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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1581

ELIZABETH GESSESE,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-905-595)

Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 14, 2004

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director,

John S. Hogan, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C.,

for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Gessese, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration

judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture. 

In her petition for review, Gessese contends that she

established her eligibility for asylum relief. The record reveals,

however, that the Board and immigration judge denied asylum relief

on the ground that Gessese failed to demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that she filed her application within one year

of the date of her arrival in the United States. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(a)(2)(B) (2000). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to

review this determination pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (2000).

See Zaidi v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 678, 680-81 (7th Cir. 2004)

(collecting cases). Given this jurisdictional bar, we cannot

review the underlying merits of Gessese’s asylum claim.

While we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of

Gessese’s asylum claim, we retain jurisdiction to consider the

denial of her requests for withholding of removal and protection

under the Convention Against Torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)

(2004). “To qualify for withholding of removal, a petitioner must

show that [s]he faces a clear probability of persecution because of

h[er] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular
- 3 -

social group, or political opinion.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316,

324 n.13 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 430

(1984)). To qualify for protection under the Convention Against

Torture, a petitioner bears the burden of proof of demonstrating

that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured

if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). Based on our review of the record, we find

that Gessese has failed to meet these standards.

Accordingly, we deny Gessese’s petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, petitioner, v. Donald Eugene GARDNER, et al.

No. 82-659.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Dec. 13, 1982.

The motion of respondent Donald Eugene Gardner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*is granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Edward W. Stone, certify that: 

1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, of Velocity Express Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport 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 periodcovered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial 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 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)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation, and 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

Date: November 20, 2006
No: II-19-011 April 4, 2019

Contact: Roger Hannah, 404-997-4417

 Joey Ledford, 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Open House to Discuss

Performance of Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an open house for April 17 to provide 

information and answer questions regarding the safety performance of the Turkey Point nuclear power 

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

The open house will run from 6-7 p.m., at the Courtyard by Marriott Homestead, 

2905 NE 9th St. in Homestead, Fla. NRC employees responsible for plant inspections, including the 

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

The two-unit Turkey Point plant, operated by Florida Power & Light Co., is located 

approximately 20 miles south of Miami.

The NRC concluded that the Turkey Point plant operated in a manner that preserved public 

health and safety during 2018. At the end of the year, all inspection findings and performance 

indicators were green or of low safety significance. As a result, the two Turkey Point units remain 

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 Turkey Point Unit 3 and Unit 4 is 

also on the website and is updated on a quarterly basis.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01889]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10262, Woodlands Bank, Bluffton, South Carolina

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (``FDIC'') as Receiver for Woodlands Bank, Bluffton, South 
Carolina (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its receivership for 
said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Woodlands Bank on 
July 16, 2010. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been 
completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance 
with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to 
proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to:
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and 
Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 32.1, 1601 
Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: January 28, 2015.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01889 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Post-Test Calculations on Steam Cool-Down Test QUENCH-04 with RELAP5, SCDAP/RELAP5, and TRACE (NUREG/IA-0406)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0406 (PDF - 3.17 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2011**Date Published:** December 2011

**Prepared by:** Ch. Homann, W. Hering

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) Institute for Neutron Physics and Reactor Technology (INR) 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In this report, the capabilities of RELAP5, SCDAP/RELAP5, and TRACE to describe oxidation of fuel elements by steam and related hydrogen production are assessed. This work is performed on the background of out-of-pile experiments on the reflood of overheated fuel rod simulators in the QUENCH facility and related numerical investigations at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. It is found that oxidation effects play a role even below 1500 K, i.e. for a temperature range that is covered by all of these three codes. The present work relies on the detailed representation of the experimental facility as used for many years for pre- and post-test calculations for the various QUENCH tests with SCDAP/RELAP5. The experimental basis is test QUENCH-04 that consisted mainly of a heat-up and a steam cool-down phase as a relatively simple case, but the present work is also a code to code comparison. As a first step, investigations were concentrated on transients before the reflood phase. Code or modeling errors were identified in both RELAP5 and TRACE that impede reliable predictions for such situations.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Amendment to Index License Agreement for Funds, dated as of December 15, 2009



 Exhibit 10.57 
 CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED. *********** INDICATES OMITTED MATERIAL THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUEST FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. THE OMITTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN FILED
SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. 
 WFNIA/CA 
 AMD_01420 
 AMENDMENT 

Date of Amendment: December 15, 2009 
 AMENDMENT to the Index License Agreement for Funds (the “Agreement”), dated as of March 18, 2000, by and between MSCI Inc. and Blackrock Institutional Trust Company, N.A, (formerly
known as Barclays Global Investors, N.A.) (“Licensee”), as previously amended. Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

 

	1.	Exhibit A of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following additional Indices: 


 

	 	•	 	 MSCI Brazil Small Cap Index 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI China Small Cap Index 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI Indonesia Investable Market Index 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI New Zealand Investable Market Index 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI Philippines Investable Market Index 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI Poland Investable Market Index 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI Russia 25/50 Index 


  

	 	•	 	 *********** 


  

	 	•	 	 MSCI Ireland Investable Market Index 25/50 Index 


  

	2.	Notwithstanding section 9(a) of the Agreement, MSCI Inc acknowledges and agrees that the Funds based on the foregoing MSCI 25/50 Indices may be named as follows by
Licensee: 

  

	 	•	 	 iShares MSCI Russia Capped Investable Market Index Fund – tracks the *****; 



 

	 	•	 	 ***********; and 


  

	 	•	 	 iShares MSCI Ireland Capped Investable Market Index Fund – tracks the *****. 



 

	2.	This Amendment is intended to amend and operate in conjunction with the Agreement and together this Amendment and the Agreement constitute the complete and exclusive
statement of the agreement between the parties and supersede in full all prior proposals and understanding, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof. To the extent that any terms of this Amendment conflict with any terms of the
Agreements, the terms of this Amendment will control. No right or license of any kind is granted to Licensee except as expressly provided in the Agreement and this Amendment. 


 

	3.	This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict or choice of laws principles.


  

									
	BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.	 		 	MSCI INC.
					
	By	 	/s/ Greg Friedman	 		 	By	 	/s/ Paul Friedman
					
	Name    	 	Greg Friedman	 		 	Name    	 	Paul Friedman
		 	(printed)	 		 		 	(printed)
					
	Title	 	Managing Director	 		 	Title	 	Vice President

  

			
	BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A.
		
	By	 	/s/ Mark Roberts
		
	Name    	 	 Mark Roberts

		 	(printed)
		
	Title	 	Director
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1150)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-0654

# Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants: Final Report (NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2 (PDF – 2.15 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** December 2019

**Prepared for:**U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Federal Emergency Management AgencyWashington, DC 20472

Availability Notice

## Abstract

NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, "Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," is a joint United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) NUREG-series publication and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance document. Both agencies use the document to evaluate the adequacy of the emergency plans and preparedness of state, local, and tribal governments within the emergency planning zones (EPZs) surrounding commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs), as well as those of the commercial NPP applicants and licensees.

This NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Revision 2 update reflects changes to both NRC and FEMA regulations, guidance, policies, and doctrine, as well as advances in technology and best practices that have occurred since the document was originally issued in November 1980. This update also incorporates the four supplemental documents and addenda that have been issued in the intervening years, and is intended to modernize and consolidate the guidance making it easier for users to understand.

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

# Closed Appeal & FOIA/PA Cases by Subject - FY 2000

(Updated on 1/15/01)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests2023

# Recent FOIA Requests - August 2023

This page presents a chronological listing of the subject and reference number of each Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Request submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during August 2023. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, September 12, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - January
          - February
          - March
          - April
          - May
          - June
          - July
          - August
          - September
          - October
          - November
          - December

#### 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 Tuesday, September 12, 2023
EXHIBIT
23.1







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Nile
Therapeutics, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-152283) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-161339) of our report dated March 2, 2010, on the financial statements
of Nile Therapeutics, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and for the year then
ended, and for the period from August 1, 2005 (inception) through
December 31, 2009 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes and explanatory paragraph relating to Nile Therapeutics, Inc.’s ability
to continue as a going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Nile Therapeutics, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.
  
 /s/
Crowe Horwath LLP
 
 New York,
New York
 March 2,
2010
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES

 

 

To Household Finance Corporation:

We have performed procedures enumerated below in items A. and B. in conjunction with Section 4.11 of the Master Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated February 28, 2001 (the "Agreement").

 

- We have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the consolidated financial statements of Household Finance Corporation (the "Servicer") and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001, and have issued our report thereon dated January 14, 2002.  We have not audited any financial statements of the Servicer as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2001, or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report on those statements.  As part of our audit, we reviewed documents and records relating to the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables under the Agreement.  In connection with our audit, we noted no exceptions or errors in the records relating to the servicing of consumer automobile finance loans that, in our opinion, generally accepted auditing standards required us to report.
- We have performed the procedure described in the following paragraph, which was agreed to by the management of the Servicer, with respect to Section 4.11 of the Agreement, in conjunction with the servicing of consumer automobile finance receivables owned by Household Automotive Trust 2001-1.  This agreed-upon procedure was performed in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  The sufficiency of the procedure is solely the responsibility of the Servicer.  Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedure described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.

    The procedure and associated findings are as follows:

    From the Monthly Servicers Certificates prepared by the Servicer between March, 2001 and 

    December, 2001, we selected the following months and performed the following:

We have compared the mathematical calculation of each amount set forth in the Monthly Servicers Certificates to the Servicers accounting records for the month of May 2001 for Series 2001-1 and found it to be in the agreement.  Our comparisons were based on records provided to us by the Servicer and the methodology set forth in the Agreement.

With respect to the procedure performed in item B. above, we were not engaged to, and did not, perform an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the Monthly Servicers Certificates described above.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.  Had we been engaged to perform additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Servicer and should not be used for any other purpose.

Arthur Andersen LLP

Chicago, Illinois

March 22, 2002
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10KSB of Prevention Insurance.com for the
fiscal year end April 30, 2003, I, Scott Goldsmith, President of Prevention
Insurance.com, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss1350 as adopted pursuant
to ss906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge believe
that:

(1)      Such form 10KSB for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2003, 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 such Form 10KSB for the year end April 30,
         2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
         condition and results of operations of Prevention Insurance.com.

                            Prevention Insurance.com

                             By: /s/ Scott Goldsmith
                                 -------------------
                                 Scott Goldsmith
                                 President and Chief Financial Officer