alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffReview and Evaluation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Research Program: A Report to the 

# Review and Evaluation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Research Program: A Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG-1635, Volume 11)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1635, Volume 11 (PDF - 5.52 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** June 2014**Date Published:** December 2014

Advisory Committee on Reactors SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) presents the observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) concerning the NRC Safety Research Program being carried out by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. In its evaluation of the NRC research activities, the ACRS considered the programmatic justification for the research, as well as the technical approaches and progress of the work. The evaluation identifies research crucial to the NRC mission.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
President and Chief Executive Officer of Fresh Brands, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of
the Company for the year ended December 29, 2001 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By: /s/ Elwood F. Winn
    -----------------------------------
Elwood F. Winn
President and Chief Executive Officer

May 13, 2003

<PAGE>

                Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of Fresh
Brands, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 29, 2001
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.



By: /s/ S. Patric Plumley
   ---------------------------------------------
S. Patric Plumley
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Secretary


May 13, 2003
Argued and submitted October 22,

affirmed December 10, 1979

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MICHAEL ANTHONY RUDY, *Appellant.*

(No. 77-1714, CA 14609)

603 P2d 1230

Richard A. Cremer, Assistant Public Defender, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Douglas F. Foley, Certified Law Student, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and Richardson, Judges.

JOSEPH, P.J.

*637JOSEPH, P.J.

Defendant was placed on probation after a conviction for attempted burglary in the first degree. He absconded and was subsequently arrested in Clark County, Washington. Pending extradition, he was incarcerated in that county’s jail from January 2, 1979 to April 26,1979. At his probation violation hearing he admitted the alleged violations. His probation was revoked and he was ordered to commence serving a one-year sentence in the Douglas County Jail. In the order revoking probation he was given credit only for the time he was incarcerated in Oregon after extradition. He contends that the trial judge unlawfully refused to grant him credit for the time he was incarcerated in Washington. He is wrong.

Affording credit for time served after arrest is not a determination made by the trial judge but is governed by the statutory scheme encompassed in ORS 137.310-137.450. ORS 137.390 provides that "[t]he commencement, term and termination of a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail is to be ascertained by the rule prescribed in ORS 137.370 ***.” That statute provides in relevant part:

> "(2) The time that a person sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary or the correctional institution is confined after arrest and prior to his delivery thereat *shall be computed by the sheriff*and considered part of his sentence actually served in the penitentiary or the correctional institution.” (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus it is the sheriff and not the trial judge who has the responsibility of crediting defendant with time served after his arrest. Therefore, the present appeal is improper. We do not decide whether the defendant is entitled to credit for the time he was held in Washington pending extradition.

Affirmed.
# C_2004118EN.01003802.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/38

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 April 2004

in Case T-277/02: Athanacia-Nancy Pascall v Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Officials - Open competition - Oral test - Omission from the reserve list - Action for annulment)

(2004/C 118/81)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-277/02: Athanacia-Nancy Pascall, an official of the Commission of the European Communities residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and D. Zahariou) – application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition Council/A/393 for the drawing up of a reserve list of administrators of Greek mother-tongue to award the applicant lower marks than the minimum required for her oral test and not to place her on the reserve list – the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of J. Pirrung, Judge; I. Natsinas (Administrator), Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of the applicant's costs; and |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay a quarter of the applicant's costs; and

| 3. | Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 9.1.2002.

1

---
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 23

- 1139

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lamonte Dior Dickens

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________

Submitted: October 16, 2023

Filed: November 13, 2023 [U npublished ]

____________ Before GRUENDER, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court 1 sentenced Lamont e Dickens to 46 months in prison after
he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable

.

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams , United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa

.-2- We conclude otherwise . See United States v. Harris

, 960 F.3d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion) ; United States v. Callaway

, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that a within

- Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable). The record establishes that the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United States v.
Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461

– 62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). In doing so, t he court specifically discussed several mitigating factors , but ultimately placed greater weight on Dickens’s criminal history and resistance to rehabilitation. There was no
abuse of discretion

, s ee United States v. Keating , 579 F.3d 891, 893

– 94 (8th Cir. 2009) , so we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 99.5
                                                                ------------



          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Board of Directors of Precision Drilling Corporation
as Administrator to Precision Drilling Trust


We consent to the use of our audit report, dated March 2, 2006, included in
this annual report on Form 40-F.

We also  consent to the  incorporation  by  reference of such report in the
registration  statement  (File No.  333-115330)  on Form F-10 of  Precision
Drilling Corporation.




/s/KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants
Calgary, Canada
March 2, 2006
Exhibit 13.1

ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned, Shih-Jye Cheng, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD. (the
Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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: June 4, 2009



/s/ Shih-Jye ChengName:

Shih-Jye ChengTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**







**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/A for the fiscal period ended
      September 30, 2006 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:
                July 10, 2007/s/
                CLAUDIA M. PIEROPANClaudia
                M. PieropanChief
                Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 3:01 PM

To: 'daring92@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Petition for Exemption: Chad Daring (FAA-2015-0792)



### May 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Daring:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0792). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, S ection 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operat ion please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Siemens Aktiengesellschaft (the
Company);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; and3.
    
    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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
  /s/ Peter LöscherName:
    Peter LöscherTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JOSEPH ANTHONY JENKINS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 525 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                               JO-ANN STORES, INC.

                  LIST OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN
         THE REGISTRANT'S 1979 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED

-        David Bolen
-        Brian Carney
-        Rosalind Thompson

                                       86
p. 1


# OAR Box 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 51 ) ll-E-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:04

AM Sheet 51 of 264P. 2

#>/
- ' / CONTAC T REPOR T FOR

M PE S PROJEC T NO . N20 4

Dat e Compan y 9-22-9 3 Structura l Nort hAmeric a Description : Contac t Ke n Ziernick y Phon e (216 ) 286-411 6
Structura l use s a water-base d resi n fo r sprayin g a binde r fo r fabricate d preforms . Th e companymake s wate r tank s and hazardou s wast e tanks . Thi s resi n ha s bee n use d fo r 2 o r 3 year s ver ysuccessfull y accordin g t o Structural . On e hal f o f th e plan t use s thi s process , th e othe r hal f use s styrene-base d resins ; th e facilit ydoe s no t inten d t o switc hentirel yt o water-base d resins . Th e reaso n fo r switchin g wa s t o mee t th e Ohi o EP A8 lb/hr , 4 0 lb/da yVO C limit . Th e proces s descriptio n an d tw o supplier s o f wate r base d resin s ar e i n th e PE S CB I fil e (CN-N027-10) . d c



## I ° Tl 

## 91995l lP. 3



### Docke tNo . Categor y <$~g Th e followin g infonnatio n i s locate d i n th e confidentia l file s o f th e Director , Emissio

nStandard

s Division , Offic e o f

Ai rQuality Plannin

gan d Standards , U

. S . Environmenta

l Protectio nAgency

, Researc h Triangl e Park

, Nort h Carolina27711 . This informatio ni s confidentia l pending fina l determinatio n b

y the Administrato ran

d i s notavailabl e fo rpubli cinspection . <f//fcon: D. C'^S/jfmes, -/o k. Z><r>.'ek /t SA^AW 7 

### /l/otih A">J<*' ) 

### 'o, dofft^S>sp't*yr.t>/r-.ZZ ) 

### .l142>. 77?/ $ fsdrcen d*y./*;»s J)n]o^rr.a4> y Or1 a ho a/

Jy/?, s ~f*lS feUo S*,ff*4>x *«t oJ /*i* U/*/*nrbAS^sf^Y^srtns, *f/r* 'ro#f/^'Ort/af



# I
No. 82-5985.

#### Wojcik *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned, as principal executive officer and principal financial officer of Zalicus Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify that to their knowledge:

1) the Companys Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) the information contained in the Companys
Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/S/    MARK H.N.
CORRIGANMark H.N. CorriganPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer)/S/    JUSTIN A.
RENZJustin A. RenzExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial and accounting officer)


Dated: April 30, 2014
**EXHIBIT 11.2**

 

**DUKE REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP**

**EARNINGS TO DEBT SERVICE CALCULATIONS**

**(in thousands)**

 
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Six Months**               | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Ended June 30, 2005** | ** ** |
|                                                                 |       |                         |       |
| Net income from  continuing operations, less preferred distributions |       | $                            | 62,420     |   |
| Interest expense  (excludes amortization of deferred financing fees) |       | 68,091                       |       |
| Earnings before  debt service                                        |       | $                            | 130,511    |   |
|                                                                 |       |                         |       |
| Interest expense  (excludes amortization of deferred financing fees) |       | $                            | 68,091     |   |
| Recurring  principal amortization                                    |       | 3,406                        |       |
| Total debt  service                                                  |       | $                            | 71,497     |   |
|                                                                 |       |                         |       |
| **Ratio  of earnings to debt service**                               | ** ** | **1.83**                     | ** ** |

 

----
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-4866 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NE-33-AD

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the “Update Fields” button to automatically fill in the totals.

Update Fields

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replacement 2

nd stage 

compressor impeller.

See Note 1

See Note 2 $ 0.00 $1,513.25 $1,513.25 4,000 $6,053,000.

00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: Number

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,053,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $Warranty

On-Condition Costs: 

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

Inspection $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs)

Note 1: Serviceable part cost calculated as follows: pro-rated part cost = $12,500 based on 50% of impeller 

new part cost of $25,000 for 200 engines; total pro-rated cost = $2.5M; plus rework costs (with impeller regrind) 16 hours labor @ $85/hour for 1,900 engines = $2.584M; plus rework costs (without impeller regrind) 6 hours labor @ $85/hour for 1,900 engines = $0.969M; Total Cost = $6.053M.

Note 2: There are no labor costs for removal or replacement because these actions will occur at the next 

scheduled removal of the 2nd stage compressor impeller within the required compliance times.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* ☐ NO ☐

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* ☐ NO ☐

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES ☐ NO ☐

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* ☐ NO ☐
#### ALEXANDER ENGLAND v. WILLIAM DUCKWORTH.

A Judge of the Superior Court should pass on a inotion for a. *new Mai at*the term of the court at which the trial was had. He has no authority to continue such motion to a subsequent term. (C. C. P., sfe'c'. 236; sub-sec. 4.)

Civil Action, tried before Cannon, J., at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Transylvania County.

The facts pertinent to the decision of this Court are set out in the opinion of Justice Rodman.

There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

*J II. Memmon,*for the appellant.

J. O. *L. Harris,*contra.

Rodman, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $44.18 before a Justice of the Peace, and the defendant appealed. There was a trial *de novo*in the Superior Court, where the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and a judgment was entered accordingly. At the same term of the Court the defendant moved for a new trial, whereupon the Judge ordered that the motion be continued until the next term, and that the judgment be stricken out, and that the plaintiff be allowed to take the deposition of a certain witness. At the next term the Judge granted a new trial, and the plaintiff appealed.

We are of opinion that under sec. 236 of C. C. P., sub-sec. 4, the Judge should have passed on the motion for a new trial at the term at which the trial was had, and had no right to decide on it at a subsequent term. He is expressly forbidden to do so by the section cited. One reason for this rule is, that at the trial term the evidence will be fresh in *310the Judge’s memory; and another is, that a party having a verdict should not be unreasonably delayed of his judgment.

Pee Curiam. The judgment granting a new trial is reversed, and the plaintiff will have judgment in this Court.