alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsResearch Information Letters

# Research Information Letters – 1992

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, June 10, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1994
          - 1993
          - 1992
          - 1991
          - 1990
          - 1989
          - 1988
          - 1987
          - 1986
          - 1985
          - 1984
          - 1983
          - 1982
          - 1981
          - 1980
          - 1979
          - 1978
          - 1977
          - 1976
          - 1974
          - Contact Us About Research Information Letters

#### 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 Wednesday, June 10, 2020
#### Quinn, Respondent, vs. Haas and another, Appellants.

For the appellants : *Doar & Knowles*of New Richmond *

For the respondent: *Tom L. Yates*of Amery.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Combined Licenses for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3 (NUREG-2153)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 98-4639 DARTY JAMES REED, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-97-448) Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 28, 1999 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Robert C. Bonsib, MARCUS & BONSIB, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Steven M. Dettelbach, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Appellant Darty James Reed appeals from his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). We affirm. Sufficient probable cause existed to support Reed's arrest, and the district court did not err in denying Reed's motion to suppress. See United States v. Han , 74 F.3d 537, 540-41 (4th Cir. 1996). Reed failed to show that disclosure of the confidential informant's identity would significantly aid his defense, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order disclosure. See Roviaro v. United States , 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957); United States v. D'Anjou , 16 F.3d 604, 609 (4th Cir. 1994). The district court similarly did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on the narcotics trade, see United States v. Brewer , 1 F.3d 1430, 1435 (4th Cir. 1993), or in declining to give a reasonable doubt jury instruction. See United States v. Williams , 152 F.3d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 1998). The court's decision not do depart downward from the sentencing range is not reviewable. See United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.3d 28,30-31 (4th Cir. 1990). Finally, the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument did not so prejudicially affect Reed's substantial rights as to deprive him of a fair trial, and we find no reason to disturb the court's refusal to order a mistrial. See United States v. Wilson , 135 F.3d 291, 297-302 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1852 (1998). We affirm Reed's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 40-F
 o
    
    Registration statement pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 or
 þ
    
    Annual report pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010
 Commission file number: 001-14534
 PRECISION DRILLING CORPORATION
  Alberta, Canada
    
    1381
    
    Not Applicable(Province or other jurisdiction of
    
    (Primary Standard Industrial
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification)incorporation or organization)
    
    Classification Code Number)
 4200-150 6th Avenue, S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3Y7

(403) 716-4500
 Precision Drilling Oilfield Services Corporation, 10370 Richmond Avenue, Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77042

 (713) 435-6184
  Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Shares
    
    New York Stock Exchange
    þ þ
   o þ
  þ o
  o o
  Form
    
    Registration No.S-8
    
    333-167614F-10
    
    333-167610




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  SIGNATURESEXHIBITSEX-23.1EX-31.1EX-31.2EX-32.1EX-32.2EX-99.1EX-99.2EX-99.3    Table of Contents  DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
  INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING
  AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
  CODE OF ETHICS
  PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
  OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
  TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
  IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
  Chairman:
    
    Patrick M. MurrayMembers:
    
    Robert L. PhillipsAllen R. HagermanRobert J.S. GibsonWilliam T. Donovan
 -2-




---



##### Table of Contents



UNDERTAKING
  
 SIGNATURES
  Precision Drilling CorporationBy:
    /s/ Kevin A. NeveuName:
    Kevin A. NeveuTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer  
 EXHIBITS
 ExhibitNumber
    
    Description23.1
    
    Consent of KPMG LLP, Chartered Accountants.31.1
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.31.2
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.32.1
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.32.2
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.99.1
    
    Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.99.2
    
    Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.99.3
    
    Consolidated Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.
 -3-
1 The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1516

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa George Harper, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 14, 2001 Filed: December 5, 2001

___________ Before BYE, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. The district court 1 dismissed as time-barred George Harper's initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which sought retroactive application of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We subsequently determined that Apprendi may not be applied retroactively to initial § 2255 motions. United States v. Moss , 252 F.3d 993, 997 (8th-2- Cir. 2001); see also Murphy v. United States , 268 F.3d 599, 601 (8th Cir. 2001) (applying Moss ); Jarrett v. United States , 266 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2001) (same). Our decision in Moss is fatal to Harper's Apprendiclaim. We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Harper's § 2255 motion. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHILDTIME
LEARNING CENTERS, INC FORM 10-Q FOR QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 2, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1998
<CASH>                                           1,977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                       215
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,952
<PP&E>                                          43,877
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,212
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,364
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,612
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   66,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (188)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,985
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,985
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.55
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Precision Drilling Corporation on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Precision Drilling Corporation, hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Precision Drilling Corporation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                                                                                             
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: |  | March 9, 2016                                                                               
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ Robert McNally                                                                          
|       |  | Robert J. McNally, Executive Vice President                  
and Chief Financial Officer of
|       |  | Precision Drilling Corporation                                                              



10
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Aniva Marrero, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 732]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cozier, J.), rendered June 9, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*678The defendant contends that the evidence against him is legally insufficient to prove that he knowingly possessed cocaine. We disagree. As part of a so-called buy-and-bust operation in an area of Brooklyn where drugs are known to be sold, Undercover Police Officer 3206 approached codefendant Hector Rivera and asked him if he had any "pedico,” a slang term for cocaine. Rivera told the officer that he was waiting for some. Seconds later, the defendant appeared carrying a paper bag, which he gave to Rivera. Rivera and the officer walked several feet from the defendant. Rivera then took six aluminum-foil packets out of the paper bag and handed them to the officer. The officer paid Rivera with $30 of prerecorded money. The packets were later found to contain cocaine. Under these circumstances, we find that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Reisman,*29 NY2d 278, *cert denied*405 US 1041; *People v Blythe,*203 AD2d 472).

It was not necessary for the trial court to specifically charge the jury that it might infer that the defendant knew he possessed a controlled substance from his possession thereof when it had already instructed the jury that it might "draw proper, reasonable and just inferences from the testimony.” Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                            
                                                         Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                                                              (Unaudited)
 
                                                             Three Months Ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                                      Dec. 31,          Dec. 31,           Dec. 31,           Dec. 31,

                                                         1997               1996               1997              1996
                                                         ----               ----               ----              ----
                                                   <S>                 <C>               <C>                <C>
 
Weighted average common shares
     outstanding                                    7,562,500          7,562,500         7,562,500          7,150,416

Dilutive effect of common equivalent                      --                 --                 --                 --  
    shares(a)                                       ---------           --------          --------           --------        
  Weighted average shares outstanding               7,562,500          7,562,500         7,562,500          7,150,416
                                                    =========          =========         =========          =========
                                                        
Net loss                                         $(1,068,331)       $(2,046,936)      $(3,024,135)       $(5,199,487)
                                                  ===========        ===========       ===========        =========== 

Fully diluted earnings per share(b)              $      (.14)       $      (.27)      $      (.40)            $ (.73)
                                                  ===========        ===========        ==========             ====== 

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

     (a) Calculates the dilutive effect of outstanding  stock options based upon
         the "Treasury Stock Method".
     (b) As fully  diluted  earning per share and primary  earnings per share
         are equal,  only fully diluted  earnings per share will be disclosed in
         the Form 10-QSB.

</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 20, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00802

- CV

Ryshea Holmes, Appellant

v.

CF Cricket Hollow Associates d/b/a Cricket Hollow, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS CO UNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on December 3, 2018 . Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not

comply with a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, t he Court dismisses the appeal for

want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of

costs is made.
Tribal NSR Meeting

Friday, June 3, 2011

Meeting Note to the Docket

Discussion Topics

On June 3, 2011, representatives from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

(Laura McKelvey and Jessica Montanez) participated in a outreach conference call to 

answer questions from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians on the rule titled: “Review 

of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country,” commonly known as the “Tribal 

NSR Rule.” During this meeting the tribal representatives, Jim Cohen, Syndi 

Smallwoood, and Helen Waquiu commented or asked various questions related to this 

action including: 

• Treatment of Existing Sources. Tribal representatives expressed concerns about 

how the rule will affect existing sources in Indian country.

• Rule Implementation. Tribal representatives wanted us to clarify how the rule 

would be implemented by EPA or a tribe that requests delegation of this program. 

They were concerned about their ability to collect fees for permitting and if there 

would be any funding available for those tribes that would like to request 

delegation of the program. 

• Rule Burden. Tribal representatives expressed concerns about the burden this rule 

might cause to small tribes. They argued that this rule would be one more thing to 

do for tribes that already might not have adequate resources to implement existing 

programs.

• Opt-in Option. Tribal representatives favored establishing this rule as an optional 

rule. They would like us to only implement the rule in those areas of Indian 

country for which tribes have expressed a desire to implement this program.
Unassociated Document


    
      Exhibit
10.1

       

      


       

    

    SECOND
AMENDMENT TO

    EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT is entered into by and between Gastar Exploration Ltd., a
Canadian corporation, Gastar Exploration USA, Inc., a Michigan corporation
(together, the “Company’), and J. Russell Porter (“Porter”) as of February 3,
2011.

    


    WHEREAS, the Company and
Porter have heretofore entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective
as of March 23, 2005 (the “Employment Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the Company and
Porter have heretofore entered in the First Amendment to the Employment
Agreement effective July 25, 2008;

    


    WHEREAS, the Company and
Porter desire to amend the Employment Agreement by mutual consent;

    


    NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual agreements set
forth herein, the Company and Porter hereby agree, effective as of the date set
forth above, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as provided
below:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              1.

            	
              Section
      8(a) “When Severance is Paid.” is amended to read as
    follows:

            


    

    “Company
shall pay a severance benefit to Porter if Porter’s employment is terminated
pursuant to Section 4(a), 4(b), and/or 4(d).  No severance shall be
paid if Porter’s employment is terminated pursuant to Sections 4(c) and
4(e).”

    


    Except as expressly modified by the
First Amendment and this Second Amendment, the terms of the Employment Agreement
shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby confirmed and
ratified.

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first set
forth above.

     

     

    
      
        	
                GASTAR
      EXPLORATION USA., INC f/k/a/

              	
                GASTAR
      EXPLORATION LTD.

              
	
                FIRST
      SOURCENERGY WYOMING, INC.

              	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                BY:

              	
                /s/ Michael A. Gerlich

              	 
      	
                BY:

              	/s/
      Michael A. Gerlich	
                 

              


      

      
        	
                Name:

              	
                Michael
      A. Gerlich

              	 
      	
                Name:

              	
                Michael
      A. Gerlich

              
	
                Title:

              	
                CFO
      and Vice President

              	 
      	
                Title:

              	
                CFO
      and Vice President

              


      

       

      
        	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                PORTER

              	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                /s/ J. RUSSELL PORTER

              	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	
                J.
      Russell Porter
*December 3, 1940.*

#### Page, Respondent, vs. City of Green Bay, Appellant.

*663For the appellant: *Thos. C. Dwyer,*attorney, and *Clement W. Dwyer*of counsel, both of Green Bay.

For the respondent: *Davis & Davis*of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on December 3. 1940.