alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015338EN.01000201.xml

| 13.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/2

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 8 October 2015

adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2015

(2015/C 338/02)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,

1

Whereas:

| | |
| --- | --- |

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 7 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 was adopted on 8 October 2015.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Luxembourg, 8 October 2015.

For the Council

The President

J. ASSELBORN

---

(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 69, 13.3.2015, p. 1.

2

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Modeling a Digital Feedwater Control System Using Traditional Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods (NUREG/CR-6997)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6997 (PDF – 16.17 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2008**Date Published:** September 2009

**Prepared by:**T.L. Chu, M. Yue, G. Martinez-Guridi,K. Mernick, and J. Lehner, BNLA. Kuritzky, NRC

Brookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, NY 11973-5000

A. Kuritzky, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code N6413

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently performing research on the development of probabilistic models for digital instrumentation and control systems for inclusion in nuclear plant probabilistic risk assessments. The desired goal of this research is to develop regulatory guidance for the use of risk information in regulatory decisions for new and operating reactors. This report documents the development of a reliability model of a digital feedwater control system using Markov methods supported by an automated failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) tool. In general, the approach developed in this study should be applicable to both control and protection systems. Although the objective of the study is only to demonstrate the feasibility of the state of the art of traditional methods and data, the development of the automated FMEA tool can be considered an enhancement to the state of the art. Due to limitations in the scope of the study and the state of the art, the current model is not suitable to support regulatory decision-making. Additional research is needed to further enhance the state of the art, and potential areas of research are documented, for example, modeling of software failures.

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

# Environmental Impact Statement for the Holtec International's License Application for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel in Lea County, New Mexico – Final Report (NUREG-2237)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 01, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM SPINTEX
GAMING  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER
31,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                              U.S.
       
<S>                                       <C>     
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                                  176
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           447
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                           1,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      2,510
<PP&E>                                                  292
<DEPRECIATION>                                           82
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        3,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,503
<BONDS>                                               5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 5,355
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 40
<OTHER-SE>                                           (9,058)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          3,840
<SALES>                                               2,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      2,009
<CGS>                                                 1,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      2,199
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (1,450)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1,616)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2011

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, June 1, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Open Petition for Rulemaking Dockets
          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### 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 Thursday, June 1, 2023
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance – Final Report (NUREG-2159, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2159, Revision 1, Final Report (PDF – 1.10 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: **March 2022**Date Published:** July 2022**Prepared by:**T. PhamG. TuttleS. AniSuzanne Ani, Project Manager

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations governing material control and accounting (MC&A) for licensees authorized to possess and use special nuclear material(SNM) of moderate strategic significance, sometimes referred to as a Category II quantity of material are in Subpart D, "Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance," of Title 10 of the *Code of Federal Regulations* (10 CFR) Part 74, "Material control and accounting of special nuclear material."

SNM of moderate strategic significance means either of the following:

This document provides a structure and information as one means of facilitating compliance with the following regulations about licensee or applicant preparation and implementation of its fundamental nuclear material control plan and corresponding NRC review and inspection:
        -  10 CFR 74.41, "Nuclear material control and accounting for special nuclear material of moderate strategic significance" 
        -  10 CFR 74.43, "Internal controls, inventory, and records" 
        -  10 CFR 74.45, "Measurements and measurement control" 

Such performance-based MC&A requirements, which cover all Category II quantities of material, replace the prescriptive approach that appeared previously in 10 CFR Part 70, "Domestic licensing of special nuclear material," before the NRC consolidated these MC&A requirements in 10 CFR Part 74 in 2002 (67 FR 78130). This report presents recommendations for the acceptable format and content for those fundamental nuclear material control plans, which address the following:
        -  the performance objectives that must be met 
        -  ​the MC&A system capabilities that must be achieved to meet those objectives 
        -  the incorporation of checks and balances to detect falsification of data and reports that could conceal the theft or diversion of SNM 
        -  basic commitments that should be made 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, July 14, 2022
##### 



Exhibit 32.01
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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: November 14, 2006
    /s/ Steve TiradoSteve TiradoPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
HomeNRC LibraryPhotos & Video

# Contact Us About Photos

If you have questions or comments about the photo gallery, please send an e-mail by completing this form. You may also call us at **301-415-8200**. Before sending us this information, you may wish to review our Privacy Policy.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Guidelines for Use of Photos
          - Contact Us About Photos

#### 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 Thursday, March 25, 2021
*September 10, 1940.*

#### Nissen, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Industrial Commission, Appellant: Hanson, Respondent.

For the appellant: *John E. Martin,*attorney general, and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general.

For the plaintiff and respondent Nissen: *Sanborn, Blake & Aberg*and *Edwin Conrad,*all of Madison.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on September 10, 1940.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofDuke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew A. Cohoat, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   | /s/   Matthew  A. Cohoat                                        |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Matthew A.  Cohoat                                                             |
|   | Executive  Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer  of the General Partner |
|   | May 17, 2004                                                                   |

 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Matthew A. Cohoat,  Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the General Partner and will be retained by Mr. Cohoat and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

 

----
#### Barnard, Appellant, vs. Cohen and another, Respondents.

*April 5*

April *24, 1917.*

*Appeal: Reversal of judgment: Nominal damages: Punitory damages: Libel.*

1. An erroneous judgment will not be reversed when recovery is for no more than a nominal amount.

2. In an action for libel punitory damages cannot be recovered where the compensatory damages are merely nominal.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action for libel. The case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions and the jury returned the following verdict:

“We, the jury, duly impaneled to try the issues in the above entitled action, find for the plaintiff, *James Barnard**and assess his damages as follows:

“Compensatory damages, -.

“Punitory damages, $300.”

Thereupon plaintiff moved (1) for judgment in his favor;

(2) that the verdict be amended by inserting the words “six cents” in the space reserved for compensatory damages; and (3) in case both motions be denied, for a new trial. Defendants moved for judgment upon the verdict. The trial court denied all of the motions, and upon its own motion amended the verdict by inserting the words “six cents” in the space reserved for compensatory damages and entered judgment upon the amended verdict for plaintiff for the sum of six cents damages and six cents costs. Erom the judgment so entered plaintiff appeals.

Eor the appellant there were briefs by *Hill & Spohn*of' Madison, and oral argument by *W. H. Spohn.*

Eor the respondents there was a brief by *Jones & Schu-bring*of Madison, and the cause was argued orally by *Burr W. J ones.*

*418Rosenberry, J.

There was a demurrer to the complaint which was overruled. The defendant assigns this as error, but in the view we take of the case that question is immaterial. An erroneous judgment will not be reversed where recovery is for no more than a nominal amount. *Riess v. Delles,*45 Wis. 662.

The principal question presented is: In an action for libel, can there be a recovery of punitory damages if only nominal compensatory damages are found?

Upon this question there is a conflict in the authorities. In the following cases it is held there may be such recovery: *McConathy v.*Deck, 34 Colo. 461, 83 Pac. 135; *Lamport v. Judge & Dolph D. Co.*238 Mo. 409, 141 S. W. 1095. The following cases hold that there may not be such a recovery: *First Nat. Bank v. Kansas G. Co.*60 Kan. 30, 55 Pac. 277; *Kuhn v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co.*74 Iowa, 137, 37 N. W. 116; *Meidel v.*Anthis, 71 Ill. 241. This court is committed to the doctrine that punitory damages cannot be recovered in an action where the compensatory damages are merely nominal. We think this rule is based not only upon authority but upon the better reason. *Barber v. Kilbourn,*16 Wis. 485; *Maxwell v.*Kennedy, 50 Wis. 645, 7 N. W. 657. See, also, *Bass v. C. & N. W. R. Co.*42 Wis. 654, 672.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
NO. 13-10-00650-CR

MIGUEL ANGEL AGUILERA § IN THE COURT OF § VS. § CRIMINAL APPEALS § STATE OF TEXAS § OF TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Now comes, MIGUEL ANGEL AGUILERA, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, and moves for an extension of time of 30 days to file a petition for discretionary review, and for good cause shows the following: I. On November 234 2015, the 13th Court of Appeals affirmed Appellant's conviction. See, MIGUEL ANGEL AGUILERA v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Tr. Ct. No. 13-CR-1492-B II. Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review in this cause is due on, August 20, 2012. Counsel respectfully requests 30 days from the presently scheduled deadline to file Appellant’s petition. III. As reason for this request, Counsel states he is currently working on the following appeals: USA v. Kristopher Michael Montemayor, 15-40197 Fifth Circuit USA v. Obed Torres-Hernandez, 15-41654 Fifth Circuit

USA v. Guillero Herrera, 15-40654 Antonio Santos v. States of Texas, 13-15-00353-CR Kevin Lozano v. State of Texas, 13-15-00513-CR WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , Counsel for Appellant respectfully requests an extension of 45 days, until Jan 31, 2015, to file a petition for discretionary review. The additional time is needed because I have spent the last two weeks determine whether the 13th Court of Appeals might reconsider its opinion. As there is a paucity of 13th Court of

1 PD-1636-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 12/17/2015 11:44:59 AM Accepted 12/19/2015 9:01:14 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKAppeals case law on the issues involved in this case, and as that Court seems to be reluctant to

publish its own opinions so as to provide g uidance to the courts, and counsel, I have concluded that it would be fruitless to file a request for a rehearing . Additionally , Ido not do that simply because I want more time. Outside of that, these are the holiday s, for one. And, I

am now g oing to write my

client to find out if he wishes for me to write the PDR or if he wishes to do it himself. I will send him a simply post card to respond quickly . However, the mails are a bit slower duringthese day s. Hence, realistically , not much is g oing to happen the nex t two weeks. I would very

sincerely appreciate the additional time.

Respectfully

submitted,

L aw Office of Philip Cowen 500 E. L evee Street B rownsville, Tex as 78520 Tel. 956-541-6031 F ax 956-541-6872 email: ptchb@att.net ____/s/_________ Philip T. Cowen

CERTIF ICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify

that on Dec. 17, 2012, a true and correct copy of the above and foreg oing document was served on the District Attorney ' s Office, Cameron County , 974 E. Harrison St., B rownsville, Tex as 78520, by reg ular mail.

____/s/_________ Philip T. Cowen

2
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GAR Y NIXON, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt, v. J. E. THOM AS, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 12-36052

D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01292-KI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Garr M . King, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2014 ** B e fore : C LIFTON, B EA, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. Fe de ra l prisone r Gary

Nixon a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2241 ha be a s pe tition c ha lle nging a prison disc i plina

ry he aring. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the de nia l of a se c t ion 2241 pe tition denovo, se e Tablada v . Thomas , 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th C ir. 

# FIL ED MAY21 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2008), a

nd we a ffirm . Nixon c onte nds tha

t the Disc i plina

ry He aring Offic e r (“ DHO” ) viola te d his due proc e ss rights by

re fusing to allow Lieute na nt Pa yne to te stify

on the subje c t of prison polic ie s re ga

rding theope ning of le ga l m a il. The DHO e xc lude d this te stim ony on the ba sis tha

t he c ould indepe nde ntly

re se arc h the prison’ s polic ie s. Nixon a rgue s tha t witne s s te stim ony

c annot be e xc lude d on this ground. We disa gre e . La c k of ne c e ssity is a prope r ba sis on whic h to e xc lude te stim ony , a nd the re c ord re fle c t s tha

t Nixon’ s propose d witne ss wa s unne c e ssa ry . Se e W

olff v
. Mc D onne ll , 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 6 0 5 2 2
## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ 

### m 99-20245

_______________



### U NITED 

### S TATES OF 

### A MERICA 

### , Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS 

### J AMES 

### E ARL 

### C ONLEY 

### ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

_________________________ July 14, 2000
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We have reviewed the briefs and applicable porti o ns of the record and have heard the a rguments of counsel. We conclude that the district court committe d no reversible error. The judgment of conviction and sentence, accordingly, is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that th is 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.