alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

THOMPSON DENSMORE ST. PIERRE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30187

D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00003-SEH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Thompson Densmore St. Pierre appeals from the district court’s judgment

and challenges the 21-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction

for theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 661 and 1153(a). We have jurisdiction 

FILED

APR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30187

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

St. Pierre contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to

explain adequately the basis for the sentence and for its decision to run the

sentence consecutively to his other federal sentences. We review for plain error,

see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and

find none. The record reflects that the court heard St. Pierre’s arguments and

adequately explained the sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors. The court was not required to justify specifically its choice to run the

sentence consecutively. See United States v. Fifield, 432 F.3d 1056, 1063-66 (9th

Cir. 2005).

St. Pierre also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing St. Pierre’s sentence. See

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The within-Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the

totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence and to protect the

public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2 Against a Pressurizer Spray Valve Inadverted Fully Opening Transient and Recovery by Natural Circulation in Jose Cabrera Nuclear Station (NUREG/IA-0124, ICSP–JC–SPR–R)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0124 (PDF 3.24 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** June 1993

**Prepared by:** R. Arroyo, L. Rebollo

Union Electrica Fenosa c/Capitan Haya 53 28020 Madrid Spain

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document presents the comparison between the simulation results and the plant measurements of a real event that took place in JOSE CABRERA nuclear power plant in August 30th, 1984. The event was originated by the total, continuous and inadverted opening of the pressurizer spray valve PCV-400A.

JOSE CABRERA power plant is a single loop Westinghouse PWR belonging to UNION ELECTRICA FENOSA, S.A. (UNION FENOSA), an Spanish utility which participates in the International Code Assessment and Applications Program (ICAP) as a member of UNIDAD ELECTRICA, S.A. (UNESA). This is the second of its two contributions to the Program: the first one was an application case and this is an assessment one.

The simulation has been performed using the RELAP5/MOD2 cycle 36.04 code, running on a CDC CYBER 180/830 computer under NOS 2.5 operating system.

The main phenomena have been calculated correctly and some conclusions about the 3D characteristics of the condensation due to the spray and its simulation with a ID tool have been got.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument Collections

# Research Information Letters

Research Information Letters (RILs) are documents issued by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to the NRC regulatory and regional offices that summarize, synthesize, and/or interpret significant research information relevant to a given technical area, provide new or revised information, and discuss how that information may be used in regulatory activities. RILs can improve regulatory efficiency and effectiveness by providing important, pertinent information in a timely, concise, and comprehensive summary.

If you have questions about a RIL, please contact us for assistance.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes
          - Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials
          - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
          - Agreement State Action Items
          - Agreement State Communications
          - ASLBP
          - Commission Documents
          - Congressional Documents
          - Electronic Government (E-Gov) Documents
          - Enforcement Documents
          - Enforcement Petition (2.206)
          - Events, Reports Associated with
          - Fact Sheets & Brochures
          - Federal Register Notices (NRC)
          - Forms (NRC)
          - For the Record
          - Generic Communications
          - Generic Issues
          - Government Information Locator Service (GILS)
          - Human Factors Information System
          - Inspection Manual
          - OIG Reports
          - IMPEP Reviews of NRC Programs
          - Interim Staff Guidance
          - Management Directives
          - Memoranda of Understanding
          - News Releases
          - NMSS Procedures
          - NRC Datasets
          - NRC Infographics
          - NRC Maps
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - OMB Exhibit 300s
          - Personal Identity Verification
          - Previous Site Additions
          - Regulations (NRC, 10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides (by Division)
          - Research Information Letters
          - Rulemaking Documents
          - Technical Letter Reports

#### 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, March 12, 2024
#### Chafee, by Guardian *ad litem,*Appellant, vs. Scandrett and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Hayden & Hayden*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents : *Bender, Trump & McIntyre*of Milwaukee. '

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# Waterspreading (Ac.) (640) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Waterspreading (Ac.) (640) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Waterspreading (Ac.) (640).

## 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)

Waterspreading (Ac.) (640) (9/2020) Standard Document(74.11 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Waterspreading (Ac.) (640) Overview(116.67 KB)

Waterspreading (Ac.) (640) CPPE(25.49 KB)

Waterspreading (Ac.) (640) Network Effects Diagram(87.69 KB)

##   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
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2021 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2021

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
  the cover over of distilled spirits taxes to Puerto Rico and Virgin 
                                Islands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

  Miss Gonzalez-Colon of Puerto Rico (for herself, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. 
 Duffy, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Banks of Indiana, Ms. 
 Plaskett, and Mr. Curbelo of Florida) 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 repeal the limitation on 
  the cover over of distilled spirits taxes to Puerto Rico and Virgin 
                                Islands.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON COVER OVER OF DISTILLED SPIRITS 
              TAXES TO PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS.

    (a) In General.--Section 7652 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking subsection (f) and by redesignating subsections 
(g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to distilled spirits brought into the United States after 
December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
#### ALFRED PALMER *v.*R. T. BOSHER and F. C. CLARK.

When the defendant in attachment, moves to vacate the same, for causes, appearing in his affidavit, it is not necessary to serve the plaintiff with a copy of such affidavit before the motion is heard.

This was a Motion upon notice filed, to amend affidavits-for an attachment, and also a motion by defendants to vacate an-attachment, heard before Henry, J, at Fall Term, 1874, "Wake Superior Court.

The motion to allow the plaintiff to amend his affidavit, was-granted by the Court.

The counsel for the defendants then moved, upon affidavits-to vacate the attachment. The counsel for the plaintiff said in the course of his argument, that he was taken by surprise, not-, anticipating the defendant’s affidavits, and that if he had time' he could probably produce numbers of affidavits to refute the' affidavits of the defendants. He did not move to file counter affidavits nor did he ask for time in which to prepare and file *372them. Ho motion was made to the Court. The motion to vacate the attachment was granted and the plaintiff appealed.

*Jones c& Jones,*for appellant.

*Busbee & Busbee,*contra.

Settle, J.

Ho error appears to this Court in the order ■vacating the warrant of attachment. Indeed, upon the affidavits filed by the defendants, it is not seen that his Honor could have done otherwise.

The plaintiffs counsel says that he was taken by surprise, and that the defendants should have served him with copies of their affidavits, at the same time they served notice of their motion to vacate the warrant of attachment. We cannot assent to that proposition. Such a requirement would be impracticable. The counsel did not then propose to file counter affidavits, nor did he ask for time to prepare and file them, nor did he state positively that he could contradict the affidavits filed by the defendants; but only said “ if he had time, he could *probably*produce numbers of affidavits to refute the affidavits filed by the defendants.”

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

PeR Cukiam. Judgment affirmed.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1952 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the revocation or 

suspension of drivers’ licenses of individuals convicted of drug offenses, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2017 

Mr. O’ROURKE (for himself, Mr. AMASH, Mr. JEFFRIES, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. NADLER, and Mrs. LOVE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to 

the revocation or suspension of drivers’ licenses of individuals convicted of drug offenses, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Drive Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1952 IH

1 SEC. 2. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF DRIVERS’ LI2 CENSES OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF 

3 DRUG OFFENSES. 

4 Section 159 of title 23, United States Code, and the 

5 item relating to that section in the analysis for chapter 

6 1 of such title, are repealed. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Southern Call for Abstracts

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Conservation Basics 
-  Natural Resource Concerns 
-  Soil 
-  Southern Call for Abstracts 

**Deadline for Submissions: April 12, 2024**

**SPSD Staff:** The deadline to submit an abstract to the SPSD Internal Review Tracker is **March 15**.

The Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey (SRCSS) extends an open invitation to submit abstracts for poster and oral presentations at the 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference. The conference will be held at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s Louisiana Immersive Technologies Enterprise Center in Lafayette, Louisiana, May 20-24, 2024. *The presentations will be conducted during the afternoon of May 21.*

Presenters can submit abstracts for one of the following: 
              - 20-minute oral presentation (20-minute presentation with an additional 5 minutes for questions)
              - Poster presentation only
              - Both oral and poster presentation

### Presentation Topics

All submissions will be considered but suggested presentation topics include:
              - Coastal Prairie or Coastal Marsh
              - The Intersection of Agriculture and Energy Development
              - Ecology or Agronomic Applications
              - Soil Science
              - Soil Health
              - Urban Soils

### Abstract Submission

Submit your abstract using the 2024 SRCSS Abstract Form.

**The deadline to submit abstracts is April 12, 2024.**

### Abstract Selection

The Conference Steering Committee will review the abstracts, make the final decisions, and notify each presenter by **April 26**. All accepted presenters are required to register and pay registration fees.

If selected, presenters must email a PowerPoint or PDF version of their presentation to Mitchell Mouton by **May 15**.  Conference organizers will load the presentation files into the conference system for the Tuesday presentation. The files will also be included in the conference proceedings and may be used if the event is switched to a virtual platform due to health and safety requirements.

**SPSD Staff:** The deadline to submit a poster or presentation to the SPSD Internal Review Tracker is **April 29**.

----

##   Conference Details

### 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference

**Join us for the 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference!**

Soil
#### Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Respondent, vs. Johns and wife, Appellants.

*March 5*

April *1, 1930.*

*347For the appellants there was a brief by *Stephens & Burns*of Cuba City and *Kopp & Brunckhorst*of Platteville, and oral argument by *L. A. Brunckhorst*and *Dwight S. Stephens.*

*R. M. Orchard*of Lancaster, for the respondent.

*348Rose-nberry, C. J.

The trial court was of the opinion, following *Westboro Lumber Co. v. Dibble,*199 Wis. 350, 226 N. W. 313, it should be held that under the terms of the trust deed the date of maturity of the note might be accelerated. The defendants contend that the contract should be construed according to the laws of the state of Mississippi; the plaintiff contends that it should be construed according to the laws of the state of Alabama. We shall not attempt to determine which law governs. It is conceded that under the law of Wisconsin and Alabama the date of maturity was accelerated by the default of the defendants. As we understand the case of *Caldwell v. Kimbrough,*91 Miss. 877, 45 South. 7, it sustains the contention of the plaintiff in this case. The language of the trust instrument in this case is almost identical with the provisions of the trust deed in that case, and it was there held that the mortgagor could not, by a tender of the amount of the instalment due after the option had been exercised, defeat the rights of the mortgagee to accelerate the maturity of the instrument. The court said:

> “After the failure to pay at maturity had occurred, and the option to declare maturity of the entire debt had been .exercised, the great weight of authority is that it was too late then to tender the amount due under the deed in trust up to the time of the default, and thereby defeat the right to mature the entire debt.”

So that whether the contract be construed under the laws of the state of Mississippi or of Alabama or of Wisconsin, the court correctly held that the time of maturity had been accelerated and that the action was not prematurely brought.

It appears by the record in the case that the interest notes falling due subsequent to the time of the trial were presented on the trial of the case. The court rendered, an opinion in which it suggested that the notes not yet due should be canceled and surrendered. Apparently through inadvertence the matter was not covered by the formal findings and judgment *349and the defendants complain here of error for that reason. The oversight does not appear to have been called to the attention of the trial court. Upon the filing of the *remit-titur*the trial court should make an order requiring the plaintiff, as a condition of enforcing the judgment, to cancel and surrender to the clerk of the circuit court the notes in question. Counsel for plaintiff upon the oral argument indicated the willingness of the plaintiff to comply with such order. In view of the fact that the matter was not called to the attention of the trial court and is the result of inadvertence, respondent is entitled to its costs in this court.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
______________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 12, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132916(69) Marilyn Kelly
 

Maura D. Corrigan
 

Robert P. Young, Jr.
 

PONTIAC FIRE FIGHTERS UNION LOCAL Stephen J. Markman,
 Justices 376, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 132916 

v COA: 271497 

Oakland CC: 2006-075367-CL 

CITY OF PONTIAC,

Defendant-Appellant. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by defendants-appellants for leave to file a post 

argument brief is considered and it is GRANTED. 

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

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

Court.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5128

_____________________________

JEANETTE TESORIERO,

Appellant,

v.

SHADY REST CARE PAVILION,

INC. and SUMMIT/CLAIMS 

CENTER,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims.

Frank Clark, Judge.

Date of Accident: October 16, 2014. 

June 27, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.
2

_____________________________

Mark L. Zientz of Law Offices of Mark L. Zientz, P.A., Miami, for 

Appellant.

Michael E. McCabe of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A., 

Fort Myers, for Appellees.
<PAGE>   1
                   AMENDMENT TO THE 1998 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

                              OF NETWORK PLUS CORP.


         Subsection 4(a) of the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") of
Network Plus Corp. is hereby amended, subject to stockholder approval, to
increase from 9,000,000 to 18,000,000 the number of shares of Common Stock, $.01
par value per share, authorized for issuance under the Plan.

                                            Adopted by the Board of Directors on
                                            April 17, 2001

                                            Approved by the Stockholders on
                                            May 7, 2001
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1


                CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Metso Corporation (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jorma Eloranta,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.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) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: October 17, 2005

                                           /s/ JORMA ELORANTA
                                           -------------------------------------
                                                      Jorma Eloranta
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this certification 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.
I 

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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF BILLFISH CONSERVATION 

4 ACT OF 2012 EXEMPTION. 

5 (a) CLARIFICATION.—Section 4(c)(1) of the Billfish 

6 Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 1827a(c)(1)) is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘and retained’’ after ‘‘landed’’. 

8 (b) DEADLINE FOR REGULATIONS.—The Secretary 

9 of Commerce shall issue a final rule implementing the Bill10 fish Conservation Act of 2012 (16 U.S.C. 1827a), as 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1887 IH

1 amended by this Act, not later than 45 days after the date 

2 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS