alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30276

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES ARNOLD, III,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CR-207-1-F

 

January 14, 2002

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Arnold, III, wishes to appeal the sentence imposed

following his plea of guilty to one count of bank robbery in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). His notice of appeal was filed

late and the district court denied his motion for leave to file a

late notice of appeal.

Arnold argues that the district court erred in denying his
2

motion to file a late notice of appeal because it conducted an

incomplete inquiry into whether the delay was caused by excusable

neglect. Arnold seeks only to challenge the district court’s

application of the Sentencing Guidelines and the resultant

sentence.

Arnold in his signed written plea agreement made an express,

informed and knowing waiver of his right to appeal except in the

case where the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum or

where the sentence “constitutes an upward departure from the

Guideline range deemed most applicable by the sentencing court.”

This was also fully explained to him by the district court at the

Rule 11 hearing. Because neither of the two stated conditions are

implicated by the sentence imposed by the district court, this

court is precluded from reviewing this issue. See United States v.

Gonzalez, 259 F.3d 355, 358 (5th Cir. 2001). Because the issue he

seeks to raise on appeal is precluded from review, remand for

consideration of the timeliness of the appeal notice would be

futile. See United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir.

2000). 

APPEAL DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               1,932
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          1,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    38,002
<PP&E>                                              16,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                       2,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      72,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               27,024
<BONDS>                                             22,695
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              1
<COMMON>                                                12
<OTHER-SE>                                          10,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        72,375
<SALES>                                              1,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,102
<CGS>                                                9,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2,127
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (15,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (15,142)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (15,142)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.28)



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 10.54
 Molecular Devices Corporation  2005 Equity Incentive Plan
 Stock Option Agreement For Non-Employee Director  (Continuing Director)
   1. Vesting. provided, however
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 2. Number of Shares and Exercise Price.
 3. Method of Payment. permitted by your Grant Notice,
 (a) The Wall Street
Journal
 1




---



##### 



(b) The Wall Street Journal
 (c) provided, however, provided, however,
 4. Whole Shares.
 5. Securities Law Compliance.
 6. Term.
 (a)
 2




---



##### 



(b)
 (c)
 (d)
 7. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 8. Transferability.
 9. Option not a Service Contract.
 10. Withholding Obligations.
 (a)
 3




---



##### 



(b)
 (c)
 11. Notices.
 12. Governing Plan Document.
 4




---



##### 



Molecular Devices Corporation  2005 Equity Incentive Plan
 Stock Option Agreement For Non-Employee Director  (Newly-Elected Director)
   1. Vesting. provided, however
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 2. Number of Shares and Exercise Price.
 3. Method of Payment. permitted by your Grant Notice,
 (a) The Wall Street
Journal
 1




---



##### 



(b) The Wall Street Journal
 (c) provided, however, provided, however,
 4. Whole Shares.
 5. Securities Law Compliance.
 6. Term.
 (a)
 2




---



##### 



(b)
 (c)
 (d)
 7. Exercise.
 (a)
 (b)
 8. Transferability.
 9. Option not a Service Contract.
 10. Withholding Obligations.
 (a)
 (b)
 3




---



##### 



(c)
 11. Notices.
 12. Governing Plan Document.
 4
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2019

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

 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, July 21, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Open Petition for Rulemaking Dockets
          - 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

#### 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 Thursday, July 21, 2022
Argued November 26,

affirmed December 10, 1973

#### HAMILTON, *Respondent, v.*HAMILTON (No. 76776), *Appellant.*

516 P2d 486

*John D. Logan,*Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

*Thomas B. Brand,*Salem, argued the cause for respondent.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Tanzer, Judges.

*588TANZER, J.

TMs is an appeal by the husband from a decree dissolving the marriage. Although there are no assignments of error, *see*Rule 6.20, he complains of the support and alimony provisions of the decree.

The parties, now in their late forties, married in 1947. Although physically restricted by polio since the age of 17, the wife bore four children and managed to do the housework with the aid of a walker or crutches. She used a wheelchair when she left the home. Several years before this proceeding, the husband left the home to live with another woman and has two children by her. He provided some support for the wife and children, but the wife finally filed this suit for economic reasons.

The husband earned $18,000 taxable income in 1971 or 1972 (the transcript is not specific) and took home about $725 per month at the time of the hearing. He was also heavily indebted to the Internal Revenue Service.

The court below awarded $50 support for the one child remaining in the home and $850 alimony. The wife also received the family home, subject to heavy encumbrance, and the personalty was divided. We see no reason in the record to reduce those awards.

There was an evidentiary hearing on January 3, 1973 which adjourned when counsel for the wife was to obtain some information about social security eligibility. Husband’s counsel thought he would have another opportunity to introduce evidence, but the court and opposing counsel regarded the hearing as otherwise completed. When the court sent its letter opinion, but before the decree, husband’s counsel moved *589to allow additional evidence to be beard. Tbe motion was supported by an affidavit of tbe bnsband dated April 24, one week after tbe opinion, stating that be was unable to make sucb payments because his indebtedness to the Internal Revenue Service was too great and because his income so far in 1973 was only $2,200.

If tbe husband’s financial situation has altered significantly, that would be a material change in circumstances which can be presented to tbe trial court by motion for modification of the decree rather than by appeal.

Affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# LAPUR 6.0 Manual (NUREG/CR-6958)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6958 (PDF - 6.38 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**December 2007**Date Published:** October 2008

**Prepared by:** Alberto Escrivá José Luis Munoz Cobo José Melara San Roman Manuel Albendea Darriba José March-Leuba

Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

T. Huang, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code J3319

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report documents a series of programming upgrades to Version 6.0 of the LAPUR code. LAPUR, a computer program in FORTRAN, is a mathematical description of the core of a boiling water reactor. Its two linked modules, LAPURX and LAPURW, respectively solve the steady-state governing equations for the coolant and fuel and the dynamic equations for the coolant, fuel, and neutron field in the frequency domain. The main upgrade in LAPUR 6 is the ability to model part-length fuel rods and fuel spacers explicitly. General implementation descriptions are followed by a detailed description of input and output parameters of LAPURX and LAPURW. Sample inputs are included and stability benchmarks are noted.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActClosed Requests

# Closed Appeal & FOIA/PA Cases by Subject - FY 2002

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Please post this proposal from Air Choice One.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffOffice of Investigations Annual Report (NUREG-1830)

# Office of Investigations – Annual Report FY 2019 (NUREG-1830, Volume 16)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1830, Volume 16 (PDF - 711.43 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2019**Date Published:** February 2020

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with an overview of the Office of Investigations' (OI's) activities, mission, and purpose, along with the framework of case inventory and highlights of significant cases that OI completed during fiscal year 2019 (see Staff Requirements Memorandum COMJC-89-8, dated June 30, 1989). This is the 31st OI annual report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Sssessor: POWERS 

# I Search ( 

### )Y 

# FOCUS Date: Health: 

# L --M Focus Rep: SAT 

### IEco: Max. PV Manuf. Submitter: Summit Specialty ChemicalsCorporatior 

## (WY r) Import X

Phenol, polymerwith 

### 4,4'-bis(methoxymethyl)-l ,1'-biphenyl



# E IT1I I I 

## FOR MU^ 

## c, H, 

### 0 Yo< 500 1 PROPERTY 

# 1 Submitted ICB-CRSS I Method/Ref IMP 

### (C) BP (C) 70.00

# - 80.00 

### >5001@ 760torr EPI 70.00 545.91 

# I@760 tor 

### @ P (torr) 

### VP (torr) 7.78e-22 

### EPI 9.60E-12 

### S-H20 (g/L) 2.27e-10 EPI 0.122 mg/t 

### MOL WT 

### 600.00 O/. < too0

S-Org (g/L) mg/L Log Kow 

### I I 6.84 

### PH, pKa 

# I Log Koc 7.90 LightAbsorption (nm)l c > 290 

# I LogBCF

# I BCF 4.57 

# I 37000.00

Solvent: 

# I H (atm 

### m3/mol) 1.00E-08 Volatilization (H20)t(1/2) River 

# I 1000.00 

# I hr Lake 1000.00 Ida AOP t(1/2) 

### (hr) 

### lOHl 1.40 03 

# 1 Total 1.40I
c, Y

CATEGORY RATING 1 2 

### 3 4 4NAEROBIC BIODEGRADATION Ultimate <=days weeks months 

### @- Primary <= days weeks months > months HYDRO (da) iYDROLYSIS A. e= mins hours days => months (t(1/2) 

### @ pH 7, 

### 25 C) B. e= mins hours days => months Comments: SORPTIONTO SOIL & SEDIMENT 

# I strong 

# I moderate 

# I low
vllGRATlONTO GROUNDWATER 

# I \ negl/ 

# 1 slow 

# 1 moderate 

# I rapid
JOLATltlZATlON 

# I Rivers (hr) 

# I 1000 

# I I negl 

# I slow 

# I moderate 

# I rapid (t(1/2) w/o sediment1 Lakes (da) 

# I 1000 

# 1 negl 

# I SbW 

# I moderate

# I rapid
>HOTOLYSIS 

### ]A. Direct 

# I I negl 

# 1 slow 

# I moderate 

# I rapid ]B. Indirect 

# I 

# I negl slow 

# I moderate 

# I rapid AOP t(1/2) hr 4TMOSPHERIC A. OH 

### *,[ 

# d( negl 

### slow moderate rapid OXIDATION 

### B. 

### 03 

### /vi 

### ‘ negl slow moderate rapidc s 

# .Final October 18,2000 PageY 

# of5 INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT CaseNumber: PO01220 Assessor:



# . Scenario#: 1 Number ofRelease Sites: 2.

Release Activity: Processing
Total Releases: 

# I 0.001 0.00 1200.00 0.00 0.00 Release Dayslyr: Per SiteRelease: 

# I 0.001 0.001 600.00) 0.001 0.00 (kglY) WYr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks: Incineration release is less than 200 kghitelyear after 99.9%removal.t- r Page3 of 

## 5 INITIAL REVIEWEXPOSURE REPORT

Scenario#: 2 Number ofRelease Sites:

Total Releases: Release Dayslyr: Per Site Release: 0. 0. I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Remarks:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.4


                       AMENDMENT TO OPERATING AGREEMENT OF
                           MEDCATH OF LITTLE ROCK, LLC

         THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") to the Operating Agreement (the
"Operating Agreement") of MedCath of Little Rock, LLC (the "Company") is made
and entered pursuant to Section 11.2 of the Operating Agreement.

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, the Members desire to amend the Operating Agreement in
accordance with the terms of this Amendment.

         NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency which is hereby acknowledged, the Members agree as follows:

         1.       The following provision is hereby inserted at the end of
Section 8.4 of the Operating Agreement:

         Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event that no
         later than December 31, 2001 MedCath Holdings, Inc. ("MHI") or one of
         MHI's Affiliates conducts an underwritten public offering of the common
         stock of MHI or its Affiliate pursuant to an effective registration
         statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as then in effect, and MHI
         or MHI's Affiliate offers shares of its common stock or cash to any
         Member in exchange for such Member's Membership Interest or a portion
         thereof (the "Exchange"), MHI and its Affiliates and the Member may,
         notwithstanding the terms of this Agreement, engage in such Exchange
         upon such terms as the Member and MHI or MHI's Affiliate may mutually
         agree, and the Exchange shall not be subject to any restrictions on the
         transfer of Membership Interests or rights of first refusal of the
         Company or of any other Member set forth in this Agreement, including,
         but not limited to, those restrictions set forth in this Section 8.4.

         2.       All terms not defined herein shall have the meaning provided
therefor in the Operating Agreement.

         3.       Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions
of the Operating Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         4.       This Amendment shall be effective when approved by the Members
in accordance with Section 11.2 of the Operating Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members have approved and consented to this
Amendment as of the 25th day of April, 2001.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Certification of the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor Standard Design (NUREG-1966)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Kalbakken, Appellant, vs. Kalbakken, Respondent.

*September 11*

October *8, 1929.*

*502For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Abel & Goodman*of Sparta.

*Z. S. Rice*of Sparta, for the respondent.

Fowler, J.

It is quite apparent that the county judge gave-to the case careful consideration and that his findings of fact are sustained by the evidence. It also appears that his division of the husband’s estate is well within the general rule as stated in *Varney v. Varney,*58 Wis. 19, 16 N. W. 36; *Edleman v. Edleman,*125 Wis. 270, 104 N. W. 56; *Hiecke v. Hiecke,*163 Wis. 171, 157 N. W. 747; and *Bruhn v. Bruhn,*197 Wis. 358, 222 N. W. 242, unless, as matter of law, interest on the amount of the wife’s loan as well as the principal should have been deducted from the gross estate of the husband to determine the amount of his estate to be divided between the parties.

It is of course the estate of the husband and so much of the wife’s estate as has been derived from the husband that is to be divided. But in making the award “the special estate of the wife” is to be considered. Sec. 247.26, Stats. It follows, generally speaking, that the larger the separate estate of the wife is, the less will be her share of the husband’s estate on division, and the less her estate is the larger her portion of his estate will be. Adding interest to the wife’s loan would increase her separate estate and decrease the estate of her husband. So it perhaps makes little, if any, difference whether interest be allowed as such. In the only decision of this court in which interest on loans to husband from wife is mentioned in connection with division of property on granting a divorce, *Pauly v. Pauly,*69 Wis. 419, 34 N. W. 512, interest was allowed; but there is no rule requiring it.

*By the Court.-*— The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
# L_2015174EN.01004301.xml

| 3.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 174/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 174/43

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/868 of 26 May 2015 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4,5-T, barban, binapacryl, bromophos-ethyl, camphechlor (toxaphene), chlorbufam, chloroxuron, chlozolinate, DNOC, di-allate, dinoseb, dinoterb, dioxathion, ethylene oxide, fentin acetate, fentin hydroxide, flucycloxuron, flucythrinate, formothion, mecarbam, methacrifos, monolinuron, phenothrin, propham, pyrazophos, quinalphos, resmethrin, tecnazene and vinclozolin in or on certain products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 145 of 10 June 2015
  )

On page 2, Article 2:

for:

‘Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were lawfully produced before 30 June 2015.’,

read:

‘Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as it stood before being amended by this Regulation shall continue to apply to products which were lawfully produced before 30 December 2015.’.

---
No: I-19-018 July 12, 2019

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan, 610-337-5331

New NRC Resident Inspector Assigned to Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have 

selected Travis Daun as the new resident inspector at Seabrook Station, in 

Seabrook, N.H. He joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Paul Cataldo at the 

site, operated by NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.

Daun joined the NRC in 2012 as a reactor engineer in the NRC’s 

Region III Office in Lisle, Ill. Most recently, he was a resident inspector at 

the Susquehanna plant in Berwick, Pa. Daun had previously served for 

11 years in the Navy’s nuclear power program. He has a bachelor’s degree in 

electrical engineering from Marquette University, a master’s degree in cyber security from Syracuse 

University and a master’s in business management from American Intercontinental University.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as 

the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects 

and interacting with plant workers and the public. Resident Inspectors can be assigned to any one 

site for up to seven years.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 906), Vincent A Wasik and Edward W. Stone, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Velocity Express Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter and six months ended December 29, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and (ii) the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of Velocity Express Corporation as of the dates presented and the results of operations of Velocity Express Corporation for the periods presented.



/s/ Vincent A. WasikVincent A. WasikChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 12, 2008/s/ Edward W. StoneEdward W. StoneChief Financial OfficerDate: February 12, 2008


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Velocity Express Corporation and will be retained by Velocity Express
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.