alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

July 8 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk July 8 , 2016

15 3 980 ( 73 )

In re Estate of JAMES ERWIN, SR.

BEATRICE KING, Individually and as Personal

Representative of the Estate of JAMES ERWIN, SR.,

Appellant,

SC: 153980

v COA: 323387

Saginaw Probate Ct : 13

- 130558

- DE

JACQUELINE E. NASH, BILLY J. ERWIN,

DEMARKIUS ERWIN, MAGGIE ERWIN, and

STACY ERWIN OAKES,

Appellees.

In re Estate of JAMES ERWIN, SR.

BEATRICE KING,

Appellant,

SC: 153981

v COA: 329264

Saginaw Probate Ct : 13

- 130558

- DE

JACQUELINE E. NASH, BILLY J. ERWIN,

DEMARKIUS ERWIN, MAGGIE ERWIN,

STACY ERWIN OAKES, and DOUGLAS

TAYLOR,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of appellee Maggie Erwin to extend the

time for filing h er answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The

answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before August 9 , 2016.
*June 22, 1936.*

#### Wolfinger, Appellant, vs. Town of Buchanan, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Schmiege & Burley*of Appleton.

For the respondent: *Stanley A. Staidl*of Appleton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffConsolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)

# Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Program-Specific Guidance About Academic, Research and Development, and Other Licenses of Limited Scope, Including Electron Capture Devices and X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzers (NUREG-1556, Volume 7, Revision 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1556, Volume 7, Revision 1 (PDF - 7.14 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2018**Date Published:** February 2018

**Prepared by:**K. AveryM. HammondS. HawkinsB. ParkerB. Ullrich

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This technical report contains information intended to provide program-specific guidance and assist applicants and licensees in preparing applications for materials licenses for academic, research and development, and other licenses of limited scope (ARDL). In particular, it describes the types of information needed to complete U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Form 313, "Application for Materials License." This document describes both the methods acceptable to the NRC license reviewers in implementing the regulations and the techniques used by the reviewers in evaluating the application to determine if the proposed activities are acceptable for licensing purposes.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: FORTIETH STATEWIDE

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

PETITION OF: E.W. :

:

:

:

: No. 102 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of December , 2018, in consideration of the Petition for

Review, the temporary redaction of Petitioner’s name and other identifying information

from Report 1 of the Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury is made permanent. See

In re Fortieth Statewide Investigating Gran d Jury , 190 A.3d 560 (Pa. 2018); In re Fortieth

Statewide Investigating Grand Jury , 2018 WL _________ (Pa. Dec. 3, 2018).

The Motion to Unseal and the Application to Lift Stay are DENIED. The Application

for Stay is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

The instant order is unsealed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6316

VINCENT ELLIOT WILSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAPTAIN BURGESS, #685; BETH ARTHUR, Sheriff,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00662-DJN-MRC)

Submitted: July 18, 2023 Decided: November 14, 2023

Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Elliot Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6316 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/14/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Elliot Wilson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a 

claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s order. Wilson v. Burgess, No. 3:22-cv-00662-DJN-MRC (E.D. Va. 

Mar. 14, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6316 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/14/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests

# Recent FOIA Requests for 2014

The following pages present chronological listings of Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Requests submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during each month of the current fiscal year. These listings include the subject and reference number of each request. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010

#### 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 9, 2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6738

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RANDY JAY MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-109-A, CA-97-612-AM)

Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Jay Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Constance Harriet Frogale,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal from the district court's orders

dismissing for failure to obtain authorization pursuant to 28

U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1997), his second motion filed under

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Miller, Nos. CR-89-109-A; CA-97-

612-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 29, 1997). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffBackfitting Guidelines (NUREG-1409)

# Backfitting Guidelines - Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1409, Revision 1)

This NUREG-series publication was issued for public comment. The comment period is now closed.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1409, Revision 1 (PDF - 1.44 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: ****Date Published: **
 

Prepared by:H. BenowitzA. KlettT. Reed

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDivision of Operating Reactor LicensingWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

*Code of Federal Regulations*
 

Backfitting occurs when the NRC imposes new or changed regulatory requirements or staff interpretations of the regulations or requirements on nuclear power reactor licensees, certain nuclear power reactor applicants, or select nuclear materials licensees. Backfitting is an integral part of the regulatory process and may be needed when the staff addresses safety or security issues. The NRC may take a backfitting action only after conducting a formal, systematic review to ensure that the action is defined and justified. This process ensures discipline, predictability, and optimal use of NRC and licensee resources. The backfitting requirements are in 10 CFR 50.109, "Backfitting," 70.76, "Backfitting," 72.62, "Backfitting," and 76.76, "Backfitting." Provisions analogous to the backfitting requirements, referred to as issue finality provisions, are set forth in 10 CFR Part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."

Forward fitting occurs when the NRC conditions its approval of a licensee–initiated request for a licensing action on the licensee's compliance with a new or modified requirement or staff interpretation of a requirement that the licensee did not request. The new or modified requirement or staff interpretation must result in, generally, a change to the licensee's systems, structures, components, design, approval, procedures, or organization.

The NRC issued the previous version of this NUREG in 1990, but the 1990 document did not address the backfitting requirements in 10 CFR Part 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material," 10 CFR Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High–Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor–Related Greater Than Class C Waste," or 10 CFR Part 76, "Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants"; the issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52; or the Commission's forward fitting policy in Management Directive 8.4, most of which were developed after 1990. This version of NUREG–1409 is a substantial revision of the 1990 version and addresses all backfitting and issue finality provisions in the regulations listed above and the Commission's backfitting, issue finality, and forward fitting policies.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# L_2015280EN.01003802.xml

| 24.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 280/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 280/38

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 239 of 15 September 2015
  )

On page 31, Annex (amendment of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014), Section II, Persons, entry 1, column ‘Name’:

for:

‘Sergei Valerievich AKSENOV (Сер Валерьевич AKCëHOB)’,

read:

‘Sergei Valerievich AKSENOV (Сергей Валерьевич AKCëHOB)’.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1





                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-22845-99, 333-22823-99,
333-52755-99, 333-33756-99 and 333-63154), Form S-4 (Registration No.
333-34162-99), Form S-3 (Registration Nos. 333-33432-99 and 333-32668-99) and
Form S-1 (Registration No. 333-20357-99) of Pegasus Communications Corporation
and its subsidiaries of our report dated February 20, 2004 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 15, 2004
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 16, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00223

- CR

Carlos FAZ

,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10674 The Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On May 13, 2015, appellant’s retained appellate attorney George Scharmen filed a motion to withdraw stating Robert F. Gebbia had been retained; however, a notice of appearance filed by Mr. Gebbia in the trial court stated he had not been retained for purposes of appeal. On June 2, 2015, this court ordered Mr. Gebbia to file a response to the motion to withdraw. On June 11, 2015, Mr. Gebbia filed a response stating he had been retained to repres ent appellant on appeal. The motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the clerk of this court is directed to update this court’s records to reflect Mr. Gebbia as appellant’s retained attorney for purposes of this appeal.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 16th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5876]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02028]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Eagle Fund III-A, L.P.; License No. 07/07-0117]


Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Eagle Fund III-A, L.P., 101 S. Hanley 
Road, Suite 1250, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, a Federal Licensee under 
the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the ``Act''), in 
connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an 
exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730, Financings 
which Constitute Conflicts of Interest, of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations. Eagle Fund III-A, L.P., 
provided a loan to Net Direct Merchants LLC, (``Net Direct''), 217 
North Seminary Street, Florence AL, 35630. The financing was 
contemplated to provide capital that contributes to the growth and 
overall sound financing of Net Direct.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
because Eagle Fund II, L.P., an Associate of Eagle Fund III-A, L.P. as 
defined in Sec.  107.50, owns a ten percent or greater equity interest 
in Net Direct. Accordingly, Net Direct is considered an Associate of 
Eagle Fund III-A, L.P.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator, 
Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business 
Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Javier E. Saade,
Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.
[FR Doc. 2015-02028 Filed 2-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Some Observations On Risk-Informing Appendices A & B to 10 CFR Part 50 (NUREG-1755)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1755 (PDF 5.17 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2001**Date Published:** January 2002

**Prepared by:** J.N. Sorensen, Senior Fellow

**Prepared for:** Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report was prepared for the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to provide a basis for discussing possible changes to the general design criteria (GDC) of Appendix A to Title 10, Part 50, of the *Code of Federal Regulations* in order to make them more consistent with a risk-informed regulatory structure. The three broad options identified include (1) changing the scope of the GDC from "important to safety" to "important to risk," (2) modifying individual criteria to address risk more directly, and (3) replacing the GDC with safety goals and risk acceptance criteria. As written, the GDC apply to systems, structures, and components (SSCs) important to safety, which are defined as those SSCs that are required to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no undue risk to public health and safety. If the scope is changed to "important to risk," the GDC can be applied to those SSCs that will have the greatest impact on reducing risk, as measured by risk metrics such as core damage frequency or large early release frequency. Specific changes to improve the risk focus of individual criteria are also discussed. Such changes might involve replacing requirements for redundancy, diversity, and independence with an overall reliability goal for a system or function. Applicability of the GDC to non-light-water reactors (LWRs) is briefly examined, with the conclusion that slightly more than half of the criteria could apply to non-LWRs, but the remainder should be modified or replaced to address phenomena important to the safety of other reactor types. Another brief discussion of the quality assurance requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 concludes that Appendix B has sufficient flexibility to permit less stringent requirements for SSCs that are less important to risk.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, David A. Steinberg, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer) of InPhonic, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 of the Registrant (the
Report), 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    DAVID A.
STEINBERGName:

David A. SteinbergDate:

March 10, 2005
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 4(ii)

                             MULTIPLE VOTING SHARES

================================================================================

                             MULTIPLE VOTING SHARES                  [ILLEGIBLE]
                                       OF
                                PREFERRED STOCK
                          AUTHORIZED 1,050,000 SHARES
                          PAR VALUE $.0001 PER SHARES

This is to Certify that ________________________________________ is the owner of
_________________________________________________________________ fully paid and
non-assessable shares of the above Corporation transferable only on the books of
the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney
upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized
officers.

Dated

[ILLEGIBLE]                                                          [ILLEGIBLE]

================================================================================
fs1a3ex10xiv_internalfix.htm


Exhibit 10.14


 


AMENDED AND RESTA'T'ED


TERMINATION OF THE FIRST


AMENDED AND RESTATED


SHAREHOLDER'S AGREEMENT


 


WHEREAS, Internal Fixation Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), Kenneth West, Matthew Endara, Christopher Endara, Dr. Jaime Carbonell and Dr. Stephen Dresnick have previously entered into that certain First Amended and Restated Shareholder's Agreement, dated as of May 15, 2009 (the "Agreement");


 


WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement have previously entered into that certain Termination of the First Amended and Restated Shareholders' Agreement, dated as of March 18, 2010; and


 


WHEREAS, the parties to the Agreement desire by mutual agreement to clarify that the Agreement is terminated in its entirety.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1. The Agreement be, and hereby is, terminated in its entirety.


 


2. There are no agreements, warranties or representations relating to the Agreement which are not set forth therein or herein. This Amended and Restated Termination may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing duly signed by or on behalf of the parties hereto. This Amended and Restated Termination may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amended and Restated Termination as of February 1, 2011.


 



	 	INTERNAL FIXATION SYSYTEMS, INC
	 	 
	 	By:	  /s/ Stephen Dresnick
	 	 	 Name: Dr. Stephen Dresnick
	 	 	 Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 
	 	 	 /s/ Stephen Dresnick
	 	 	 Dr. Stephen Dresnick
	 	 	 
	 	 	 /s/ Matthew Endara
	 	 	 Matthew Endara
	 	 	 
	 	 	 /s/ Christopher Endara
	 	 	 Christopher Endara
	 	 	 
	 	 	 /s/ Jaime Carbonell
	 	 	 Dr. Jaime Carbonell
	 	 	 
	 	 	 /s/ Kenneth West
	 	 	 Kenneth West