alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsPrevious Site Additions

# Site Additions in 2001

See also New on Our Site for current additions.

**December 21**

Release 2 of NRC's redesigned Web site was deployed today. It includes top level pages of the sections concerned with our three major regulatory activities:
        - Nuclear Reactors
        - Nuclear Materials
        - Radioactive Waste

Within the reactor section, sections of high public interest include the NRC Regulatory Information Conference and information about Reactor License Renewal. This release also includes site search, Inspector General program information, and information for students and teachers. Release 3 will continue to build on the content currently available for Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Materials and Radioactive Waste.

**December 7**

NRC Regulations (10 CFR) are now available.ADAMS Installation Instructions and ADAMS Login Options have been revised.

**December 3**

Release 1 of NRC's redesigned Web site was deployed today. It includes two of our seven main sections:  About NRC and the NRC Library. It also includes Site Help and selected material in other areas. We will gradually rebuild our site by issuing several releases. Release 2 will include the top level pages of three more main sections: Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Materials, and Radioactive Waste. Subsequent releases will complete these and the remaining sections.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 23, 2020

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

#### 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, September 23, 2020
# L_2015154EN.01001301.xml

| 19.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 154/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 154/13

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/946

of 15 June 2015

appointing a German alternate member of the Committee of the Regions

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the German Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 26 January and on 5 February 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1) and (EU) 2015/190 (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 26 January and on 5 February 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1) and (EU) 2015/190 (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.

1

2

| (2) | An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions becomes vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Clemens LINDEMANN on 30 June 2015, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

An alternate member's seat on the Committee of the Regions becomes vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Clemens LINDEMANN on 30 June 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is hereby appointed as alternate member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:

| — | Mr Bernd LANGE, Landrat des Landkreises Görlitz. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Bernd LANGE, Landrat des Landkreises Görlitz.

Landrat des Landkreises Görlitz

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

It shall take effect on 1 July 2015.

Done at Luxembourg, 15 June 2015.

For the Council

The President

K. GERHARDS

---

(1)  OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42.

1

(2)  OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25.

2

---
#### Starszak, Respondent, vs. Kochanik, Appellant.

*September 9*

October *8, 1929.*

*474For the appellant there was a brief by *Stover & Stover*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Daniel G. Stover.*

For the respondent the causé was submitted on the brief of *John Sander*of Milwaukee.

Rosenberry, C. J.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff made a *bona fide*con*475tinuous effort to procure a purchaser for the premises in question within the rule laid down in *Huchting v. Rahn,*179 Wis. 50, 190 N. W. 847, and *Genske v. Christensen,*189 Wis. 520, 208 N. W. 467. As was said in the *Genske Case,*ordinarily the question of whether or not under the facts there was a *bona fide*effort by the broker to make a sale is a question of fact, but there must be evidence which will sustain such a finding.

It is difficult to see how a broker could do anything and do less than was done by the plaintiff in this case, and if the evidence here sustains the finding of *bona fides*on the part of the broker, such a finding would have to be sustained in practically every case. No one can lay down categorically the things that are nece'ssary to be done in every case in order to establish a *bona fide*effort to procure a sale. Outside of the general statements made by the plaintiff, which are mere conclusions, we find nothing in this case to sustain the proposition that he made a *bona fide*effort to procure a sale of the premises in question. They were not advertised, he brought no purchasers, there was no proof that he had exhibited the premises. He did nothing apparently but list the property and make one personal inspection. He knew of the impending sale to Schultz, to whom he had attempted to sell other property. He waited until the sale was closed through another broker and then made demand upon the defendant for the commission. It is considered that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, with directions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
EXHIBIT 99


                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Michael E. DeHaan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Karen M.
Wirth, Treasurer of Chesterfield Financial Corp. (the "Company") each certify in
his or her capacity as an officer of the Company that he or she has reviewed the
Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002 and
that to the best of his or her knowledge:

     1.   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of
          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



           September 23, 2002               /s/ Michael E. DeHaan
           ------------------               ---------------------
                  Date                      Michael E. DeHaan
                                            Chairman, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer


           September 23, 2002               /s/ Karen M. Wirth
           ------------------               ------------------
                 Date                       Karen M. Wirth
                                            Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer)
#### Brown, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

*December 6, 1940*

January 7, *1941.*

*570For the appellant there was a brief by *Ela, Christianson & Ela*of Madison, and oral argument by *G. Burgess Ela.*

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

For the respondents Fox Motor Company and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company there was a brief by *Wilkie, Toebaas, Hart, Kraege & Jackman*of Madison, and oral argument by *Laurence E. Hart.*

Fairchild, J.

Appellant claims that the findings of the commission, confirmed by the circuit court, are conclusions of law subject to review, rather than findings of fact which are conclusive. Fie insists that transportation to and from work was a part of the consideration. The terms of the contract of employment are important. The specific contract provisions are facts to be found by the commission which if supported by credible evidence are conclusive. *Tesch v. Industrial Comm.*200 Wis. 616, 229 N. W. 194; *Indrebo v. Industrial Comm.*209 Wis. 272, 243 N. W. 464. At most, the use of the car was an allowance in the way-of pay which placed no obligation on the employer to transport appellant to and from work. An employer, agreeing in his contract with an employee merely to permit the use of one of his automobiles by the employee in going between the employee’s home and the employer’s place of business, does not become liable for the transportation of the employee. *Bloom v. Krueger,*182 Wis. 29, 195 N. W. 851, 23 N. C. C. A. 319; *Geldnich v. Burg,*202 Wis. 209, 231 N. W. 624; *Ohrmund v. Industrial Comm.*211 Wis. 153, 246 N. W. 589; *Goldsworthy v. Industrial Comm.*212 Wis. 544, 250 N. W. 427; *Wisconsin Carbonic*
      *571
      *Gas Co. v. Industrial Comm.*219 Wis. 234, 262 N. W. 704; *Githens v. Industrial Comm.*220 Wis. 658, 265 N. W. 662. Ordinarily, an employee going to his place of employment is in the prosecution of his own business. There is nothing in the facts presented to show any means by which the employer could control the transportation or the use of the automobile which the employee was permitted to use. The understanding was that the salesmen could use a car at any time for their own purposes, so long as they did not abuse the privilege. If no car was available, the employer was under no obligation to furnish one.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7776

PAUL THOMASON, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-21843)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Thomason, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Paul Thomason, Jr., seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is 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 or her constitutional claims are debatable and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Thomason 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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,__________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14I0272. AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE CORPORATION v.

JAMES LAWRENCE BENNETT.

American Alternative Insurance Corporation seeks interlocutory review of the

trial court’s order granting plaintiff James Lawrence Bennett’s motion for partial

summary judgment. Under OCGA § 9-11-56 (h), the grant of summary judgment on

any issue or as to any party is reviewable by direct appeal. City of Demorest v. Town

of Mt. Airy, 282 Ga. 653, 654 n.1 (653 SE2d 43) (2007); Whiddon v. Stargell, 192 Ga.

App. 826, 827-28 (386 SE2d 884) (1989). Ordinarily, we will grant an application for

interlocutory review if the order complained of is subject to direct appeal and the

applicant has not otherwise filed a notice of appeal. Spivey v. Hembree, 268 Ga. App.

485, 486 n. 1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). But the application must be timely. See id. 

Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only

if the trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate

review should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that

ten-day period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until final

judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 176

(200 SE2d 748) (1973).

Here, the order granting partial summary judgment was entered on July 9,

2014, but the certificate of immediate review was not entered until 14 days later on

July 23, 2014. Although the trial court signed the certificate of immediate review on

July 17, 2014, the relevant date for determining the timeliness of the certificate is the

date it was entered. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga. App. 687 (204 SE2d 317)

(1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or interlocutory

August 25, 2014
judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within ten days after

entry of the judgment appealed from.”). Because the trial court did not enter the

certificate of immediate review within ten days of entry of the order at issue, we lack

jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,__________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/25/2014
##### 



Exhibit 32.02
 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 for the periods presented therein.
 Date:
May 7, 2007
    
    /s/ Robert R. Freeman

Robert FreemanChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 20, 2019

NO. 03-18-00802-CV

Ryshea Holmes, Appellant

v.

CF Cricket Hollow Associates d/b/a Cricket Hollow, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 3, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of 

costs is made.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-1885

# Report to Congress on the Security Inspection Program for Operating Commercial Power Reactors and Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities: Results and Status Update - Annual Report for Calendar Year 2020 (NUREG-1885, Revision 14)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1885, Revision 14 (PDF – 1.71 MB)

## Publication Information

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

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report fulfills the requirements of Section 170D.e of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 42 U.S.C. §2210d(e)), as amended, which states, "[n]ot less often than once each year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, in classified form and unclassified form, that describes the results of each security response evaluation conducted and any relevant corrective action taken by a licensee during theprevious year." Additionally, Section 170D.a of the AEA of 1954 (42 U.S.C. §2210d(a)) grants the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the authority to determine which licensed facilities must undergo these security evaluations. The NRC is reporting the security response evaluation results for the nation's fleet of operating commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) and Category I (CAT I) fuel cycle facilities, given the significance of the nature, form, and quantity of nuclear material at these facilities. With respect to NPPs, the scope of this report includes those undergoing decommissioning but not yet transitioned to a dry-storage independent spent fuel storage installation due to the continued implementation of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials." This report includes a comprehensive overview of the combined results of the security programs for calendar year (CY) 2020. To aid in understanding the context of how the programs, including: Reactor Oversight Process, Security Baseline Inspection Program for NPPs, a force-on-force (FOF) evaluation description, and CAT I Fuel Cycle Facility Security Oversight Program.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, November 24, 2021
From: Land, Eva

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:10 PM

To: kathryn.maness@anadarko.com

Subject: Sign-in Sheet from today's meeting

Katie,

I have attached the sign-in sheet from our meeting today. Please feel free to send on to all attendees 

from your side.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA - Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-9103
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsMemoranda of Understanding

# Memoranda of Understanding - 2009

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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 21, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2013
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984

#### 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 Monday, March 21, 2022
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# A Quantitative Impact Assessment of Hypothetical Spent Fuel Reconfiguration in Spent Fuel Storage Casks and Transportation Packages (NUREG/CR-7203)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7203 (PDF - 13.74 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 2015**Date Published:** September 2015

**Prepared by:** J. M. Scaglione, G. Radulescu, W. J. Marshall, K. R. Robb

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6170

M. F. Bales, NRC Project Managerr

NRC Job Code N6789/N6686

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Based on the current knowledge, commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF), including high burnup fuel (burnup > 45 GWd/MTU) in the United States can be stored and transported safely in accordance with the respective regulatory requirements. The NRC periodically conducts research activities to confirm the safety of operations and enhance the regulatory framework to address any changes in technology, science, and policies. This includes analyses of beyond design basis conditions to confirm that regulatory requirements continue to provide reasonable assurance for safe storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. The research documented in this report is an effort of such nature.

This report documents an evaluation of the impact of a wide range of extremely unlikely postulated fuel reconfigurations under non-mechanistic causes of fuel assembly geometry change with respect to four technical disciplines: criticality, shielding (dose rates), containment, and thermal. The term “fuel reconfiguration” refers to any change to the storage and transportation system nominal intact fuel assembly configuration used for the basis of cask certification. Many configurations were considered to be physically unlikely realizable scenarios.

Three fuel reconfiguration categories were considered: configurations characterized by (1) cladding failure, (2) rod/assembly deformation without cladding failure or (3) changes to assembly axial alignment without cladding failure. The analyses considered representative SNF designs and storage cask/ transportation packages, and a range of fuel initial enrichments, discharge burnup values, and decay times.

Overall, the safety impacts of fuel reconfiguration are system design, content type, and loading dependent. The areas and magnitude of the impact vary from cask/package design to cask/package design. It should also be noted that some of the scenarios are extreme and physically unlikely to occur; they represent bounding values. The spent fuel storage systems and transportation packages approved by the NRC to date provide reasonable assurance that they are safe under normal, off-normal, and hypothetical accident conditions as prescribed in 10 CFR Part 71 and 72 regulations.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021