alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004217EN.01000802.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-311/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/44/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2004/C 217/15)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-311/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees within the prescribed period, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees within the prescribed period, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Strategies for Application of Isotopic Uncertainties in Burnup Credit (NUREG/CR-6811)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6811 (PDF - 18.43 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2002**Date Published:** June 2003

**Prepared by:** 1. C. Gauld

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

R Y. Lee, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code W6479

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Uncertainties in the predicted isotopic concentrations in spent nuclear fuel represent one of the largest sources of overall uncertainty in criticality calculations that use burnup credit. The methods used to propagate the uncertainties in the calculated nuclide concentrations to the uncertainty in the predicted neutron multiplication factor (keff) of the system can have a significant effect on the uncertainty in the safety margin in criticality calculations and ultimately affect the potential capacity of spent fuel transport and storage casks employing bumup credit. Methods that can provide a more accurate and realistic estimate of the uncertainty may enable increased spent fuel cask capacity and fewer casks needing to be transported, thereby reducing regulatory burden on licensee while maintaining safety for transporting spent fuel. This report surveys several different best-estimate strategies for considering the effects of nuclide uncertainties in bumup-credit analyses. The potential benefits of these strategies are illustrated for a prototypical burnup-credit cask design. The subcritical margin estimated using best-estimate methods is discussed in comparison to the margin estimated using conventional bounding methods of uncertainty propagation. To quantify the comparison, each of the strategies for estimating uncertainty has been performed using a common database of spent fuel isotopic assay measurements for pressurized light-water reactor fuels and predicted nuclide concentrations obtained using the current version of the SCALE code system. The experimental database applied in this study has been significantly expanded to include new high-enrichment and high-burnup spent fuel assay data recently published for a wide range of important burnup-credit actinides and fission products. Expanded rare earth fission-product measurements performed at the Khlopin Radium Institute in Russia that contain the only known publicly available measurement for 03Rh have also been included.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2005



The undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Joseph J. BouffardName:

Joseph J. BouffardTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ Michael J. DeeName:

Michael J. DeeTitle:

Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Controller




November 14, 2005



23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,359,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              145,933,962
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,089,139
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,093,589
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 286,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             278,360,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      231,532,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,620,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,718,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               278,360,266
<SALES>                                      3,090,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,622,908
<CGS>                                        1,660,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,962,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,286,119
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,960,833
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,963,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                   671,083
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,292,315
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60
        

</TABLE>
No. 82-5869.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2014–0561 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NE-12-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

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

Inspection and 

parts removal 1.2 $ 102.00 $ 102.00 58 $5,916.00

Replacement parts $ 0.00 $5,850 $5,850.00 58 $339,300.00

$ 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: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $345,216

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 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):
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 

*Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02360]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Open Platform for NVF Project, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 12, 2015, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Open Platform for NVF 
Project, Inc. (``Open Platform for NVF Project'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Array Networks, 
Inc., Milpitas, CA; ENEA Software AB, Kista, SWEDEN; KT, Seongnam City, 
GyeongGi-do, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Midokura USA Inc., San Francisco, CA; 
Sonus Networks, Westford, MA; Xilinx, Inc., San Jose, CA; and ZTE 
Corporation, Shenzhen PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been added as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Open Platform for NVF Project 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On October 17, 2014, Open Platform for NVF Project filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 14, 2014 (79 FR 68301).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-02360 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6779-6780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02363]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service <SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Effective date: February 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

[[Page 6780]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service [supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 30, 2015, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail 
Contract 111 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2015-30, CP2015-39.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Requirements.
[FR Doc. 2015-02363 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
B a se d o n the lim ite d in fo rm atio n p ro vid e d b y the pr o s e a

pp e lla nt i n h is n oti c e of

a pp e a l, 1 this cause number

was orig inally

styled Clif

f B urke v. Texas Departm en t of Family &Protective Servic es . T he sty

le ha s si nc e be e n c or

re c te d to a c c ur ate ly

re fl e c t th e pa

rt ie s to thi s a

pp e a l. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 7 -00 718 -CV

Cl iff Bur ke , A ppe lla nt

v. Dana Sh arp , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 395TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 03- 1101 -F 395 , HO NORAB LE MI CHAEL JERGINS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N
Our o pin ion

iss ue d o n M arc h 2 1, 20 08 , is he re by wi th draw n a

nd the fo llo wi ngis substitut ed in lieu there of. 1

Appellant Cliff B urke, a

ppear ing pr o se, is cu rr en t l y incar cer ated in the Ar izona Depa rtment of Corre ctions. Bur ke has not made arr ang ements t o pay for the c lerk’s r ecor d, which
w a s d u e o nD e c e mb e r

2 7 , 2 0 0 7 , n o r

h a s h e p a i d

th e $ 1 7 5
. 0 0 f

e e f o r f i l i n ga n o t i c e o f ap p e a l
. In
a dd iti on , B ur

ke ha s n ot ye t f

ile d a do c ke tin gstate me nt a s r e qu ir e d b y Te xas R ule of Ap pe llate Procedur e 32.1.

On Marc h 10, 2008, Bur

ke filed a n aff idavit of indige nce in this Court. SeeTe x. R. App. P. 20.1. An aff

idavit of i ndige nce must be filed in the t rial court with or befor e the notice of2

appea l. Id
. An appellant must be g iven time to cure any defe cts befor e the appe al may be dismissed for nonc ompliance. See H igg i n s v. R a n dall Count y Sheriff’s Office , 193 S.W .3d 898, 899 (Tex. 2006). As a r esult, we a bate this cause and forwa

rd Bur ke’s aff idavit of indige ncy to the trial
c ourt . A ny

c onte st t o th e a ff

ida vit mus t be fil e d in th e tr ia l c ourt wi thi n 1 5 d ay s o f t

he date of thi s order . In the eve nt that a contest is fi l ed , the trial cour t is ordere d to proce ed as r equire d by Texas Rule of Appellate Proc edure 20.1(i). See also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.003 (We st 2 00 2) . T he tr ia l c ourt is f ur the r o rd e re d to forwa

rd a re c or d o f a ll d oc ume nts re le va nt t o Bur ke’s indig ency

claim and the tr ial court’s f indings of f

act a nd conclusions of law

to this C ourt within 30 day s of the date of this order.

__________________________________________ Diane H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Puryear and He nson Abated Filed: Apr il 10, 2008
#### Canniff, Respondent, vs. Tittle Brothers Packing Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Sutherland, Hughes & Sutherland*of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent: *Reilly & O’Brien*and *Frank W. Cos-grove,*all of Fond du Lac.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF
        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of
        Morris Business Development Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
        ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        on or
        about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George P. Morris, Chief Financial
        Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)           Information
        contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
                  June 29, 2007
              /s/
                  George MorrisBy:  George
                  P. MorrisIts:  Chief
                  Financial Officer
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Morris Business Development Company and will be retained by Morris Business
        Development Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
        or
        its staff upon request.
# Conservation Technical Assistance: Benefits

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Getting Assistance 
-  Conservation Technical Assistance: Benefits 

Seven out of every ten acres of our Nation's land is privately owned. Helping farmers, ranchers and forestland owners improve the health of their working lands helps protect our natural resources while helping to ensure the longevity of American agriculture.

The Conservation Technical Assistance program (CTA) helps our customers take advantage of opportunities and address, concerns, related to the use of natural resources on their lands. The Nation benefits from our customers' conservation stewardship with improved agricultural productivity; cleaner, safer, and more dependable water supplies; clean air; abundant wildlife; enhanced recreational opportunities; tranquil and scenic landscapes; reduced damages caused by flood, fires, and other natural disasters; and an enhanced natural resource base to support continued economic development.

In addition to one-on-one assistance supporting our nation’s farmers, ranchers and foresters, the CTA program has led to the following advances in agricultural conservation:
              - New technologies and conservation practices to address emerging challenges that result from greater scientific understanding as well as an increasing number of Federal, State, and local laws and policies on environmental quality that place new requirements on landowners and land-users.
              - Inventory and evaluation of soil, water, animal, plant, air, and other resources to help landowners and managers make land use, environmental, and conservation treatment decisions and help them in applying and maintaining conservation practices.
              - Design, layout, and evaluation of over 167 potential conservation practices.
              - Development of suites of practices including management alternatives and cultural practices needed to ensure all resource issues are addressed and treated at the appropriate level of conservation.
              - Area-wide, community or watershed plans, supported by local stakeholders, which identify high priority resource concerns and identify the methods used to address the concerns and the source of potential funding.
              - Educational and informational workshops and tours highlighting local conservation activities.

##   Related Pages

Conservation Technical Assistance
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) provides our nation’s farmers, ranchers and forestland owners with the knowledge and tools they need to conserve, maintain and restore the natural resources on their lands and improve t...

### Conservation Technical Assistance Program: Purpose

The Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTA) provides land users with one-on-one advice, proven conservation technologies and the delivery system needed to achieve the benefits of a healthy and productive landscape.

### Conservation Technical Assistance Program: How it Works

The CTA program works through a voluntary conservation network that fosters partnership between NRCS, conservation districts, state conservation agencies, and millions of private landowners.
# C_2004284EN.01001601.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 21 September 2004

in Case T-325/02: Michel Soubies v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Officials - Re-assignment of an official in Grade A 3 as adviser ad personam - Restructuring of the Secretariat-General - Correspondence between grade and post)

(2004/C 284/32)

Language of the case: French

In case T-352/02: Michel Soubies, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's Decision of 26 November 2001 re-assigning the applicant to the ‘Institutional matters’ unit of the ‘Forward Studies’ Directorate of the Secretariat–General as adviser ad personam in Grade A 3 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders both parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders both parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

1

---