alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516) (9/2020) Standard Document(126.98 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516) Overview(373.48 KB)

Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516) CPPE(23.92 KB)

Livestock Pipeline (Ft.) (516) Network Diagram(152.44 KB)

## Conservation at Work: Livestock Pipeline

This video explores how George McClelland of Petaluma, CA, uses this practice as part of his rotational grazing plan on his organic dairy farm.

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N os. 04

- 19

- 00737

- CR, 04

- 19

- 738

- CR

Aidan VITELA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 5942 & 6023

Honorable Kirsten B. Cohoon

, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ , JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 2 9 , 2021.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. THOM PS ON DENSM ORE S T. PI ER RE , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 30187 D. C. No . 4 : 1 2 - c r - 0 0 0 0 3 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 16, 2013 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , IK U T A , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T hom ps on D e ns m or e S t . P i e rr e appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt a nd c ha l l e nge s the 21- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng hi s j ury - tr i a l c onvi c t i on f orthe f t , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 661 a nd 1153( a ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED APR22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 30187 2 u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. S t. P ie rr e c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o c e d u r a llye rr e db yf a ilin g to e xpl a i n a de qua t e l ythe ba s i s f orthe s e nt e nc e a nd f

ori t s de c i s i on t o run the se nt ence consec ut i vel y t o h i s other f eder al se nt ence s. W e r evi ew for pl ai n err or, s e e U ni te d State s v . V

ale nc i a- B arr agan , 608 F . 3d 1103, 1108 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , a nd f i nd none . T he r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe c ourthe a r d S t . P i e rr e ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd a de qua t e l ye xpl a i ne d the s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s . T he c ourtw a s notr e qui r e d t o j us t i f ys pe c i f i c a l l yi t s c hoi c e t o run the s e n te n c e c o n s e c u tiv e ly . See U n ite d S ta tes v . Fifie ld , 4 3 2 F .3 d1 0 5 6 , 1 0 6 3 - 6 6 ( 9 th C i r. 20 05 ). S t . P i e rr e a l s o c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in im p o s in g S t. P ie rr e ’s s e n te n c e . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . T h e w ith in - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s ubs t a nt i ve l yr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the s e c t i on 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s a nd the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , i nc l udi ng the ne e d f orde t e rr e nc e a nd t o pr ot e c tthe p u b lic . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ; G a ll , 552 U . S . a t51. AF F I RME D.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Integrated Human Event Analysis System for Event and Condition Assessment (IDHEAS-ECA) (NUREG-2256)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2256 (PDF – 1.63 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 2022**Date Published:**October 2022**Prepared by:**J. XingY.J. ChangJ. DeJesus SegarraOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report describes a human reliability analysis (HRA) method developed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. The method is known as the Integrated Human Event Analysis System for Event and Condition Assessment (IDHEAS-ECA). It is based on NUREG-2198, "The General Methodology of an Integrated Human Event Analysis System." IDHEAS-ECA supports risk-informed decisionmaking by providing an HRA method to be used in probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) applications. The NRC staff uses PRA in the review of risk-informed license amendment requests and evaluations of notices of enforcement discretion, operational events (e.g., Management Directive 8.3, "NRC Incident Investigation Program," and the accident sequence precursor program), and inspection findings (i.e., the significance determination process). IDHEAS-ECA was developed because, in recent years, the scope of application of HRA has expanded into situations beyond the scope of existing HRA methods.

IDHEAS-ECA is intended to apply to the same situations modeled by existing HRA methods (e.g., nuclear power plant internal events while at-power) and beyond (e.g., external events, low power and shutdown events, and events for which flexible and coping strategies (FLEX) equipment is used). The IDHEAS-ECA method provides step-by-step guidance for analyzing a human action and its context. It models a human action by using five macrocognitive functions: detection, understanding, decisionmaking, action execution, and interteam coordination. The failure of a human action is modeled with a set of cognitive failure modes and performance-influencing factors, which are then used to calculate the human error probability (HEP). The IDHEAS-ECA method includes a software package that facilitates the documentation of the analysis of a human action and its context and uses the results of the analysis as input to calculate the HEP.

The report also provides additional information in the appendices, which include (1) a worksheet for analyzing and modeling human actions and their context, (2) the integrated human error data needed to calculate HEPs, and (3) two examples that demonstrate the use of the IDHEAS-ECA method. This report replaces Research Information Letter 2020-02.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, November 08, 2022
HomeSite Help

# NRC Site Search: Search All Sites

### Filter by Document Type

Public ADAMS                  - All
                  - Main Website
                  - Public ADAMS
                  - Enforcement Docs
                  - NUREG-Series Reports
                  - News Releases
                  - Commission Docs
                  - Meetings
                  - Inspection Manual
                  - Inspection Reports
                  - Glossary
                  - Maps & Images
                  - Regulatory Guides
                  - IG Reports
                  - Regulations
                  - Event Reports

### Sort Documents by

Sort by                  - Relevance
                  - Date

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 28, 2023

#### Related Information

                - ADAMS Fielded Search
                - Licensee Event Reports
                - NRC Telephone Directory

Section Navigation

#### Site Help

          - Search All Sites
          - Main Site
          - News Releases
          - Public Documents (ADAMS)
          - Agency Correspondence
          - Commission Documents
          - Commission Papers
          - Commission Speeches
          - Contracts
          - Enforcement
          - Event Reports
          - Facility Locator
          - FOIA
          - Generic Communications
          - Glossary
          - Images
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Reports
          - NSTS Blog
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - Reactor Oversight
          - Regulations (10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides

#### 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
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateRulemakingNRC Rules and PetitionsRules

# Planned Rulemaking Activities - Rule

Return to Main page

Return to Index page

### * *

Loading...

                      - Dates and Citations
                      - CPR

#### *Estimated Dates for Rulemaking Projects Are Subject to Change*

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 01, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-03-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-28-2000
<CASH>                                          12,866
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,454
<PP&E>                                           5,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,892
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,750
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,094
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,892
<SALES>                                         17,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,648
<CGS>                                           10,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,703
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    87
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     32
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 82

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Kyle Martin Heintz, Defendant and Appellant

Nos. 20230382–20230385

Appeals from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Donald Hager, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Kathryn R. Jund, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Victoria J.M. Christian, 

under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, 

N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kevin McCabe, Dickinson, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on 

brief.
1

State v. Heintz

Nos. 20230382–20230385

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Kyle Martin Heintz appeals from orders for revocation of probation 

entered in four criminal cases. He argues the district court abused its 

discretion by denying his motion to continue the sentencing portion of his 

revocation proceedings. After review of the record, we conclude the district 

court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to continue. We

summarily affirm the orders for revocation of probation under N.D.R.App.P. 

35.1(a)(4).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

We, the undersigned directors and officers of Aetna Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
severally constitute and appoint William J. Casazza and Alan M. Bennett, and
each of them individually, our true and lawful attorneys, with full power to
them and each of them to sign for us, and in our names and in the capacities
indicated below, the Company's 1998 Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, hereby ratifying and confirming our signatures as they may
be signed by our said attorneys to the Form 10-K and to any and all amendments
thereto.

Dated as of February 26, 1999.


/s/ Richard L. Huber                    /s/ Gerald Greenwald
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Richard L. Huber                        Gerald Greenwald
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,      Director
President and Director              
(Principal Executive Officer)       
                                    
/s/ Leonard Abramson                    /s/ Ellen M.  Hancock
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Leonard Abramson                        Ellen M. Hancock
Director                                Director
                                    
/s/ Betsy Z. Cohen                      /s/ Michael H. Jordan
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Betsy Z. Cohen                          Michael H. Jordan
Director                                Director
                                    
/s/ William H. Donaldson                /s/ Jack D. Kuehler
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
William H. Donaldson                    Jack D. Kuehler
Director                                Director
                                    
/s/ Barbara Hackman Franklin            /s/ Frank R. O'Keefe, Jr.
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Barbara Hackman Franklin                Frank R. O'Keefe, Jr.
Director                                Director
                                    
/s/ Jerome S. Goodman                   /s/ Judith Rodin
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Jerome S. Goodman                       Judith Rodin
Director                                Director
                                    
/s/ Earl G. Graves                      /s/ Alan J. Weber
------------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
Earl G. Graves                          Alan J. Weber
Director                                Vice Chairman for Strategy and Finance
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
*This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 2 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TOMMY E. BRADLEY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 04-6219

RANDY PARKER; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees.

(D.C. No. 04-CV-00307-R)

(W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER*

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Tommy E. Bradley, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas

petition. We deny the request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.

Issuance of a COA is jurisdictional. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003). A COA can issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's
2

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. 

After careful review of all of the filings and the record on appeal, we conclude the

requirements for issuance of a COA have not been met.

Bradley is serving a controlling five-year sentence for possession of a firearm by a

felon and possession of a stolen vehicle. He contends he is being denied due process by

the manner in which his sentence is being executed. He asserts he was improperly

assigned to a classification level adversely affecting his ability to obtain earned credits. 

The magistrate judge concluded Bradley’s claim had been procedurally defaulted in state

court and was therefore procedurally barred. Even if the merits of Bradley’s claim were

reached, the magistrate judge concluded his claim would fail. The magistrate judge found

that Bradley had not shown that any sentence credits had been removed from his

sentence, but that he “merely seeks the opportunity to earn more sentence credits based on

what he feels is an ‘unjust’ consideration of his past escape history for which he was not

disciplined or convicted.” ROA, Doc. 22 at 7. The magistrate judge cited Templeman v.

Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir. 1994), which states: “Changing an inmate’s prison

classification ordinarily does not deprive him of liberty, because he is not entitled to a

particular degree of liberty in prison.” The district court adopted the report and

recommendation and denied relief.

We DENY the request for a COA for substantially the same reasons as stated in
3

the report and recommendation filed June 2, 2004, and the district court’s order filed June

22, 2004, and DISMISS the appeal. 

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe

Circuit Judge
# L_2017172EN.01003601.xml

| 5.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 172/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 172/36

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1986 of 11 November 2015 establishing standard forms for the publication of notices in the field of public procurement and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 842/2011

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 296 of 12 November 2015
  )

On page 3, Article 4:

for:

‘XVI’,

read:

‘XVII’.

---
Cite as 2017 Ark. 278

No. CR

- 17

- 450

ALI MARTIN MATAR PETITIONER
V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS
RESPONDENT Opinion Delivered October 19, 2017
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL AND RULE ON CLERK [ BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 04 CR

- 14

- 777 ]
HONORABLE BRAD KARREN , JUDGE
MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL AND DENIED

.

COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice Petitioner Ali Martin Matar asks in a pro se motion for belated appeal and rule on
clerk that he be permit ted to proceed with an appeal of the order of the Benton County
Circuit Court entered August 17, 2016, denying his petition and amended petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rul e of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015 ) even though he did not file a notice of appeal until October 14, 2016. The motion is treated as a motion for belated appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure

– Criminal 2(e) (201 6 ) , rather than as a motion for rule on clerk, because the notice was not timely filed

. See Bloodman v. State , 201 0 Ark. 169, 370 S.W.3d 174. Arkansas Rule of Appellate
Procedure

– Criminal 2(a) (2016) provides that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date of the e ntry of the order from which the appeal is taken. M atar contends
that he should be allowed to perfect the appeal because he did not receive a copy of the trial court’s order until September 9, 2016. If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the burdenCite as 2017 Ark. 2 78

2 is on the petitioner to establish good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure.
See Dodson v. Norris , 374 Ark. 501, 288 S.W.3d 662 (2008). Because Matar has not established good cause fo r his delay in acting in this matter, the motion is denied. Rule 37.3(d) requires the trial court to promptly mail a copy of the order entered on a Rule 37.1 petition to the petitioner. The language in the rule is mandatory, and the failure
of the trial court to comply with Rule 37.3(d) constitutes good cause to excuse the petitioner ’ s failure to file a timely notice of appeal. When the record is silent or inconclusive , and the State does not provide an affidavit from the clerk of the circuit court or some other proof that the order was mailed without undue delay , this court will assume that the petitioner was not properly notified. Here, there is no indication in the record or the State’s response to demonstrate that Matar was pro mptly notified un der Rule 37.3 (d)
that the order had been entered on August 17, 2016

. Nevertheless, Matar’s motion is denied
because Matar , by his own admission, received the order a week before the thirty

- day period to file a timely notice of appeal e xpired , but he delayed more than a month before filing his
notice with the clerk

. Clearly, he received the order before the time to file a notice of appeal elapsed, but he did not act for another month, and he has not established a good cause for not doing so.
Motion t reated as motion for belated appeal and denied

.