alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FI RST DI VI SI ON BA RNES, P. J. , M ERCI ER and BROWN, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

A ugust 20, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A0 68 9 . QUYNN v . HULSEY et al

.

M E R C I E R , J u dg e.

In Qu yn n v. Hu l

s ey , 3 1 0 Ga. 4 7 3 (8 5 0 SE2 d 7 2 5 ) (2 0 2 0 ), t h e Su p rem e Co u rt

o f Geo rg i a rev ers ed Di v i s i o n 3 o f o u r u n p u b li s h ed o p in i o n i n Q u yn n v. Hu l

s ey , 3 5 0

Ga. Ap p

. XXVI (Cas e No

. A1 9 A0 6 8 9 ) ( J u n e 2 1, 2 01 9 ). A cco rd i n g l y , we v acat e

Di v is i o n 3 o f o u r earl ier o p in io n , ad o p t th e o p i n io n o f t h e Su p rem e Co u rt as o u r o wn ,

an d rev ers e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s gran t o f p art i al s u m m ary ju d g m en t t o Tri Es t o n t h e cl ai m s

o f n eg l i g en t en t ru s tm en t , h iri n g, ret en t i o n an d s u p erv i s i o n

. Di v i s io n s 1 an d 2 o f o u r

o p i n i o n were n ot affect ed b y t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n an d t h u s rem ai n i n effect

.

See S ha d i x v. Ca r r o l l

Co u n t y , 2 7 4 Ga. 5 6 0 , 5 6 3 -5 6 4 (1 ) (5 5 4 SE2 d 4 6 5 ) (2 0 0 1 ).

Ju d g men t a f fi r med i n p a r t a n d r ever

s ed i n p ar t

. Ba rn es , P. J., a n d Br o wn , J.,

co n cu r

.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)Division 1 - Power Reactors

# Power Reactors (Division 1): Regulatory Guides 1.41 - 1.60

This page lists the number, title, publication date, and revisions for each regulatory guide in Division 1, "Power Reactors," with references to draft guides and related documents (where applicable).

See also Draft Regulatory Guides for Public Comment.

See NRC Regulatory Guides for more general information.

Regulatory Guides are reviewed about every 10 years, although a guide may be reviewed more frequently if the staff believes an emerging issue affects the guide. The NRC began these reviews in 2010, and began posting the results of its reviews on this site in 2013. The review dates are hyperlinked to the review memorandum, which provide useful information about the status and any known issues with the associated regulatory guide.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Regulatory Guides 1.1 - 1.20
          - Regulatory Guides 1.21 - 1.40
          - Regulatory Guides 1.41 - 1.60
          - Regulatory Guides 1.61 - 1.80
          - Regulatory Guides 1.81 - 1.100
          - Regulatory Guides 1.101 - 1.120
          - Regulatory Guides 1.121 - 1.140
          - Regulatory Guides 1.141 - 1.160
          - Regulatory Guides 1.161 - 1.180
          - Regulatory Guides 1.181 - 1.200
          - Regulatory Guides 1.201 - 1.220
          - Regulatory Guides 1.221 - 1.240
          - Regulatory Guides 1.241 - 1.253

#### 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, April 3, 2024
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) PROMULGATED UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tri-Isthmus Group, Inc.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrant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 registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: December 20, 2005/s/ David HirschhornDavid Hirschhorn
Co-Chief Executive Officer (Co-Principal Executive Officer)
Co-Chief Financial Officer (Co-Principal Financial Officer)
HomeSite HelpElectronic Submittals Application

# Getting Started

To use any of the three electronic submission systems, users must install, at no cost, an NRC digital certificate. If you need a certificate, follow these steps:
            - Obtain a Digital Certificate  (Level 1 credential) (Time Estimate: No more than 10 minutes)
            - The cognizant NRC Office will contact you to confirm your request and initiate the certificate issuance process.
            - Install certificate on your computer.  	Follow instructions provided in the approval notification. Contact the NRC Help Desk at 866-672-7640 for assistance, if necessary
            - For adjudicatory submissions, you must request access to the proceeding. Request access to a proceeding using the  Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) system :
            - For the Criminal History submission system you must be affiliated with a facility. Please see the  Criminal History Users' Guide  for instruction on how to do this.

Select the following link to return to the Electronic Submission Systems:
            - Start Submitting

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, February 12, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Getting Started
          - Adjudicatory Submissions
          - Reference Materials for Electronic Submissions
          - Contact Us
          - Criminal History
          - General Submissions
          - Obtain a Digital Certificate

#### 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

#### RELATED INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCES

            - Reference Materials for Electronic Submissions

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, February 12, 2024
#### STATE v. B. H. DUNSTON.

*lndietment*— Abandonment *of Wife*— Autrefois *Convict..*

A husband once convicted of an abandonment of his wife (under Bat, Rev., ch. 33, § 119) cannot be again tried for the same offence, he not having lived with her since the original abandonment.

*(State*v. *Deaton,*65 N. 0. 496. cited and approved.)

Indictment for a Misdemeanor, tried at November Term,, 1877, of Wake Criminal Court, before *Strong, J.*

The defendant was charged with abandonment of his wife and pleaded former conviction, and the jury returned a special verdict as follows :—

*4191. On the 22d of May, 1877, the defendant abandoned his wife without providing for the adequate support of herself, and her child begotten upon her by the defendant.

2. At August Term, 1877, of this Court, the defendant was indicted and convicted of said abandonment.

3. The defendant has not lived with his wife since the said 22d of May, and has failed to provide adequate support for her and her child, and so continued to fail to provide such support on the 1st of October, 1877.

His Honor upon these facts sustained the plea of the defendant and held that he was not guilty as charged in the bill of indictment, from which judgment, *Devereux,*Solicitor for the State, appealed.

*Messrs. A. M. JLeiois*and *D. G. Fowle,*who prosecuted in the Court below, appeared with the *'Attorney General*for the State.

*Messrs. T. JR. Purnell*and *T. M. Argo,*for defendant.

Faircloth, J.

“ If any husband shall wilfully abandon his wife without providing adequate support for such wife and the child or children which he has begotten upon her, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, &c. Bat. Rev., ch. 32, § 119.

Under this statute the defendant was indicted and convicted, and soon after was again indicted, not having lived with or provided support for his wife since the time he abandoned her in the first instance, to which he pleaded' *autrefois convict.*

Is this a continuous abandonment and indictable ? In another case the husband abandoned his wife before the passage of the Act, and continued to neglect to provide her with support, and did not return after its passage,for which he was indicted; and it was held that he was not guilty on the ground that the gist of the offence was the act of sepa-, *420ration and not merely its continuance, and we adhere to the same conclusion. *State*v. *Deaton, 65*N. C. 496.

Statutes intending to make an act punishable from day to day, are usually drawn in express terms or by plain inference. No such language is employed in the statute under consideration.

No error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-4401

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MILLIS SHAKILYA BRYSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-96-7)
Argued: December 2, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, LUTTIG, Circuit Judge, and Walter D. KELLEY, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Thomas Norman Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).-2- PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant Millis Shakilya Bryson was sentenced to two years in federal prison after the district court found that he had violated the conditions of supervised release previously imposed upon him pursuant to his conviction for violating the federal prohibition against possession of a firearm by a felon. He appeals, claiming that the maximum statutory period of supervised release had elapsed before his violations occurred and that the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to return him to prison for two more years. Appellant’s entire claim rests on an erroneous belief as to the end date of the supervised release period. Appellant was subject to the maximum three year supervised release period, which was originally scheduled to end on April 22, 2001. J.A. 17. But because appellant was incarcerated in state prison for a period of 51 months and 22 days –- from December 9, 1999, to January 16, 2004, and from February 23, 2004, to May 8, 2004, J.A. 17 –- the supervised release period was tolled for that amount of time pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). 51 months and 22 days after April 22, 2001, is August 14, 2005. Appellant has relied on the probation officer’s erroneous calculation that, after tolling, the supervised release period was scheduled to end on September 13, 2004. J.A. 35-36. This reliance has caused appellant to argue mistakenly that his violations of the-3- supervised release conditions occurred after his supervised release period had ended. The violations, which occurred on September 28, 2004, and January 15, 2005, J.A. 113-14, plainly occurred before August 14, 2005. The district court therefore clearly had jurisdiction to revoke appellant’s supervised release and sentence him to two years in prison. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2022

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, January 18, 2024

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, January 18, 2024
November 3, 2011

U.S Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M

- 30 West Building ground floor Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 2059 0 Subject: Request for extension of Exemption 9621 A , Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2007

- 0209 To Whom It May

Concern : United Continental Holdings , In c., operating certificate CALA 014 A (as amended) , petitions the Administrator for a renewal of Exemption No.: 9621 A from 14 CFR Section 121.619 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . Exemption No.: 9621 A allows United Continental Holdings , Inc. , its certificated dispatchers, and its Pilots In Command (PIC) to dispatch aircraft to do mestic airports without designating an alternate for the destination airport where for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them , indicate the ceiling will be at least 1,000 feet above the airport elevation and visibility will be at least 3 statute miles. Requested Relief: As stated in Exemption No .: 9621 A and as depicted in Operations Specification C355

– Exemption to 121.619 for Domestic Destination Alternate Airport Requirements. Referenced in Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2007

- 0 20 9 , Exemption No. : 9621 A will expire on February 28 , 2012 . All the reasons and substantiation contained in the original petition dated November 1 7 , 200 7 , remain the same. Thank you for your consideration of this petition. Please advise if any further information is required for your review. Sincerel y, Maurice J. Montgomery

Jr. Manager

– Flight Operations 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 872 825

- 6572 Maurice

. Montgomery@united.com
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Environmental Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 (NUREG-1943)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 82-5933.

#### Bright *v.*Garrison et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### The Governor *upon the relation of*Joshua Witherspoon *v.*Samuel W. Davidson *et al.*

A constable who is charged, with the collection of a debt, ought to see that good surety is given for the stay of the execution, and if he, being insolvent, becomes the surety, it is a breach of his official bond.

The case of *Keck*v. *Coble, (ante*2 *vol. page*489,) approved.

D ebt, upon the bond given by one *Cook,*upon his being appointed a constable. The breach assigned was, that *Cook*had failed to collect and account, to the relator, for a note put by the latter in his hands, made by one Jarvis. On the trial, before Donnell, Judge, at Wilkes, on the last Spring Circuit, it appeared that *Cook’s*office expired in January 1830 ; that he received the note in October 1829, and in a few clays obtained a judgment thereon; *362that the defendant *Jarvis,*prayed a stay of execution* which was granted, and that *Cook,*the constable, became his surety *;*that *Cook*was then insolvent; and that the stay did not expire until after *Cook’s*term of office. It was contended for the plaintiff, that *Cook,*in becoming the surety for the stay, had failed to use due diligence,, and had, by his own act, impeded the collection of the debt, and thereby committed a breach of his official bond. But the presiding judge informed the jury, that as the stay was allowed the debtor by law, the constable’s becoming his surety for it, was not such a departure from duty, as to subject the sureties to his official bond ; and farther, that as the stay of execution did not expire until after the constable’s term of office, upon the authority of the case of *Keck*v. *Coble, {ante*2 *vol. page*489,) it was unnecessary to enquire, what steps had been taken by *Cook*in relation to the debt, after that time. The plaintiff, in submission to this opinion, suffered a nonsuit and appealed.

No counsel appeared for either party.

Daniel, Judge,

after stating the case as above, proceeded: We think it was the duty of *Cook,*as the agent of the relator, to have objected to the justice accepting any surety offered hy *Jarvis,*the defendant in the warrant, who was not good. In relation to this duty, he being then insolvent, became the surety himself; thereby, depriving the relator of the benefit of his execution, or of a good and suificient surety for the stay of it. We think such conduct in *Cook,*under the relation he then sustained to the relator, was evidence of negligence, in endeavoring to collect the money on the judgment, and that the relator has a right to recover, if the facts shall so appear to the jury. The case of *Keck v. Coble*does not militate against this decision. That case turned on different principles and was correctly decided. The judgment of nonsuit should be set aside and a new trial granted.

Per Curiam. — Judgment reversed.
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 Globix Corporation (the Company)
  on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter K. Stevenson,
  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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February
14, 2006

| |                           | 
| | ------------------------- | 
| | /s/ Peter K.
  Stevenson  | 
| |                           | 
| | Peter K.
  Stevenson      | 
| | Chief Executive
  Officer | 

---
---

|M E D I C U R E  
      I N T E R N A T I O N A L   I N C .
|-----------------------------------------------------------



MEDICURE INTERNATIONAL INC.,
  a corporation incorporated under the laws of Barbados,
  (hereinafter referred to as "Medicure"),

- and - CanAm Bioresearch Inc. 
    a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada, 
    (hereinafter referred to as "Research Co").


Re: Amendment to the Development Agreement (the “Agreement”)

This letter, once executed, will constitute an amendment to the Agreement
  dated June 1, 2000. The wording of Section 3.1 (b) of the Agreement, dated June
  1, 2000 and subsequently amended on August 7, 2003 is hereby replaced with the
  following:

“The aggregate of all Expenditure Limits under
  all Research Schedules entered into pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed
  twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) (the “Aggregate Expenditures”).”

In addition the Expenditure Limit as defined in Schedule B of the Agreement is increased to $20,000,000.

All other terms, covenants and conditions remain in force in accordance with the original agreement as dated January 1, 2000 and subsequent amendment on August 7, 2003.

Upon execution of the agreement, please return one original to our office and retain the other for your files.

|MEDICURE INTERNATIONAL INC. | CANAM BIORESEARCH INC.  
|--------------------------- | ------------------------
|                            |                         
|Per:                        | /s/ Christopher Towner  
|                            | Name: Christopher Towner
|                            | Position:  Director     
|                            |                         
|MEDICURE INTERNATIONAL INC. |                         
|Per:                        | /s/ Gregory Smith       
|                            | Name: Gregory Smith     
|                            | Position:  Treasurer    

---