alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0386.GRADY TAYLOR v. THE STATE

In December 2023, Grady Taylor pleaded guilty to interference with

government property and the trial court sentenced him to a total offive years, with the

first four years to be served in confinement and the remainder on probation. Taylor

then filed a timely motion for sentence modification, which the trial court denied on

March 27, 2024. On May 6, 2024, Taylor filed an application for discretionary appeal

in the Georgia Supreme Court, which transferred the appeal here. We, however, lack

jurisdiction.

The denial of a timely motion under OCGA § 17-10-1 (f) is generally subject to

direct appeal. See, e. g., Anderson v. State, 290 Ga. App. 890 (660 SE2d 876) (2008);

Maldonado v. State, 260 Ga. App. 580 (580 SE2d 330) (2003). And ordinarily, when

a party has a right of direct appeal and files an application for discretionary appeal, we

will grant the application. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). However, the application for a

discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order being appealed. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this

Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made incompliance therewith.Boyle

v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734, 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989).

July 10, 2024
Here, Taylor filed his application 40 days after entry of the order he seeks to appeal.

Given that the application is untimely, we are without jurisdiction to consider it.

Accordingly, this application 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.

07/10/2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# FRAPCON-3 Updates, Including Mixed-Oxide Fuel Properties  (NUREG/CR-6534, Volume 4)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6534, Volume 4 (PDF - 3.51 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**May 2005**Date Published:**May 2005

**Prepared by:** D. D. Lanning, C. E. Beyer, K.J.Geelhood

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, WA 99352

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6586

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The FRAPCON-3 code has been altered by a number of additions to form version FRAPCON-3.3. The major changes include an improved model for the urania fuel pellet thermal conductivity; the addition of mixed plutonia-urania oxide (MOX) fuel pellet thermal properties and other parameters to facilitate analysis of MOX fuel rod performance; and the addition of corrosion and hydrogen pickup parameters appropriate to advanced cladding types. This volume contains descriptions and discussions of these and other revisions.

The document also contains code-data comparisons of MOX fuel temperatures used to verify the MOX fuel pellet thermal conductivity model, and similar comparisons for urania fuel rods. The total sequence of code revisions that have led from the last-published version of FRAPCON-3 (NUREG/ CR-6534, Volume 2, 1997) to the latest issued version, FRAPCON-3.3, is also given.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Analysis of Severe Railway Accidents Involving Long Duration Fires (NUREG/CR-7034)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7034 (PDF - 12.16 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** November 2010**Date Published:** February 2011

**Prepared by:** G. Adams, T. Mintz, M. Necsoiu, J. Mancillas

Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, TX 78228

C. Bajwa, NRC Project Manager

 NRC Job Code J5639

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

As a regulatory authority for transportation of radioactive materials, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ensures that packages designed to transport spent nuclear fuel (SNF) meet current regulations. 10 CFR Part 71 provides the regulatory requirements for the certification of transportation packages for SNF and high-level radioactive waste. SNF transportation packages are expected to be designed to endure a fully engulfing fire, as prescribed in 10 CFR Part 71, Section 73. The purpose of the study described in this report was to support NRC in determining the different types and frequency of railway accidents involving severe, long duration fires that could impact rail transport of SNF. Train accident data were examined from both the Federal Railroad Administration and Department of Transportation—Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration databases. This study focused on accidents where hazardous material was released from multiple train cars. From this study, the frequency of occurrence of a severe fire was estimated at 6.2 × 10−4 accidents per million freight train-km [1 × 10−3 accidents per million freight train-mi]. None of the accidents examined involved a reported release of radioactive material exceeding the limits set in 10 CFR Part 71. In addition to calculating the frequency, the trends associated with severe fire accidents were determined. In general, severe fires are characterized by derailments in which thousands of gallons of flammable liquid or gas are released. By limiting the SNF package transport to trains that are not also carrying flammable liquid or gas (i.e., to dedicated trains), the likelihood of an SNF transportation package being exposed to a long duration fire would likely be further reduced.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
## Court of Appeals of the State of Geo rgia

ATLA NTA,

_________________ _ The Court of

Appeals he reby passes

the followi

ng order:
A14I0272. AMERICAN ALTERNAT IVE INSUR ANCE CORPO RATION v. JAMES LAWRENC E BENNETT.
American Alternative Insurance Corporation seeks interlocutory review of the trial court’s order g ranting plaintiff James Lawr ence Bennett’s motion for partial

summar y judgm ent. Und er OCG

A § 9-11-5 6 (h), the

grant of summ ary j udgmen

t on any issue or as to any party is revi ewable by direct a ppeal. City of Demorest v. Town of Mt. Ai ry , 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 w ill grant an applicati on for interlocutory

review if the order com

plaine d of

is subjec t to direct

appeal an d the applicant has not othe rwise f

iled a notice of ap peal. Spivey v. Hembree , 268 Ga. App. 485, 486 n. 1 (602 SE2d 246) (2004). But the application must be t imely. S ee id. Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 (b ), a par ty may re quest inter

locutory review only if the trial courtcert ifi es wi thi n te n da ys of entry of the order at issue that im media te review should be had

. If the certifica te of im media te review is not entered within that ten-day per io d, it is untimely, and the party seeking review m ust wait until final judgm ent to appeal. See OC GA § 5-6- 34 (b) ; Turner v. Harper , 231 Ga. 175, 176 (200 SE2d 748) (1973). Here, the ord er gr anting part ial sum mary judgm ent was entered on J uly 9, 2014, but the

certifi cate of i mm ediate review wa s not entered until 14 da ys lat er on July 23, 2014. Although the trial courtsigned the c ertific ate of im media te review on July 17, 2014, t

he relevant

date for determ ining the tim

eliness of the certificate is the date it was entered. See Van Schallern v. Stanco , 130 Ga. App. 687 ( 204 SE2d 317 ) (1974) (“[ A] ce rtifica

te for the imm edi ate revie w of a nonfinal or interlocutory

August 25, 2014judgm ent

is ineffe ctive unle ss entere d, i.e. , filed with the cler k, within ten days after entry of th e j udgmen

t appeale d from .”). B ecause th e trial c ourt did not enter the certifi cate of imm ediate review within ten days of entry of the order at issue, we lack jurisdicti on to con sider thi s applicat ion, which i s hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Offi

ce, Atlant a,_______________

___ I certify that the above is a true extr act fro m the minutes of the Court

of Appeals

of Georgia. Witness my signature a nd the se al o f said court hereto aff

ixed the day and year last above writt

en.
, Clerk. 08/25/2014
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests2022

# Recent FOIA Requests - November 2022

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 November 2022. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 6, 2022

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, December 6, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1460 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1460

To require the identification of certain persons who participated in a 
rule making in publications related to such rule making, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2017

   Mr. Young of Iowa (for himself and Mr. Hensarling) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the identification of certain persons who participated in a 
rule making in publications related to such rule making, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Regulatory Fingerprints Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED PUBLICATIONS PERTAINING TO RULE MAKINGS.

    Section 553 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
    ``(f) For all publications in the Federal Register pertaining to 
the rule, the agency shall include in such publication--
            ``(1) the name and title of officer or employee of the 
        agency who participated in the rule making, and each person 
        performing any work pertaining to the rule making under the 
        terms of a contract with the agency; and
            ``(2) the specific legal authority that authorizes the 
        agency to make the rule.''.
                                 <all>
```
### R eg ul atory Eva l uation Do cket No . FAA- Dir e c to rate I dent ifier: - AD 

### Add the work hours . ports cost, and nu mber 

## 4 U..C:.,'. 

### rej{isteredp r odu c t s to t he w l>le he/ow. 

### J:VJwn you o re

. finished. dick on the ·· Uwlute

**Fieltf.~** ., bull on 10 alllomoticallyfi / 1 in 1 he totals. 

### U

pdat e Fi e lds 

# I E stimated Costs : Action Cos t s p e r P roduct ( e . g. , aircraft , e ng in e, (e . g., Inspection , pro p e ll e r , a ppli ance) W ork- hours Labor P a rts Cos t T otal Costs Numb e r of Tota l C ost replacement) (in cl ude cost (l abor + 

## u.s. for U.S. F l ee t D o n o t include oncondition c osts here acc ess, testing, (@$85 /h parts) Registered and cl ose -up) our) P ro d u cts In s p ec tion 

### 2.5 

### ', 3 5 6



# .. ' I t 'I

I 

## ,, i

Th e kn ow n n u mbe r of pro du c ts in c o m p li a nce:

**'\umb~**

**~** T ota l Cost s o f comp l ian ce fo r U . S. fl eet: $75,650 Cos ts covered under warran ty 

### (if / mow n) $ \\ ' arra n !;. O n -Co ndition Costs: • Acti o n W o rk-hours Labor c o st Parts Co s t C o s t per Product (e.g . , In s p e ction , ( in c lud e acc e s s, (@$ 8 5/ho ur ) re p lace m e nt) t est in g, a nd c lo se up ) Repai r See co mm e nt be l ow

### Spec ial con s id e r atio n s for Eco nomic Analysis (Use this.field to exp l ain anything in the Estimated Costs tabl e th a t was assumed or might n o t be obv ious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty cos t s) : Cost of repairs are not prov ided. Size o f a rea n ee ding repa ir must b e d ete rmin ed in order t o determin e mater ial and work-hour costs . Mate ri a ls for repairs are provided b y the operator s. 

### Exec utive Ord e r 1286 6: Could the AD be co n s id ered a "s ignificant r egulatory action"?



# ~ YES* 

### D NO 

### I2SI *Ex planation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies a nd Procedures: Is t he A D sign i ficant ?



# ' YES* 

### D NO 

### I2SI *Ex pl a nati o n: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a s ign ifi ca nt econom ic imp act o n a s ub s tantial number of sm al l entities? Explain for e ith e r a Yes or No an swe r . - YES 

### D

**NO~** Ex planation: 

### Intras t ate Aviation in A laska: Thi s A D could affect intrastate av iation in A l aska. I s i t appropriate to include spec ifi c r equi rements fo r airc raft o perated in Alaska w h e re aviation mi g ht be the o nl y mode of tran s p o rtation?



# ~ YES* 

### D

**NO~** *Ex planation:
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1967 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize 

pumped storage hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1967 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bureau of Reclamation 

3 Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER 

5 DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING MULTIPLE BU6 REAU OF RECLAMATION RESERVOIRS. 

7 Section 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 

8 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)(1)) is amended by inserting 

9 ‘‘and pumped storage hydropower development exclusively 

10 utilizing Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs’’ after ‘‘includ11 ing small conduit hydropower development’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1967 

AN ACT 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to 

reservoirs. ment utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation authorize pumped storage hydropower develop-
P.1 

OAR Box 1338 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

17) ll-F-2 

Docket Number: 

A-89-10 

Printed 6/17/2008 1:48:06 PM Sheet 17 of 105 
P.2 

A-89-10 

II-F-2 

CJxr.'j Ki^-- -

JUL 21 19*9 .4 

/ 

The Honorable • 

F. Henry Habicht II ;, f^B | j M 

Deputy Administrator ^ 

Environmental Protection Agency -»— ' _^,,r..r 

Washington, DC 20460 -^ A?^DOCKt£_ 

Dear Mr. Habicht: 

This letter confirms the Committee Management Secretariat's 

verbal response of July 3, 1989, to Acting Deputy 

Administrator John A. Moore's correspondence of May 11, 

proposing to establish the Volatile Organgic Chemical (VOC) 

Equipment Leak Rule Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

for a period of 10 months. 

The General Services Administration (GSA) has reviewed the 

consultation as provided by the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, as amended, and the GSA Final Rule on Federal advisory 

committee management. The Committee meets the objectives 

identified by the agency and the requirements of the 

statute, including appropriate certifications of necessity, 

balance, lack of duplication, and other applicable 

information. From this review the Committee appears to be 

an effective way of obtaining the technical and program 

advice you seek. 

Accordingly, GSA concurs in the establishment of this 

Committee. Should your staff need additional information or 

assistance, please contact this office at 523-4884. 

Sincerely, 

James L. Dean 

Director 

Committee Management Secretariat 

CTM: CLChisholm:523-1343:7/18/89:clc 

bcc: Official File - CTM 

Chron File - CTM 

//Mary Beatty - CMO/EPA
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet in Rockville, Maryland

----

----

No. 99-60 March 25, 1999

**NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS TO MEET IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a technical meeting April 7-10 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which is open to the public, will be held in conference room T-2B3 of the NRC's Two White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

Here is the complete meeting schedule:

**WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7**

1:00 - 1:15 p.m. -- Opening remarks by the ACRS Chairman;

1:15 - 2:45 p.m. -- Draft commission paper on proposed improvements to the generic communications process;

3:00 - 4:30 p.m. -- Steam generator tube and reactor pressure vessel integrity;

4:45 - 7:15 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports and the ACRS Bylaws.

**THURSDAY, APRIL 8**

8:30 - 8:35 a.m. -- Opening remarks by ACRS Chairman;

8:35 - 10:00 a.m. -- Insights gained from the risk-informed pilot applications;

10:15 - 11:45 a.m. -- Proposed final revision to 10 CFR 50.65(a) of the maintenance rule and an associated draft regulatory guide;

12:45 - 2:15 p.m. -- Proposed approach for revising the commission's safety goal policy statement;

2:30 - 6:15 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.

**FRIDAY, APRIL 9**

8:30 - 8:35 a.m. -- Opening remarks by ACRS Chairman;

8:35 - 10:00 a.m. -- Highlights from incident reporting system for events which occurred at foreign plants;

10:00 - 10:30 a.m. -- Thermal-hydraulic subcommittee report;

10:45 - 11:45 a.m. -- Impact of the use of high burnup of mixed oxide fuel on the revised source term;

1:00 - 2:00 p.m. -- Relationship and balance between probabilistic risk assessment results and defense-in-depth;

2:00 - 2:15 p.m. -- Reconciliation of ACRS comments and recommendations;

2:15 - 3:00 p.m. -- Report of the planning and procedures subcommittee;

3:15 - 4:00 p.m. -- Future ACRS activities;

4:00 - 7:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports.

**SATURDAY, APRIL 10**

8:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. -- Preparation of ACRS reports;

2:00 - 2:30 p.m. -- Miscellaneous.

Although meetings of the ACRS are open, they are not part of the agency's public hearing process. The ACRS, an advisory committee group to the Commission, conducts independent, highly technical reviews of safety considerations related to nuclear facilities.

While anyone may attend, the committee will consider only oral or written statements arranged in advance and limited to specific matters set forth in a Notice of Meeting published in an upcoming edition of the Federal Register. ACRS meeting agendas, transcripts and letter reports are available on the internet.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<PAGE>   1

Exhibit 11.1 - Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three                           Six
                                                              Months Ended                    Months Ended
                                                              December 31,                    December 31,
                                                              ------------                    ------------
                                                          1998            1997            1998            1997
                                                          ----            ----            ----            ----
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>       
Basic earnings per common share

        Net income for calculating basic earnings
        per common share ........................      $2,214,000      $1,834,000      $4,665,000      $3,531,000
                                                       ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

        Average common shares outstanding .......       5,534,000       4,058,000       5,709,000       4,103,000
                                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
        Basic earnings per common share .........      $     0.40      $     0.45      $     0.82      $     0.86
                                                       ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

Diluted earnings per common share

        Net income for calculating basic earnings
        per common share ........................      $2,214,000      $1,834,000      $4,665,000      $3,531,000
                                                       ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

        Average common shares outstanding .......       5,534,000       4,058,000       5,709,000       4,103,000

        Add exercise of options and warrants ....              --              --              --              --
                                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------

        Diluted common shares outstanding .......       5,534,000       4,058,000       5,709,000       4,103,000
                                                       ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========

Diluted earnings per common share ...............      $     0.40      $     0.45      $     0.82      $     0.86
                                                       ==========      ==========      ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

The Partners

Duke Realty Limited Partnership

 

 

Gentlemen:

 

RE:  Registration Statement No. 333-108557-01

 

With respect to the subjectregistration statement, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of ourreport dated May 3, 2004, related to our review of interim financialinformation.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, such report is not considered a part of aregistration statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a reportprepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of sections 7 and 11of the Act.

 

 
| KPMG LLP               |
|------------------------|
| Indianapolis,  Indiana |
| May 14, 2004           |

 

----
No. 82-5962.

#### Gambill *v.*Marshall.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.