alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable C. Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern *

District of Florida, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0805n.06

Filed: November 15, 2007

No. 06-4082

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER SADDLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: DAUGHTREY and COOK, Circuit Judges; and VINSON, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Christopher Saddler appeals the district court’s order denying his Motion

to Suppress. Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and

the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in denying the Motion to

Suppress. Because the district court fully articulated the reasons for denying the Motion, the

issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in

its order dated February 28, 2006.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 28, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,589
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,364
<ALLOWANCES>                                       399
<INVENTORY>                                     10,849
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,501
<PP&E>                                          45,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,986
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,568
<SALES>                                         37,082
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,082
<CGS>                                           23,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 524
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1**Fiscal 2005 revenues before reimbursements on a geographic basis reflect minor reclassifications ofintercompany eliminations. These reclassifications did not affect total revenues, revenues byoperating group, or revenues by type of work. The reclassified quarterly revenues beforereimbursements by geography are as follows:                                           **For the Three Months Ended**      **November 30, 2004**  **February 28, 2005**  **May 31, 2005**  **August 31, 2005**  **Fiscal 2005**   **As reported**  **Revised**  **As reported**  **Revised**  **As reported**  **Revised**  **As reported**  **Revised**  **As reported**  **Revised** **Revenues before reimbursements:**                                        Americas $1,542  $1,554  $1,542  $1,572  $1,723  $1,746  $1,835  $1,858  $6,642  $6,730 EMEA(1)  1,918   1,909   1,996   1,970   2,086   2,067   1,806   1,789   7,806   7,735 Asia Pacific  270   267   275   271   270   266   284   278   1,099   1,082                                Total $3,730  $3,730  $3,813  $3,813  $4,079  $4,079  $3,925  $3,925  $15,547  $15,547                                **Increase in US$:**                                        Americas  3%  4%  3%  5%  5%  7%  22%  24%  8%  10%EMEA(1)  24%  23%  27%  25%  17%  16%  9%  8%  19%  18%Asia Pacific  23%  21%  22%  20%  2%  0%  10%  8%  14%  12%Total  14%  14%  15%  15%  11%  11%  15%  15%  14%  14%**Increase (decrease) in local currency:**                                        Americas  3%  4%  2%  4%  4%  6%  20%  22%  7%  9%EMEA(1)  12%  12%  17%  16%  10%  9%  9%  8%  12%  11%Asia Pacific  19%  18%  15%  14%  0%  (2)%  6%  4%  9%  8%Total  9%  9%  10%  10%  7%  7%  14%  14%  10%  10% (1) EMEA includes Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
|   | (i)      the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended      December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                         |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                         |
| /S/ RONALD JANKOV                                                            |
| Ronald      JankovPresident      and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 25,2010 |

|   | 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. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 3.4





CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF


CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF


VSOURCE, INC.


(a Delaware corporation)





VSOURCE, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (the Corporation), hereby
certifies as follows:





FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Vsource, Inc. The original Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation was filed on November 8, 2000.





SECOND: Pursuant to Section 242(b) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL) the Board of Directors of the Corporation has duly adopted, and a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote thereon and a majority of the outstanding stock of each class entitled to
vote as a class has approved, the amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation set forth in this Certificate of Amendment.





THIRD: Pursuant to Section 242 of the DGCL, the text of the Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended to add the following paragraph to Article 4:





Effective at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the date of filing of this Certificate of Amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State,
every twenty (20) outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Corporation will be combined into and automatically become one (1) outstanding share of Common Stock of the Corporation (the Reverse Split) and the authorized shares of the
Corporation shall remain as set forth in this Certificate of Incorporation. No fractional share shall be issued in connection with the Reverse Split; all shares of Common Stock that are held by a stockholder will be aggregated subsequent to the
Reverse Split and each fractional share resulting from such aggregation held by a stockholder shall be cancelled. In lieu of any interest in a fractional share to which a stockholder would otherwise be entitled as a result of the Reverse Split, such
holder shall be entitled to receive a cash amount equal to the value of such fractional share based on the closing price of the Common Stock as of the effective date of the Reverse Split.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 18 th day of November 2002, and the foregoing facts stated herein are true and correct.





VSOURCE, INC.By:

/s/Name:

Phillip E. KellyTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MOLLY HLUBIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 246 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

1. Did the Superior Court erroneously broaden municipal 

police powers by holding that when municipal police officers 

leave their primary jurisdiction for the purpose of conducting 

sobriety checkpoints, it is not necessary to comply with the 

Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 53 Pa.C.S. §§ 2301 et. 

seq., by entering into written agreements and passing an 

ordinance because such actions are permitted under the 

Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act?

2. Did the Superior Court erroneously eliminate the 

longstanding requirement that a “crime in progress” 

investigation must be taking place before police officers can 

leave their primary jurisdiction and enter into extraterritorial 

forays for the purpose of conducting an investigation under 

section 8953(a)(3) of the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act, 

42 Pa.C.S § 8953(a)(3)?
[246 WAL 2017] - 2

3. Did the Superior Court erroneously eliminate the 

statutory requirement in section 8953(a)(4) of the Municipal 

Police Jurisdiction Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953(a)(4), that before 

a police officer can enter another jurisdiction to conduct an 

investigation, the crime being investigated must have taken 

place in the officer’s primary jurisdiction?
Slip Op. 02-136
UNITED STATES COURT OF I NTERNATIONAL

TRADE

__________________________________________ ALTOS HORNOS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Defend ant, : Before: Wall ach, J udge : Consol. Cour

t No.: 01-00018 and : : BETHLEHEM STEEL

CORPORATION, : and UNITED STATES STEEL : CORPORATION, : : Defend ant-I nterven ors. : __________________________________________:

JUDGME NT ORDER
Upon consideration of the Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to United States Court of International Tra de Remand Order, Altos Hornos de

Mexico, S.A . de C.V. v . United Sta tes, et a l. , Court No. 01-00018 (April 15, 2002) (“ Re ma nd De te rm in at io n” ); an d p ur su an t t o t he te le ph on ic st at us co nf er en ce he ld on Mo nd ay, October 7, 2002, with Kermit Alstead, appearing on be half of Plaintiff Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Lucius B. Lau and Scott McBride appearing on behalf of the United States; and Jennifer Ricardi appearing on behalf of D efendant-Inter venors Bethlehem Steel Corporation and United Sta

tes Steel C orporat

ion; at which time ea

ch party indicate d it had not

filed comments contesting Commerce’s Remand Determination; the Court having r eviewed Commerce’s Remand Determination and all pleadings and papers on file herein, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Commerce’s Remand Determination is in accordance with this court’s Remand Order of April 15, 2002; and it is further ORDERED that the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to United States Court of International Trade

Remand Order, Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, etal. , Court No. 01-00018 (April 15, 2002) , issued on June 28, 2002, are sustained.

__ _________________ _______ Eva n J. W allach , Jud ge Dated: November 12, 2002

New York, New York
Ex-99.2 a)

                                                               WASHINGTON MUTUAL




As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, Washington Mutual, Inc and
subsidiaries (the Company) has complied in all material respects with the
minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for
this same period, the Company had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and
omissions policy in the amount of $110 million and $20 million, respectively.





/s/ Craig S. Davis
-------------------------------------
Craig S. Davis
President
Home Loans & Insurance Services Group





/s/ Anthony T. Meola
-------------------------------------
Anthony T. Meola
Executive Vice President
Home Loans & Insurance Services Group




February 18, 2003
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20016 Conference Calendar

ULYSSES JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JINKS LEE,
Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CV-3747

-------------------- April 10, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ulysses Johnson, Texas prisoner 794106, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim for which relief could be granted. He contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claim without giving him notice of the impending dismissal and allowing him to amend his complaint. After de novo review and considering that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A contains noNo. 01-20016 -2- requirement that a plaintiff be given notice of an impending dismissal, we hold that the district court properly dismissed Johnson’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Because Johnson has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit, the appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Our dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim count as two “strikes” against Johnson for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Johnson that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
July, 13 2015

Attn:

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: STEVEN LIGHTCAP JR AND AARON BAUM OF ELITE DRONE SERVICES LLC.

REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE

OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING 

COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI Phantom 3 and Blade 350 QX3 UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION 

AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Steven Lightcap Jr - Operator

Elite Drone Services LLC

11532 Crescent Pines Blvd.

Clermont, FL 34711

352-267-9132

EliteDroneServices@yahoo.com

Aaron Baum - Operator

Elite Drone Services LLC

352-572-9993

EliteDroneServices@yahoo.com
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX 

ATTACHMENT C

DfE Formulator Program: Raw Material Information Form

OMB Control No. 2070-0178

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25.5 hours per response 

for formulators of cleaning and non-cleaning products and 9.5 hours per response for partners wishing to add third-party partners 

and products, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the application. 

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, 

Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 

20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX 
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                  |  |                          
|--------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Entity Name                       |  | Jurisdiction             
|9090-5415 Quebec Inc.             |  | Quebec, Canada           
|KnowledgePoint, LLC               |  | California, United States
|Taleo (Canada) Inc.               |  | Quebec, Canada           
|Taleo (Europe) B.V.               |  | Netherlands              
|Taleo (France) SAS                |  | France                   
|Vurv Technology (UK) Limited      |  | United Kingdom           
|Taleo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.       |  | Singapore                
|Taleo (Australia) Pty. Limited    |  | Australia                
|Vurv Technology Australia Pty Ltd |  | Australia                
|Vurv Technology (US) LLC          |  | California, United States
|Vurv Technology SAS               |  | France                   
|Worldwide Compensation, Inc.      |  | California, United States
|Learn.com, Inc.                   |  | Florida, United States   
|Learn.com Ltd. (UK)               |  | United Kingdom
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 2, 2017 522836 

________________________________

In the Matter of KARRIEM 

VARGAS, 

Petitioner, 

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting

Commissioner of Corrections 

and Community Supervision, 

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: November 29, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, JJ.

__________

Karriem Vargus, New York City, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to

review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of

violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Upon being examined by a correctional facility nurse for a

reported medical emergency, petitioner was charged in a

misbehavior report with using an intoxicant. Following a tier

III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and that

determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal with a

modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We are unpersuaded by petitioner's contention that, because

his urinalysis test was negative, substantial evidence does not
-2- 522836 

support the determination of guilt. The record establishes that

the misbehavior report was based upon an examination of

petitioner by the correction facility nurse. The nurse testified

that petitioner's sluggish behavior during the examination and

his vital signs, particularly his pinpoint and fixed pupils,

indicated that petitioner was under the influence of an

intoxicant. We find that the misbehavior report, supporting

documentation, testimony at the hearing, particularly that of the

nurse based upon her experience, examination and observation of

petitioner, are "sufficiently relevant and probative . . . to

constitute substantial evidence" of petitioner's guilt (Matter of

Foster v Coughlin, 76 NY2d 964, 966 [1990] [internal quotation

marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Panek v Goord, 23 AD3d

966, 967 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 709 [2006]; Matter of Eckert v

Selsky, 247 AD2d 728, 729 [1998]). Petitioner's contention that

he was suffering from dehydration, an assertion that the nurse

testified was inconsistent with his pinpoint pupils, created a

credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter

of Shepherd v Annucci, 142 AD3d 1244, 1244 [2016]).

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Lynch and Aarons, JJ.,

concur.

ADJUDGED that determination is confirmed, without costs,

and petition dismissed. 

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of Semiscale Test S–LH–2 Using RELAP5/MOD2 (NUREG/IA–0065, GD/PE–N/745, PWR/HTWG/P(89)708)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Summary

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0065 (PDF 912.62 KB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** April 1992

**Prepared by:** P. Brodie, P. C. Hall

National Power Nuclear Barnett Way Barnwood, Gloucester GL4 7RS United Kingdom

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

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

Availability Notice

## Summary

The RELAP5/MOD2 code is being used by National Power Nuclear Technology-Division for calculating Small Break Loss of Coolant Accidents (SBLOCA) and pressurised transient sequences for the Sizewell 'B' PWR. These calculations are being carried out at the request of the Sizewell 'B' Project Management Team and the Health and Safety Department.

To assist in validating RELAP5/MOD2 for the above application, the code is being used to model a number of small LOCA and pressurised fault simulation experiments carried out in integral test facilities. The present report describes a RELAP5/MOD2 analysis of the small LOCA test S-LH-2 which was performed on the Semiscale Mod-2C Facility. S-LH-2 simulated a SBLOCA caused by a break in the cold leg pipework of an area equal to 5% of the cold leg flow area. S-LH-2 was identical to the earlier test S-LH-1 except for an increase in the flow area between the upper plenum and the cold leg which resulted in the core bypass flow increasing from 0.9% to 3.0%.

RELAP5/MOD2 gave reasonably accurate predictions of system thermal hydraulic behaviour but failed to calculate the core dryout which occurred due to coolant boil-off prior to accumulator injection. The error is believed due to combinations of errors in calculating the liquid inventory in the core and steam generators, and incorrect modelling of the void fraction gradient within the core.

Task No. G212

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021