alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Seismic Review Table (NUREG/CR-1429)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-1429 (PDF - 7.21 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** April 1980**Date Published:** May 1980

**Prepared by:** M. Subudhi, M. Reich, B. Koplik, J. Lane*

Structural Analysis Group Department of Nuclear Energy Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973

*Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

**Prepared for:** Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 NRC FIN No. A3326

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The Seismic Review Table is a summary of Engineering Design parameters that were employed in the seismic analysis and design of nuclear power plants. The table covers 71 reactors licensed to operate by the U.S.N.R.C. The information contained is listed plant by plant and consists of **OBE** and **SSE 'g' Level** and **Modified Mercalli Intensity**; **Earthquake Time History** used to develop the ground response spectra or as input in the dynamic analysis; **Number of Earthquake Components** used and **Method of Combining Them**; **Method of Modal Combination**; **Type** of **Ground Design Spectra**; **Method of Generation of Floor Response Spectra**; **Type of Foundation and Depth**;**Type**, **Thickness**, **Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus Profile of the Surrounding Subgrade Soil and Bedrock**; **Ground Water Table Depth**; nearby **Dams**; **Modelling Method** used for soil-structure interaction; **Material Damping of Soil**; **Limitation on Modal Damping**. **Damping Values**; and **Loading Combinations**, and **Acceptance Criteria** for Category I **Structures**, **Mechanical** Equipment, **Piping**, and **Electrical** systems. The goal of the Seismic Review Table is to provide a reference of the available information relevant to the seismic design of currently licensed nuclear power plants.

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

# Updated Recommendations Related to Spent Fuel Transport and Dry Storage Shielding Analyses (NUREG/CR-7302, Revision 1, ORNL/TM-2023/2679)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7302, Revision 1 (PDF – 2.93 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 2023**Date Published:** February 2024

**Prepared by:**Georgeta Radulescu

Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, TN 37831-6283

Lucas Kyriazidis, NRC Project ManagerOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides updated recommendations for the important areas of the shielding review of applications for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Certificates of Compliance for spent fuel dry storage cask and Type B radioactive material transportation package designs. The recommendations are based on a series of research studies sponsored by the NRC and performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The main findings of this research are described and illustrated with graphs that allow for examination of representative source terms and dose rates, as well as expected effects of various input parameters on source terms and dose rates for transportation packages and storage casks. The principal recommendations cover: spent nuclear fuel limiting characteristics for loadings; relationships between decay heat and external dose rate; bounding depletion  parameters for fuel assembly radiation source term calculations; the neutron source from subcritical  multiplication; secondary gamma dose rates; reconstituted fuel assemblies with irradiated stainless-steel fuel rods; air density and soil composition specifications for storage cask far-field dose rate calculations; and models for activated metals in Type B waste packages. The recommendations are intended to provide staff with updated guidance on the performance of shielding analyses that account for modern methods, different application systems, and benchmark experiments. 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, February 06, 2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-0016

# Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR-Gale Code) (NUREG-0016, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0016, Revision 1 (PDF – 9.71 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 1978**Date Published:** January 1979
        - F.P. Cardile, Editor
        - R.R. Bellamy, Editor
        - R.L. Bangert
        - J.V. Lee
        - LG. Bell
        - J.L. Minns
        - J.S. Boegli
        - P.G. Stoddart
        - W.C. Burke
        - R.A. Weller
        - J.T. Collins

Effluent Treatment Systems BranchDivision of Site Safety and Environmental AnalysisOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In April of 1976, the NRC published NUREG-0016. That document presented methods for calculation of releases from BWRs based on operating data available at that time. In promulgating Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, tbe Commission indicated its desire to use the best available data for improving the calculational models. Therefore, at this time, we are updating NUREG-0016 by issuing Revision 1 which incorporates more recent operating data now available and also incorporates the results of a number of in-plant measurement programs at operating BWRs.

NUREG-0016, Revision 1, is similar to NUREG-0016 in that it provides instructions for using the BWR-GALE Code. It describes the parameters incorporated in the Code, the input data required, and a step-by-step procedure for completing the input data cards. It provides parameters for an assessment of reactor and radwaste system performance for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences, and the bases for selecting the parameters. It also contains a Fortran IV listing of the BWR-GALE Code, a form for entering the input data, and a sample calculation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MIGUEL MARTINEZ-ALEJANDREZ,

a.k.a. Miguel Martinez Alejandrez, a.k.a.

Miguel Martinez, a.k.a. Miguel A.

Martinez, a.k.a. Miguel Alejandrez

Martinez, a.k.a. Miguel Alejandro

Martinez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10560

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00066-SBA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2011** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. 

Miguel Martinez-Alejandrez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and

FILED

NOV 08 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10560

30-month sentence imposed for being a deported alien found in the United States,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver, but we remand to the district court to

correct the judgment.

Martinez-Alejandrez contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective

assistance by failing to pursue a statute of limitation defense or to contest the

16-level enhancement. He further contends that the appeal waiver in his plea

agreement does not bar these claims because the waiver was not knowingly and

voluntarily made.

Although the appeal waiver allows Martinez-Alejandrez to raise an

ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, it expressly

bars the instant appeal. See United States v. Nunez, 223 F.3d 956, 959 (9th Cir.

2000) (waiver of right to appeal conviction or sentence applies to ineffective

assistance of counsel claims, though such claims may be raised in a collateral

proceedings). Furthermore, the record reflects that Martinez-Alejandrez’s waiver

was knowingly and voluntarily made. To the extent Martinez-Alejandrez argues

that his waiver was not knowing and voluntary because of his counsel’s ineffective

assistance, we decline to consider that contention on direct appeal. See United

States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).
3 10-10560

In accordance with United States v. Rivera-Sanchez , 222 F.3d 1057, 1062

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand the case to the district court with instructions that it

delete from the judgment the reference to section 1326(b). See United States v.

Herrera-Blanco, 232 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2000) (remanding sua sponte to

delete the reference to section 1326(b)).

DISMISSED; REMANDED to correct judgment.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 (NUREG-1916)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Form
10Q







EXHIBIT
32.02






Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Silicon Image, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Noland Granberry, Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented therein.








Date:
      April 28, 2010
                
                
                /s/
      Noland
GranberryNoland
      GranberryChief Accounting
      Officer(Principal Financial
      Officer)
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6484

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GEORGE SPRINGER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00116-D-1)

Submitted: September 14, 2021 Decided: September 20, 2021

Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Springer, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Joshua L. Rogers, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

George Springer appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order 

granting or denying a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and 

conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. The court denied Springer’s motion 

after discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently explained the 

reasons for the denial. See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) 

(discussing amount of explanation required for denial of straightforward compassionate 

release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,039,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,564,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                   246,000
<INVENTORY>                                    146,901
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,135,086
<PP&E>                                       8,934,365
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,822,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,525,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,481,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        6,747,843
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,999
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,467,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,525,597
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,263,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,553,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,612,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               220,887
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,187,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,187,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,187,188)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN B. RAMIREZ, aka Johnny Rhondo,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

JUANDA K. ANDERSON; PRO

BUSINESS COACH, INC.,

 Petitioners - Appellants,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-56604

D.C. No. 8:14-cv-00581-JLS-AN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 13, 2015** 

Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

FILED

MAY 19 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
John B. Ramirez, aka Johnny Rhondo, and Juanda K. Anderson appeal pro

se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of jurisdiction their amended

petition to quash Internal Revenue Service (IRS) summonses issued to third-party

financial institutions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction

because Appellants failed to mail their petition to the summoned financial

institutions. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(b)(2)(B) (any person who brings a proceeding

to quash a summons “shall mail by registered or certified mail a copy of the

petition to the person summoned”); 26 C.F.R. § 301.7609–4(b)(3) (“If a person

entitled to notice of the summons fails to give proper and timely notice to either the

summoned person or the IRS . . . , that person has failed to institute a proceeding to

quash and the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the proceeding.”); Mollison v.

United States, 568 F.3d 1073, 1075 (9th Cir. 2009) (§ 7609(b)(2) is the

government’s consent to waive sovereign immunity, and the government’s

conditions on consent must be strictly observed; courts lack jurisdiction unless

claims meet terms of waiver).

We reject Appellants’ contentions that they were improperly served with the

2 14-56604
summonses, and that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Appellants’ motion to consolidate, set forth in their opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 14-56604
July 7, 2015

Mr. Ryan Boucher

President

Michigan Aerial Videos, LLC

6186 Tanager Court

Kalamazoo, MI 49009

Dear Mr. Boucher

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 3, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0918), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC Staff Appoints New Resident Inspector at TMI

----

----

I-98-90

August 3, 1998

**NRC STAFF APPOINTS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR AT TMI**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has selected Craig W. Smith as the new resident inspector at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Middletown, Pa. He joins Senior Resident Inspector Wayne Schmidt.

Mr. Smith joined the NRC in 1997 as a licensing project manager in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md.

Prior to joining the agency, Mr. Smith worked as an engineer at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Lusby, Md. He also served in the United States Navy's nuclear power program, where he was a commissioned officer on the USS Memphis and an assistant engineer on a submarine squadron staff.

A graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, with a bachelor's degree in industrial and management engineering, Mr. Smith lives with his wife and three children in Hummelstown, Pa.

The Three Mile Island resident inspectors can be reached at 717/948-1165.

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 interfacing with plant workers and the public.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    /s/ Pamela J. CraigPamela J. CraigChief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd(principal financial officer)
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Registrant Report
 (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 Registrant as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ Donald C. Parkerson

Donald C. ParkersonChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
f8k013111ex4iii_bigstring.htm


EXHIBIT 4.3


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


This Amendment No. 1 to Convertible Note (this “Amendment”) is made this 31st day of January, 2011, by and between BigString Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”), and Alpha Capital Anstalt (the “Holder”), and amends that certain Convertible Note dated June 23, 2009 in the principal amount of $75,000 issued by the Borrower to the Holder (the “Note”).  The Borrower and the Holder are each occasionally referred to herein as a “Party” and together as the “Parties.”


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of that certain Agreement and Release of even date herewith by and between the Borrower and the Holder (the “Agreement and Release”) and in exchange for the consideration described therein, the Parties have agreed to amend the Note on the terms set forth in this Amendment;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and other agreements contained in the Agreement and Release, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.           The introductory paragraph of the Note is amended in its entirety as follows:


 


“For value received, BigString Corporation, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter called “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to Alpha Capital Anstalt (the “Holder”), without demand, the sum of $75,000, with simple and unpaid interest thereon, on June 23, 2013 (the “Maturity Date”), if not paid sooner.”


 


2.           Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Note shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.           This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New Jersey.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and acknowledged this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 




	 	
BIGSTRING CORPORATION

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Darin Myman	 
	 	Name:	Darin Myman	 
	 	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 	 







 



	 	
ALPHA CAPITAL ANSTALT

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	
By: 

	/s/ Konrad Ackermann	 
	 	Name:	Konrad Ackermann	 
	 	Title:	Director