MELLLA+ Expanded Operating Domain, Part 3:Events Leading to Emergency Depressurization (NUREG/CR-7181)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7181 (PDF - 5.57 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 third in a series of reports on the response of a BWR/5 boiling water reactor to anticipated transients without reactor scram (ATWS) when operating in the expanded operating domain “MELLLA+.” In this report ATWS events initiated by the closure of main steam isolation valves are analyzed. The objectives were to improve the ability to model such events with the TRACE/PARCS code package, and to simulate them for a sufficiently long time (2500 s) to understand the response of key components and also the potential for fuel damage or damage to the wetwell (suppression pool). These events automatically trip the recirculation pumps. The operator’s responses are to activate the emergency depressurization system when the wetwell has reached the heat capacity temperature limit, and to control power through controlling water level and injecting soluble boron.

Models were developed for three different statepoints in the fuel cycle: beginning-of-cycle, peak-hot-excess-reactivity, and end-of-full-power-life. Eleven cases were assessed to determine the effect of three different strategies for controlling water level, two initial flowrates, two different locations for injecting boron, and two different numerical schemes. In all cases, the event is mitigated successfully in terms of minimizing the degree of damage to the fuel, and assuring the ability of the containment to fulfill its function.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Exhibit 32.1














CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, J. Brian Nichols, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated this 19th day of May, 2011.








J. BRIAN NICHOLSJ. Brian NicholsChief Executive Officer and interim Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffGeneric  Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants  (NUREG-1437)

# Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants – Regarding Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 – Final Report (NUREG-1437, Supplement 59)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 59, Final Report (PDF – 8.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2018**Date Published:** November 2018

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been prepared in response to an application submitted by Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Operations, Inc. (collectively referred to as Entergy), to renew the operating license for the Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3 (WF3) for an additional 20 years.

This SEIS includes the preliminary analyses that evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include: (1) new nuclear power generation, (2) supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) (3) natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), (4) a combination of NGCC, biomass and demand side management (DSM) and (5) the no-action alternative (i.e., no renewal of the license).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for WF3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors:
        - the analysis and findings in NUREG–1437,  Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Volumes 1 and 2 ;
        - the Environmental Report submitted by Entergy;
        - consultation with Federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies; and
        - the NRC staff's independent environmental review.

No public comments were received at the public meeting held on June 8, 2016 in Hahnville, Louisiana or during the scoping period.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
No: II-19-018 April 17, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Summer Nuclear Power Plant Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for April 25 to 

provide information and answer questions regarding the safety performance of the Summer nuclear 

power plant, including the recent annual assessment letter covering all of 2018.

The open house will run from 5:30-6:30 p.m. at the McCrory-Liston Elementary School,

1978 S.C. Hwy 215, in Blair, S.C. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including the 

resident inspectors based full-time at the site, will be available at the open house.

The single-unit Summer plant, operated by Dominion Energy, is located near Jenkinsville,

S.C., approximately 26 miles northwest of Columbia. 

The NRC concluded that the Summer plant operated safely in 2018. At the end of the year, 

all inspection findings and performance indicators were green or of low safety significance. As a 

result, the Summer plant remains under the NRC’s normal level of oversight, which entails 

thousands of hours of inspection each year.

The NRC Reactor Oversight Process uses color-coded inspection findings and indicators to 

measure plant performance. The colors start at green and increase to white, yellow or red, 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Inspection findings or 

performance indicators with more than very low safety significance trigger increased NRC 

oversight.

Inspections are performed by the NRC resident inspectors and inspection specialists from 

the NRC Region II office in Atlanta.

The annual assessment letter, which includes upcoming inspection plans for the plant, is 

available on the NRC website. Current performance information for Summer is also on the website 

and is updated on a quarterly basis.
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Shou-Kang Chen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.;

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

4. The companys other certifying officer(s)
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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the company 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 the company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting,
or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys
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

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 the companys 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 the companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 18, 2016



/s/ Shou-Kang ChenName:

Shou-Kang ChenTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
p070375.eng.txt INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 07-0375 Focus Ready Draft 5/3/2007 ENGINEER: Jon \ JB PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: J.M. Huber Corporation USE: Flame retardant.

OTHER USES: MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: impervious chemical resistant gloves/ safety glasses with side shields/ local exhaust ventilation/ Respirator: In case of exposure to high levels of airborne dust, wear a respirator in compliance with national legislation. Health Effects: Slightly irritating to the eyes // dust may cause mechanical irritation to eyes // inhalation of dust may cause respiratory tract irritation. TLV/PEL: Not established.
CRSS (04/23/2007): S-H20: 0.0000001 g/L @ VP: 1.0E-7 torr @ MW: 100000.00 %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:

Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (04/24/2007): Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B1T1 Health: 1-2 Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 1p070375.eng.txt

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: PMN: 07-0375 Manufacturing - Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis: Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Output 2: to: from: basis:

Output 2: to: from: basis:

Page 2p070375.eng.txt Output 2: to: from: basis:

Output 2: to: from: basis:

submission estimate.:
to: from: basis: Output 2: to: from: basis:

Output 2: to: from: basis:

RELEASE TOTAL kg/yr - sitesOCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation: Exposure to Upper Bound: Number of workers (all sites) with inhalation exposure: Basis:

INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW 1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit, or data not specific to industry): 2)a) Exposure level > 1 mg/day? OR b) Hazard Rating for health of 2 or greater? Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired? Dermal: Exposure to High End: Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: Basis:

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 07-0375 Use - Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: Basis: Process

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Output 2: to: from: Page 4p070375.eng.txt basis:

Output 2: to: from: basis:

RELEASE TOTAL kg/yr - sites

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation: Exposure to Upper Bound: Number of workers (all sites) with inhalation exposure: Basis:

INHALATION MONITORING DATA REVIEW 1) Uncertainty (estimate based on model, regulatory limit, or data not specific to industry): 2)a) Exposure level > 1 mg/day? OR b) Hazard Rating for health of 2 or greater? Inhalation Monitoring Data Desired? Dermal: Exposure to High End: Number of workers (all sites) with dermal exposure: Basis:

Page 5
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Simulation with RELAP5/MOD3.3 of an Integral-Effect Test on Loop-Seal Clearing in the Upper Plenum Test Facility During Test A5 (NUREG/IA-0520)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0520 (PDF – 1.75 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2019**Date Published:** June 2020

**Prepared by:**Richard Trewin

Framatome GmbHPaul-Gossen-Str. 10091058 Erlangen, Germany

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 RELAP5/MOD 3.3 computer code has been used to simulate an experiment on loop-seal clearing conducted in the Upper Plenum Test Facility. An assessment of this code version was performed by comparing the calculated results to the measured data from the experimental facility.

Loop-seal clearing in a pressurized-water reactor during an intermediate-break loss-of-coolant accident was investigated in the UPTF-TRAM experimental facility during a series of experiments designated Test A5. The phenomenon of loop-seal clearing was studied at 15 bar(a) during an integral-effects test designated ITRun2a.

This report presents assessments that demonstrate the suitability of the code for analyzing loop-seal clearing transients.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### In the Matter of WESTWOOD ASPHALT, Debtor.

Bankruptcy No. 83-05322-BE.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.

Dec. 6, 1984.

ORDER

GEORGE C. PAINE, II, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a fee application submitted by Laventhol & Horwath, Accountants for the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee (hereinafter referred to as “accountants”) for work performed in this Chapter 11 proceeding. Upon consideration of the application, supporting affidavit, statements of counsel and the entire record, the Court concludes that the accountants are entitled to a fee of $5,458.00. The Court will not grant compensation for $191.00 attributed by the applicant to secretarial time.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 330 (West 1979) the Court may award an accountant appointed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1103(a) reasonable compensation for actual and necessary expenses. Pursuant to this duty, the Court is required to disallow any compensation for duplicative services. *In re Tolan,*41 B.R. 751 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1984); *In re Sapolin Paints Inc.,*38 B.R. 807, 11 Bankr.Ct. Dec. 875 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1984). Since professionals’ hourly compensation includes overhead services, the Court cannot award a professional both an hourly fee as well as enumerated overhead expenses. Secretarial time is an overhead expense of this type. *In re Arlan’s Department Stores Inc.,*462 F.Supp. 1255 (S.D.N.Y.1978).

The accountants in this case have requested not only an hourly fee but also $191.00 for routine secretarial services. *112Since the secretarial time does not include compensation for services performed by professional or paraprofessional personnel, the Court determines that the accountants are compensated for such time by an hourly rate. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the accountants’ compensation for $191.00.

The Court finds that the accountants’ fee application is fair and reasonable in all other respects. Therefore, the Court hereby grants the accountants’ fee in the amount of $5,458.00.

IT IS, THEREFORE, SO ORDERED.
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                   |                                   |                              |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                              |                              |                         |
| DATE:                November 14, 2006 | By:                          | /s/ Tom                Davis |
|                                   | Tom                Davis               |
|                                   | Chief                Operating Officer |

----