alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 90-6305.

#### Yusufu *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 105 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1967 

[Report No. 115–158] 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize pumped storage 

hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

JUNE 2, 2017 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on April 6, 2017] 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1967 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize 

pumped storage hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1967 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

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

5 Pumped Storage Hydropower Development Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER 

7 DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING MULTIPLE BU8 REAU OF RECLAMATION RESERVOIRS. 

9 Section 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 

10 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

11 pumped storage hydropower development exclusively uti12 lizing Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs’’ after ‘‘including 

13 small conduit hydropower development’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 105 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1967 

[Report No. 115–158] 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to 

reservoirs. ment utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation authorize pumped storage hydropower developJUNE 2, 2017 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications (NUREG-1569)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1569 (PDF - 2.03 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**February 2000**Date Published:**March 2000

**Date Completed:**June 2003**Date Published:**June 2003

**Prepared by:** J. Lusher, NRC Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission source and byproduct materials license is required to recover uranium by in situ leach extraction techniques, under the provisions of Title 10 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (10 CFR Part 40), "Domestic Licensing of Source Material." An applicant for a research and development or commercial-scale license, or for the renewal or amendment of an existing license, is required to provide detailed information on the facilities, equipment, and procedures used and an environmental report that discusses the effects of proposed operations on the health and safety of the public and on the environment.

The standard review plan is prepared for the guidance of staff reviewers, in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, in performing safety and environmental reviews of applications to develop and operate uranium in situ leach facilities. It provides guidance for new license applications, renewals, and amendments. The principal purpose of the standard review plan is to assure the quality and uniformity of staff reviews and to present a well-defined base from which to evaluate changes in the scope and requirements of a review.

The standard review plan is written to cover a variety of site conditions and facility designs. Each section is written to provide a description of the areas of review, review procedures, acceptance criteria, and evaluation findings. However, for a given application, the staff reviewers may select and emphasize particular aspects of each standard review plan section, as appropriate for the application.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### State ex rel. School District No. 9 of the Town of Eagle Point, Appellant, vs. Kramer and others, Respondents.

*December 6, 1927*

January *10, 1928.*

This case is ruled by *State ex rel. Joint School District v. Becker, ante,*p. 464.

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Chippewa county: T. J. Connor, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*Mandamus*by a school district to compel the town in which the district is located to pay to the school district the portion of a tax on a public utility located in such district as provided in sec. 76.28 of the Statutes. From a judgment quashing the alternative writ the school district appeals.

A large amount of property belonging to the Northern States Power Company, a public utility, is located within the boundaries of the school district upon whose relation the alternative writ of *mandamus*was issued. Pursuant to the provisions of sec. 76.06 of the Statutes the property of this public utility was assessed by the state tax commission and the tax paid into the state treasury. Thereafter sixty-five per cent, of the tax paid by this public utility was returned to the town as required by sec. 76.28 of the Statutes. The town refused to pay one half of this sum to the school district as required by sec. 76.28 of the Statutes. The trial court held that this statute was in conflict with the state constitution and therefore refused to enforce its provisions.

*Dayton E. Cook*and *Clarence E. Rinehard,*both of Chippewa Falls, for.the appellant.

For the respondents there was a brief by *W. H. Stafford*and *Harold E. Stafford,*both of Chippewa Falls, and oral argument by *Harold E. Stafford.*

Stevens, J.

As the school district which is the relator is in a county which has a population of less than 50,000, *520the case comes squarely within the decision of this court in *State ex rel. Joint School Dist. v.*Becker, *ante,*p. 464, 215 N. W. 902. An examination of the briefs in that case discloses the fact that every question here presented was considered in that case and decided adversely to the position taken by the town and by the trial judge in this case.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to issue the writ of *mandamus.*
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

d0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139014 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139014 

 COA: 290994 

Muskegon CC: 07-055659-FH 

DARREN DARNELL HEWLETT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 KELLY, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in 

People v Idziak, 484 Mich 549 (2009). 

 CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider People v Idziak, 484 

Mich 549 (2009).
fs12011ex10iv_aivtech.htm


Exhibit 10.4


 


Purchase Order


 







 


Seller: Shenzhen Huike Audio Co., Ltd


 


Address: 49 Tangxiayong Avenue, Songgang Town, Bao’An district Shenzhen China


 


Buyer: Dongguan AIVtech Co., Ltd.


 


Address: 78 WenQuan South Road, Shilong Town Dongguan China


 


 


Pursuant to the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, the seller and the buyer mutually agree as follows:


 


 


Contract date:  March 17, 2010


 


Product:  Speaker wooden case


 


Amount:  CNY 2,319,500.92


 


Delivery time: Subject to the agreed date


 


Other terms:


 



	
a.  

	
The seller shall be responsible for the quality of products.







 



	
b.  

	
The buyer shall make the payment within 30 days after arrival.







 


 



	Seller	Buyer
	 	 
	Shenzhen Huike Audio Co., Ltd.	Dongguan AIVtech Co., Ltd.
	 	 
	 	 
	Date:  March 17, 2010	Date:  March 17, 2010
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 88 0 . ARI AS D. HOLLAND v . THE STATE.

Ari as D. Ho l l an d fi led t h i s d i rect ap p eal fro m t h e tri al co u rt ’ s o rd er rev o k i n g h i s p ro b at i o n. In o rd er t o ap p eal t h e rev o cat i o n o f h i s p ro b at io n , h o wev er, Ho l l an d

was req u i red t o fi le an ap pl i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (5 );
An d rews v. S t a t e , 2 76 Ga. Ap p . 4 2 8
, 4 3 1 (1 ) (6 2 3 SE2 d 2 4 7 ) (2 0 0 5 ). Hi s fai l u re to

co m p l y wi t h th e d is cret i o n ary ap p eal p ro ced u re d ep ri ves t h i s Co u rt o f ju ri s d i ct i o n to

co n si d er t h i s ap peal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. December 14, 2017

12/14/2017
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1765 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1765

 To provide that the authority to grant clemency for offenses against 
  the District of Columbia shall be exercised in accordance with law 
                  enacted by the District of Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2017

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the authority to grant clemency for offenses against 
  the District of Columbia shall be exercised in accordance with law 
                  enacted by the District of Columbia.

    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 ``District of Columbia Home Rule 
Clemency Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO GRANT CLEMENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT OF 
              COLUMBIA LAW FOR OFFENSES AGAINST DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    (a) Authority Described.--The authority to grant clemency for 
offenses against the District of Columbia shall be exercised by such 
person or persons, and under such terms and conditions, as may be 
provided under law enacted by the District of Columbia.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to 
affect any authority exercised by the President or the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia prior to the effective date of any law enacted by 
the District of Columbia pursuant to this Act with respect to the 
authority to grant clemency for offenses against the District of 
Columbia.
    (c) Clemency Defined.--In this Act, the term ``clemency'' means a 
pardon, reprieve, or commutation of sentence, or a remission of a fine 
or other financial penalty.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffStandard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Rev

# Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan for Operating License Renewal (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract 

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (PDF – 1.793 MB) 

## Publication Information

*Environmental Standard Review Plans (ESRPs) are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plant. These documents are made available to the public as part of the Commission's policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. ESRPs are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission's regulations, and compliance with them is not required. The ESRPs are keyed to preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.*

*Published ESRPs will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new information and experience. Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.*

**Manuscript Completed:**October 1999****Date Published:****March 2000 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document provides guidance to Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in implementing provisions of 10 CFR 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," related to reactor operating license renewals. It supplements NUREG-1555, "Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants," which covers reviews related to reactor construction permits, initial operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses. Reviews conducted following this review plan lead to preparation of site-specific environmental impact statement supplements to NUREG-1437, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants."

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Heat and Mass Release for Some Transient Fuel Source Fires: A Test Report (NUREG/CR-4680, SAND86-0312)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-4680 (PDF - 4.69 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 1986**Date Published:**October 1986

**Prepared by:** Steven P. Nowlen Sandia National Laboratories  P.O. Box 5800 Albuquerque. New Mexico 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC04-76DP00789

**Prepared for:** Electrical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN A-1010

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Nine fire tests using five different trash fuel source packages were conducted by Sandia National Laboratories. This report presents the findings of these tests. Data reported includes heat and mass release rates, total heat and mass release, plume temperatures, and average fuel heat of combustion.

These tests were conducted as a part of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsored fire safety research program. Data from these tests were intended for use in nuclear power plant probabilistic risk assessment fire analyses. The results were also used as input to a fire test program at Sandia investigating the vulnerability of electrical control cabinets to fire.

The fuel packages tested were chosen to be representative of small to moderately sized transient trash fuel sources of the type that would be found in a nuclear power plant. The highest fire intensity encountered during these tests was 145 kW. Plume temperatures did not exceed 820°C.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 245

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Abraham Bior Gai, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20230231

Appeal from the District Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, 

the Honorable Bradley A. Cruff, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Megan E. Kummer, State’s Attorney, Wahpeton, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; 

submitted on brief.

Samuel A. Gereszek, Grand Forks, ND, for defendant and appellant; submitted 

on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

DECEMBER 28, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

State v. Gai

No. 20230231

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Abraham Bior Gai appeals from a criminal judgment revoking probation 

and imposing a new sentence of two years imprisonment.

[¶2] On appeal, Gai conceded the district court’s findings of fact that he 

violated the terms of his probation were not clearly erroneous. He argues the 

court acted unreasonably by revoking his probation and resentencing him.

After a review of the record, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion 

in revoking Gai’s probation. See State v. Hatzenbuehler, 2023 ND 192, ¶ 6, 996

N.W.2d 649 (noting we review the district court decision on whether to revoke 

probation under the abuse-of-discretion standard).

[¶3] To the extent Gai challenges the length of his sentence as an abuse of 

discretion, we do not review a sentence imposed within the statutory range. 

See State v. Gates, 540 N.W.2d 134, 137 (N.D. 1995) (our review of a sentence 

imposed after revoking probation is confined to determining whether the 

district court acted within statutorily prescribed limits). We summarily affirm 

under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
Exhibit 23.2   Consent of PricewaterhouseCoopers    LLP

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED        PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation    by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Registration Nos.    333-22845-99, 333-22823-99, 333-52755-99, 333-33756-99 and 333-63154) of    Pegasus Communications Corporation of our report dated February 20, 2004,    except for the effects of the discontinued operations discussed in Note 12,    as to which the date is March 31, 2006, and except for the restatement discussed    in the Note 4 (not presented herein) to the consolidated financial statements    appearing under Item 8 of the Company's 2004 Annual Report on Form 10-K,    as to which the date is May 13, 2005, relating to the financial statements    and financial statement schedule,****which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaApril 5, 2006

----
 Permit Condition 11 – Change Emission Point Characteristics.

The Department has updated this permit condition to reflect the actual stack parameters.

 Permit Condition 12, Footnote 5 – Compliance Demonstration(s).

The footnotes and this section have been updated to reflect the current testing requirements 

and permit language.

 Permit Condition 14.D – Operating Limits. Pressure Drop.

The pressure drop has been changed to reflect the averaging period (5-minute average) listed in 

the Administrative Consent Order (ACO). Please note the pressure drop is not an hourly 

average, but a 5-minute average as outlined in the ACO.

 Permit Condition 14.E – Operating Limits. Combustion Chamber Temperature.

The minimum temperature (1300oF) was established as the absolute minimum temperature 

allowed during normal operations (not to be exceeded). Therefore, the language was not 

modified to reflect the minimum temperature as a 3-hr average. The permit language was 

updated to clarify that this temperature applies only during normal operations.

 Permit Condition 14.F – Operating Limits. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction (SSM) Plan.

The Department understands the facility’s desire to reference 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart A; 

however, the permit details requirements that must be included in the SSM plan as BACT work 

practices for the cupola. As such, the current permit language is being retained (i.e., a new 

BACT analysis would be required to modify the SSM plan).

 Permit Condition 14.G – Operating Limits. Scrap Management Plan.

The Scrap Management Plan language has been updated to mimic the language found in the 

ACO (Section A-5.H).

 Permit Condition 15.A – Clarify fuel requirements.

The Department is assuming the facility wishes to list natural gas and propane as the allowable 

fuel s for the combustion chamber. The facility is required to record the type and amount of 

cupola fuel used each day. The sulfur content of the cupola fuels used must be recorded as well, 

and this may be accomplished through sampling or based on vendor’s data provided with each 

shipment of material. The facility may wish to clarify what it is asking for in the comment 

provided on November 10, 2014. 

 Permit Condition 15.D – Pressure drop across the baghouse.

The Department has updated the permit language to match the requirements in the ACO (5-

minute average).

 Permit Condition 15.E – Combustion Chamber Temperature.

Please see earlier discussion concerning the combustion chamber temperature.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Design Control in Pursuit of Engineering Excellence: A Quick Reference Guide for NRC Inspectors (NUREG-1913)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Foreward

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1913 (PDF - 1.19 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**August 2009

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

Availability Notice

## Foreward

Knowledge management and transfer have become increasingly important as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeks to share the vast inspection knowledge of its experienced inspectors with those who have recently joined the agency. This booklet should serve as an inspection reference to further increase the understanding by, and development of, NRC inspectors who perform inspections in the areas covered by this booklet.

The contents of this design control quick reference booklet resulted from a collaboration of all four regional offices in support of the agency's focus on knowledge transfer, with staff from various other NRC offices providing valuable comments and suggestions. The principal and contributing authors of this booklet are listed below.

Julio Lara, P.E., Region IIIJennifer Tifft, Region IFrank Arner, Region IRandy Moore, Region IIGeorge Replogle, Region IV

Note that the guidance contained in this booklet is not intended to be all inclusive but rather to supplement existing inspection procedures, to heighten inspectors' awareness, and further enhance the effectiveness of engineering inspections. The various inspection manual chapters and other regulatory documents discussed herein, provide the official agency inspection policies and guidance.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021