alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. TONEY BURNS.

*Disposing of Property wider Mortgage.*

An indictment for disposing of mortgaged property under the act of lS73-’74, ch. 31, is fatally defective, if it fails to set forth that the lien was in force at the time of sale, the party to whom sold, and the manner of disposition.

*(State,*v. *Pickens,*79 N. C., 652, cited and approved J

INDICTMENT for a Misdemeanor tried at January Term, 1879-, of Wake Criminal Court, before *Strong, J.*

AtNovember term, 1877, the defendant was indicted for the violation of the act of 1873-’74, ch. 31, in that he sold one bale of cotton upon which he had given a chattel mortgage to secure certain rent due the prosecutor. The principle on which this case was decided is the same as in *State*v. Pickens» 79 N. 0., 652. There was no motion in the court below t© arrest the judgment from which defendant appealed.

*Attorney General,*for the state.

*Mr. T. PL. Argo,*for defendant.

Ashe, J.

There were some exceptions taken by the defendant on the trial below, but it is only necessary to notice that taken to the form of the indictment.

The bill of indictment does not charge that the lien was in force when the bale of cotton was disposed o£ nor to whom it was sold. For- these reasons' the bill is fatally defective, and the judgment below must be arrested. *State*v. *Pickens,*79 N. C., 652.

There is error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Wake county that the defendant may be discharged.

Pek Curai-mx Errors
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

NATALIE A. BAXTER, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 

BOARD OF REVIEW, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 185 MAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Research Information Letters – 1979

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984
          - 1983
          - 1982
          - 1981
          - 1980
          - 1979
          - 1978
          - 1977
          - 1976
          - 1974
          - Contact Us About Research Information Letters

#### 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 Wednesday, June 10, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         287,197
<SECURITIES>                                   576,918
<RECEIVABLES>                                  735,858
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (73,120)
<INVENTORY>                                     47,559
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,333,493
<PP&E>                                       3,747,589
<DEPRECIATION>                               (967,984)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,137,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,174,098
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         93
<COMMON>                                         5,436
<OTHER-SE>                                     543,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,707,515
<SALES>                                        296,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,431,786
<CGS>                                          230,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,254,838
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,905,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             297,838
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,214,739)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,214,739)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,214,739)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.633)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.633)
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Scenarios and Analytical Methods for UF6 Releases at NRC-Licensed Fuel Cycle FacilitiesNUREG/CR-3139)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-3139 (PDF - 5.54 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** January 1983**Date of Issue:** June 1984

**Prepared by:** M. Siman-Tov J. Dykstra D. D. Holt W. P. Huxtable R. A. Just W.R. Williams

Oak Ridge National Laboratory  Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 Under Interagency Agreement DOE 40-550-75

S. Bernstein, NRC Project Manager

NRC FIN B0495

**Prepared for:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Division of Risk Analysis Transportation and Materials Risk Branch Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report identifies and discusses potential scenarios for the accidental release of UF 6 at NRC-licensed. UF6 production and fuel fabrication facilities based on a literature review, site visits, and DOE enrichment plant experience. Analytical tools needed for evaluating source terms for such releases are discussed, and the applicability of existing methods is reviewed. Accident scenarios are discussed under the broad headings of cylinder failures, UF6 process system failures, nuclear criticality events, and operator errors and are categorized by location, release source, phase

of UF 6 Prior to release, release flow characteristics, release causes,.initiating events, and UF6 inventory at risk.* At least three types of releases are identified for further examination: (1) a release from a liquid-filled cylinder: outdoors, (2) a release from a pigtail or cylinder in a steam chest, and (3) an indoor release from either (a) a pigtail or liquid-filled cylinder or (b) other indoor source depending on facility design and operating procedures. Indoor release phenomena may be analyzed to determine input terms for a ventilation model by using a time-dependent homogeneous compartment model or a more complex hydrodynamic model if time-dependent, spatial variations in concentrations, temperature, and pressure are important. Analytical tools for modeling directed jets and explosive releases are discussed as well* as some of the complex phenomena to be considered in analyzing UF6 releases both indoors and outdoors.

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

# Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress (NUREG-1415)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 02, 2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7945

CHRISTOPHER J. WITCHER,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

FRANK BISHOP, Warden N.B.C.I.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF MARYLAND,

 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:13-cv-03385-RWT)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher J. Witcher, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher J. Witcher seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Witcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31(i).2

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

I, Robert E. Brummels, Treasurer and Principal Financial
Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Husker Ag, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 2, 2006.



|    |  |                                           
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Robert E. Brummels                    
|    |  | Robert E. Brummels, Treasurer and Director
|    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 21.1

Pegasus Communications CorporationSubsidiaries

| ** Subsidiary**                                        |   | ** State of Formation** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                                                             |   |                              |
| Pegasus Communications Management Company                   |   | Pennsylvania                 |
| Pegasus Development 107 Corporation                         |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Development 107 License Corporation                 |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Development Corporation                             |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Guardband, LLC                                      |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Real Estate Company                                 |   | Pennsylvania                 |
| Pegasus Rural Broadband LLC                                 |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Satellite Communications Holdings,    Inc.          |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Satellite Development Corporation                   |   | Delaware                     |
| Pegasus Travel, Inc.                                        |   | Delaware                     |
| PMC Satellite Development, LLC                              |   | Delaware                     |
| WFXU Corporation                                            |   | Delaware                     |
| WFXU License Corporation                                    |   | Delaware                     |
| Xanadoo, LLC (formerly Pegasus                              |   |                         |
|      Broadband Communications LLC) |   | Delaware                     |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00737

- CR

The STATE of Texas,

A ppellant

v.

Josue Isay DEL CAMPO

- CHAVEZ

, A ppellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11,797

Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order granting Josue

Isay Del Campo

- Chavez’s application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 2, 2023.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00200-CV

GARY OBLETON

v.

CYNTHIA GUZMAN

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-15-1380-CV-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant, although he is exempt from payment due to his inability to pay costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2016
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)

# NRC Regulatory Guides - Products (Division 6)

This page lists the number, title, publication date, and revisions for each regulatory guide in Division 6, "Products," with references to draft guides and related documents (where applicable).

See also Draft Regulatory Guides for Public Comment.

See NRC Regulatory Guides for more general information.

## Products (Division 6)

        - Guides 6.1 – 6.9

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Division 1 - Power Reactors
          - Division 2 Research and Test Reactors
          - Division 3 - Fuels and Materials Facilities
          - Division 4 - Environmental and Siting
          - Division 5 - Materials and Plant Protection
          - Division 6 - Products
          - Division 7 - Transportation
          - Division 8 - Occupational Health
          - Division 9 - Antitrust and Financial Review
          - Division 10 - General

#### 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 Wednesday, April 3, 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT SAMUEL J. MOORE, Petitioner

v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 136 WAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 4th day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and Motion to Strike are DENIED
.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1887 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1887

To amend the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 to clarify an exemption 
                 for traditional fisheries and markets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2017

   Mr. Diaz-Balart (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 to clarify an exemption 
                 for traditional fisheries and markets.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF BILLFISH CONSERVATION ACT OF 2012 
              EXEMPTION.

    (a) Clarification.--Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish Conservation 
Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 1827a(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and 
retained'' after ``landed''.
    (b) Deadline for Regulations.--The Secretary of Commerce shall 
issue a final rule implementing the Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 
(16 U.S.C. 1827a), as amended by this Act, not later than 45 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. UNITED CONTRACTORS, INC., Respondent.

No. 9754.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 3, 1965.

Decided March 29, 1965.

*124Robert A. Bernstein, Atty., Dept, of Justice (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John B. Jones, Jr., Meyer Roth-wacks and Harry Baum, Attys., Dept, of Justice, on brief), for petitioner.

A. Fred Freedman, Washington, D. C. (Henry G. Burke, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for respondent.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal by the Commissioner from a decision by the Tax Court1 in favor of the respondent, United Contractors, Inc., raises the question of whether a parent corporation’s intercompany profit2 eliminated in a consolidated income tax return for the taxable period ended September 30, 1951, is realized by the parent corporation and taxable to it as ordinary income upon the sale of the stock of the subsidiary in 1959 to a nonmember of the group.

Petitioner strenuously argues here, as it did before the Tax Court, that a proper interpretation of section 1502 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the regulations issued thereunder requires the inclusion in taxpayer’s gross income, in 1959, of the previously eliminated intercompany profit in order clearly to reflect its income and to prevent the profit from escaping taxation. The Tax Court rested its decision in this case on Henry C. Beck Builders, Inc. v. Commissioner, 41 T.C. 616 (1964), a decision by the full court (five members dissenting) in which the material facts and the arguments made by the parties were identical to those in this case.

We have considered-the-able and exhaustive briefs of the parties and the arguments before this court; we find ourselves in agreement with the decision of the Tax Court for the reasons set forth in the opinion for the majority in the Beck case. Therefore the decision of the Tax Court is

Affirmed.

1

. 1964 P-H T.C. Memo. Dec. ¶ 64,068.

2

. The profit was earned by the parent in constructing an apartment building for tbe subsidiary during 1950-1951.