alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests2023

# Recent FOIA Requests - June 2023

This page presents a chronological listing of the subject and reference number of each Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Request submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during June 2023. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 11, 2023

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - January
          - February
          - March
          - April
          - May
          - June
          - July
          - August
          - September
          - October
          - November
          - December

#### 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 Tuesday, July 11, 2023
fs12011ex10vi_aivtech.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 


Purchase Order


 







 


Seller: Dongguan AIVtech Co., Ltd.


 


Buyer: DaKang Holding Co., Ltd.


 


 


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


 


 


Contract date:  December 30, 2010


 


Product:


 



	
S-307v-w-DC

	
SKU:5 301


	
S-307v-w-DC

	
SKU:5 302


	
S-319

	
SKU:5 307


	
S-319

	
SKU:5 129


	
S-319

	
SKU:5 310












 


Quantity:


 



	
3270


	
3270


	
205


	
200


	
200












 


Unit Price: USD 17.4 for S-307v-w-DC; USD 3.46 for S-319


 


Delivery time: January 25, 2011


 


Other terms:  The seller shall be responsible for the quality of products.


 


 



	Seller	Buyer
	 	 
	Dongguan AIVtech Co., Ltd.	DaKang Holding Co., Ltd.
	 	 
	Date:  December 30, 2010  	Date:  December 30, 2010
#### Cody, Respondent, vs. Perry, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Erwin F. Nell,*attorney, and *John J. Sullivan*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Joseph Lieberman.*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned officer of Hines Horticulture, Inc. (the "Company") hereby
certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2005 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit
(the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: November 14, 2005
                                 /s/ ROBERT A. FERGUSON
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Robert A. Ferguson
                                 President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                 (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30650

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRANDY Z. ROGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:11-CR-233-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandy Rogers pleaded guilty of embezzlement of bank funds and was sentenced within the guideline range to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. She

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 8, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30650 Document: 00512168823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2013
No. 12-30650

appeals, arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the

district court failed to take into account that she is the primary caregiver for her

two sons, both of whom have special medical needs, and because a withinguideline sentence is not necessary to deter her or protect the public from further criminal conduct. She also urges that the sentence is unreasonable in light

of the restitution order, because she is unable to make restitution while

incarcerated.

“A discretionary sentence imposed within a properly calculated guidelines

range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531

F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing

that the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant

weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States

v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Mere disagreement with the propriety of the sentence or the weight given to the § 3553(a) factors is not enough to

rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-guideline sentence. See United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).

The district court was aware of the mitigating factors pointed to by Rogers

but gave more weight to the seriousness of the offense, particularly its nature

and characteristics. Rogers has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that is accorded to her within-guideline sentence. See Cooks, 589 F.3d at

186; Ruiz, 621 F.3d at 398.

The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-30650 Document: 00512168823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2013
Form
10Q




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







In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Silicon Image, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Camillo Martino, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(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:
      April 28, 2010
                
                
                /s/
      Camillo MartinoCamillo
      MartinoChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Kniess and wife, Respondents, vs. Jefferson Construction Company, Appellant.

*January 6*

February *4, 1941.*

For the appellant there was a brief by Dougherty, *Arnold & Kivett*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Suel 0. Arnold.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Genrich & Genrich,*attorneys, and *Herbert L. Terwilliger*and *James A. Fitzpatrick*of counsel, all of Wausau, and oral argument by *Mr. Terwilliger*and *Mr. Fred W. Genrich.*

Fritz, J.

On this appeal the appellant, Jefferson Construction Company, contends that the court erred in refusing to sustain its objection to' a statement by the respondents’ counsel in his argument to the jury; in ruling that there was *625sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that respondents’ property was damaged by appellant’s negligence in using excessive charges of dynamite in blasting operations, and that certain witnesses called by respondents were qualified to testify as experts; in refusing to' rule that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive; and in making remarks prejudicial to appellant during the course of the trial. Upon a review of the record and due consideration of appellant’s contentions, we find no' error in any of the respects assigned by appellant; that the verdict and judgment entered thereon were warranted by the evidence; and that the judgment must therefor be affirmed. As no questions are involved which are of such importance or difficulty as to demand treatment in an opinion, the case would be affirmed without any opinion under Rule 64 (sec. 251.64, Stats.) but for the following matters.

Respondents contend that because appellant failed to serve its printed case and brief within the time allowed by Rules 16 and 18 (secs. 251.272 and 251.274, Stats.) they are entitled to double costs under Rule 46; and also to damages in the amount of ten per cent of the judgment under sec. 251.23 (3), Stats. As appellant was clearly in default in both respects, without any apparent excuse, the respondents are entitled to an award, under sec. 251.23 (3), of double costs to be paid by appellant. On the other hand, notwithstanding appellant’s inexcusable delays, and the resulting disadvantage to respondents’ counsel in preparing their brief, they succeeded, by the exercise of extraordinary diligence, in having their brief printed in time for use when the case was reached in due course for oral argument. As it does not appear that respondents sustained any damage as the result of the delay in question, there is no basis for an assessment thereof under sec. 251.23 (3).

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed, with double costs to respondents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE LCA-VISION INC.
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND THE RELATED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, ADN IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          802847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2490415
<ALLOWANCES>                                    206975
<INVENTORY>                                     606220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4190189
<PP&E>                                        11463284
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2818491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                13983086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4831292
<BONDS>                                        5056870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                         78471
<OTHER-SE>                                     1073413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  13983086
<SALES>                                          80360
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3243075
<CGS>                                            81504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1641601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2318432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              198701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1125579)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     34413
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1091166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2015326EN.01006801.xml

| 11.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 326/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 326/68

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/608 of 14 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 as regards the entries for Ukraine and Israel in the list of third countries, the approval of the control programme of Ukraine for Salmonella in laying hens, the veterinary certification requirements concerning Newcastle disease and processing requirements for egg products

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 101 of 18 April 2015
  )

On page 4, in Article 2:

for:

‘Part 1 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation’,

read:

‘Annexes I and III to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation’.

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2003

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 Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 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 Tuesday, April 5, 2022
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Isotopic Analysis of High-Burnup PWR Spent Fuel Samples From the Takahama-3 Reactor (NUREG/CR-6798)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6798 (PDF - 2.94 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2002**Date Published:** January 2003

**Prepared by:** C. E. Sanders, L C. Gauld

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6370

R. Y. Lee, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code W6479

**Prepared for**: Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents the results of computer code benchmark simulations against spent fuel radiochemical assay measurements from the Kansai Electric Ltd. Takahama-3 reactor published by the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. Takahama-3 is a pressurized-water reactor that operates with a 17 x 17 fuel-assembly design. Spent fuel samples were obtained from assemblies operated for 2 and 3 cycles and achieved a maximum burnup of 47 GWd/MTU. Radiochemical analyses were performed on two rods having an initial enrichment of 4.11 wt %, and one integral burnable absorber rod containing Gd2O3. These measurements represent the highest enrichment and highest burnup samples currently available in the United States. The benchmark results are important to burnup credit initiatives in the United States since the lack of available benchmark data has led to restrictions on the allowable credit beyond 4.0 wt % and 40 GWd/MTU. Although the primary objective of the measurements was support of burnup credit, radiochemical analyses were also available for a number of actinide and fission product nuclides important to decay heat and radiation source term analysis. Isotopic predictions from. both the SCALE 4.4a and HELIOS–I.6 code systems were used in this benchmark study. The results indicate that the level of agreement between predictions and measurements is very good. The results, for the most part, are consistent with the findings of earlier studies for lower enrichment and lower burnup samples and yield sinilar biases and levels of uncertainty.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
From: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE
To: Jordan, Ronald Cc: Thomas Finseth ; Hall, Jessica ; EFFINGER, THOMAS N ; Flanders, Phillip ; SHIER, DARRELL ; HAMILTON, J. HAGOOD JR Subject: RE: Data request for Wateree Station
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 10:01:14 AM Attachments: image001.png SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for ABMet Evoqua Pironox.xlsx SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for ABMet Pilot.xlsx SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for AnMBR Pilot.xlsx SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for Envirogen FBR MBR Pilot.xlsx SCANA Pilot Laboratory Data for Liberty Hydro Pilot.xlsx

Ron Attached are the 5 datasets containing all the water quality data for each technology. Also, I should receive the Envirogen reports this afternoon. Once received I will FedEx three copies to you at the following address: USEPA Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington DC 20460

Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards Jean-Claude

From: Jordan, Ronald [mailto:Jordan.Ronald@epa.gov]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:01 AM
To: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE
Cc: Thomas Finseth; Hall, Jessica; EFFINGER, THOMAS N; Flanders, Phillip Subject: FW: Data request for Wateree Station



### ***This is an EXTERNAL email. Please do not click on a link or open any attachments unless you are confident it is from a trusted source.

Good morning Jean-Claude,

I am following up on our conversations from yesterday. Based on those discussions, EPA is revising the deadline for submitting the information specified in the attached letter dated October 30, 2014.

The revised deadline for submitting data requested in Item 10 of the letter, in MS Excel format, is December 1, 2014

. The revised deadline for submitting all other information requested by the letter is December 12, 2014

. I understand information for certain technologies may be available in advance of that date and, if so, we would appreciate receiving it sooner than December 12.

Thank you for your efforts in this matter.

Regards,Ron

------------------------------------ Ron Jordan USEPA Office of Water Engineering & Analysis Division (4303T) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington DC 20460 (202) 566-1003

From: Flanders, Phillip
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 11:24 AM
To: teffinger@scana.com
Cc: YOUNAN, JEAN-CLAUDE; Jordan, Ronald; Thomas Finseth Subject: Data request for Wateree Station

Dear Mr. Effinger,

I am sending a letter requesting information about pilot testing at Wateree Station. The letter also asks SCANA to identify pilot testing at other plants. Please be sure to let me know if you have any questions about the information EPA is requesting. We can also send a hard copy of the letter to

you.

Thank you,

Phillip Flanders, Ph.D.

Environmental Engineer Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and Technology Office of Water

Mail Code 4303T (202) 566-8323
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2019 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude certain abortions 

from the definition of qualified medical expenses for purposes of distributions from health savings accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2017 

Ms. FOXX (for herself and Mr. SMITH of New Jersey) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

certain abortions from the definition of qualified medical 

expenses for purposes of distributions from health savings accounts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ABORTIONS FROM 

4 QUALIFIED MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR PUR5 POSES OF HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 223(d) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by add8 ing at the end the following new subsection: 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2019 IH

1 ‘‘(D) CERTAIN ABORTIONS.—For purposes 

2 of this section, the term ‘qualified medical ex3 penses’ shall not include amounts paid for any 

4 abortion unless— 

5 ‘‘(i) the pregnancy is the result of an 

6 act of rape or incest, or 

7 ‘‘(ii) the woman suffers from a phys8 ical disorder, physical injury, or physical 

9 illness, including a life-endangering phys10 ical condition caused by or arising from 

11 the pregnancy itself, that would, as cer12 tified by a physician, place the woman in 

13 danger of death unless an abortion is per14 formed.’’. 

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

16 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years begin17 ning after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS