alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. T. POLK.

*Trial —Practice where demurrer is overruled*— Appeal.

1. Upon overruling a demurrer to an indictment, the court should require the defendant to plead, and then proceed with the trial to verdict and judgment.

*2.*An appeal does not lie from, an interlocutory judgment in a criminal action.

*{State*v. *Bailey,*65 N. 0., 426; *State*v. *Pollard,*83 ÍT. 0., 597; *State*v. *MeDowell,*84 N. C., 798, cited and approved.)

INDICTMENT for an assault tried at Spring Term, 1884, of Warren Superior Court, before *Avery, J.*

The defendant was indicted in the inferior court of Warren county for a simple assault and battery, committed within one mile of the court house in Warrenton, where and while that court was sitting. He *demurred*to the indictment, alleging as grounds of demurrer that the court had no jurisdiction of the offence charged.

The court overruled the demurrer, but gave no other judgment, and the defendant appealed to the superior court. *653The latter court affirmed the judgment of the inferior court, and the defendant appealed to this court.

*Attorney-General,*for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

Merrimon, J.

The appeal from the judgment of the inferior court was improperly taken. An appeal in a case like this lies only from a final judgment. The judgment of that court overruling the demurrer was simply interlocutory, and did not in any way determine the action. The court ought to have required the defendant to plead to the indictment and proceed with the trial to verdict and judgment. If the verdict of the jury had been adverse to the defendant, he might then have moved in arrest of judgment, and thus have raised every objection to the indictment, including that to the jurisdiction, that the demurrer could enable him to make.

If his motion in arrest of judgment had been denied and judgment given against him, then he might have appealed to the superior court, taking up all questions of law raised by his exceptions and the record, and if the jupgment of the latter court upon such appeal, had been adverse to him, then he might properly have appealed to this court. *State*v. *Bailey,*65 N. C., 426; *State*v. *Pollard,*83 N. C., 507; *State*v. *McDowell,*84 N. C., 798.

The superior court ought, for the reasons above stated, ito have dismissed the appeal, and the inferior court ought then to have required the defendant to plead to the indictment as we have indicated in this opinion. That is the course yet to be taken.

This appeal was improperly taken, and must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
----

Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-425/04)

(2004/C 300/60)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Wouter Wils and Claudio Loggi, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 20 April 2003.

----

(1)OJ L 110 of 20.04.2001, p. 1.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,030,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,707,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (971,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,122,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,397,000
<PP&E>                                      38,969,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (17,109,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,064,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,411,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,935,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,064,000
<SALES>                                     78,248,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            78,248,000
<CGS>                                       46,526,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               46,526,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,860,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,151,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,715,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,868,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,847,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,847,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.71


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001014372
<NAME> WAXMAN USA INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,186)
<INVENTORY>                                     24,411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,270
<PP&E>                                          15,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,958
<BONDS>                                         49,057
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,944
<SALES>                                        120,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,081
<CGS>                                           86,425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,618
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,144
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,826
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,671
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,155
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,155
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w60






Exhibit 10.60




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO THE

PATRIOT RISK MANAGEMENT, INC. 2006 STOCK OPTION PLAN




     RESOLVED, that Section 4.01 [1] of the 2006 Stock Option Plan is hereby amended to read as
follows:



     “4.01 Number of Shares.




[1] Subject to Section 4.03, the number of shares of stock subject to awards under the Plan
is 128,464.”
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02798]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the U.S. Naval Academy Board of Visitors; Correction

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of partially closed meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy published a document in the Federal 
Register (80 FR 5098) of January 30, 2015, concerning the U.S. Naval 
Academy Board of Visitors meeting on March 2, 2015 in which the 
executive session of this meeting will be closed from 11:00 a.m. to 
12:00 p.m. The document contained an incorrect approving authority.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Eric Madonia, 
USN, Executive Secretary to the Board of Visitors, Office of the 
Superintendent, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402-5000, 410-293-
1503.
    Correction: In the Federal Register (80 FR 5098) of January 30, 
2015, on page 5098, in the second column, correct the approving 
authority to read:
    1. Accordingly, the DoN/Assistant for Administration has determined 
in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public 
because the discussions during the executive session from 11:00 a.m. to 
12:00 p.m. will be concerned with matters coming under sections 552b(c) 
(5), (6), and (7) of title 5, United States Code.

    Dated: February 3, 2015.
N.A. Hagerty-Ford,
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-02798 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa.aspx 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texa s

October 20, 2014

Hon. Laura Hinojosa

District Clerk

100 N Closner

- 1st Floor

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Jessie C. Salazar

Court Reporter

139th District Court

100 N Closner, 2nd Floor

Edinburg, TX 78539 Hon. Noe Gonzalez

370th Di strict Court

Hidalgo County Courthouse

100 North Closner St., 2nd Floor

Edinburg, TX 78539

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Annette Escobar

ACE Court Reporting Service

220 E. University

Edinburg, TX 78539

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00581

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. C

- 6914

- 13

- G

Style : Lupe Rivera v. Leticia "Letty" Lopez

Enclosed please find a copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.

cc: Hon. Gilberto Hinojosa (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Jerad Najv ar (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
# C_2005138EN.01001501.xml

| 7.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/15

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3622 — Valeo/Engel)

(2005/C 138/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3622. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3622. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 2, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00709

- CV

David Jacobsohn, Appellant

v.

402 Lone Star Property, LLC, Appellee

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

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEA R, GOODWIN, AND FIEL D
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 14, 2 013. Having

reviewed the record , the Court holds that David Jacobsohn has not prosecuted his appeal and did

not comply with a notice from the clerk of this court. T he appeal is thus subject to dismissal.

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for wan t of prosecution. Jacobsohn shall pay all costs

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
•

• .

. • .

n •

k'•

•

. •

.

1.:

I

C•S •

'•, i.

•

1

: •

I..

•

•

I.

: •

sj

;

3 •

•

• SPEGIAL-41ANDLINer--

••

Functions: NRA

t.'

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

OFFICE OF Mt VIM MOM

MEMORANDUM.

1130 - 10 Sept

Dr. McMillan 6 Z..

•

General Carter called, dictated the

attached memorandum for your information.

Mr. McCone wanted you_ to know what he was

sending over to the President's Board and

it would pleasure Mr. McCone if he had

some idea of what you were writing or were

going to say before Mr. McCone goes over

on the 13th. •

he was highlighting 1*

Mr. McCone just '

McCort. said.

-•

not be in his office:-

until later this afternoon -- if you need

to get in touch with him. "

.

General Carter said

the memorandum signed by

to let you know what Mr.

General Carter will

. •

•

t

••

• •

.• .

.•

Eleanor

•

ow •

t
• . r.

•

i •

1 •

•

I 1

•

•

I

4

. ; -SPECIAFHANDLINGG3,

MORAN= TO MR. BUNDY - TO THE PRESIDENT'S BOARD

REFERENCE: Mr. Binidy's memorandum of 7 June, subject:

National Reconnaissance Program

"The agreement between CIA and DOD continues as the

basic charter. While both of us, CIA . and DOD, did as much

as possible to insure that no ambiguity or areas of possible

! conflict were contained in this agreement, its implementation

has brought forth certain areas needing clarification.

11 Most of these areas have now been identified and have been

the subject of discussion in the past several weeks between'

and among Dr. Whelan, General Carter, and myself for CIA,

I: and Dr. McMillan, Dr. Fmbini and 14r. Gilpatric for DOD. It

1 r

is,perhaps, premature at this time to state whether these

L I : discussions will bring about a need to revise this agreement.

However, in light of the significance of the program to which

this agreement addresses itself and your known interest in it,

I will insure that you are kept advised of any significant •

changes that may take place."-

s/ JOHN A. McCONE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION VII

901 NORTH 5TH STREET

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101

September 23, 2011

Dear Owner/Resident:

Leonardo Degante

Omaha, Nebraska 68107

3718 South 24 Street

 3718 South 24 Street

A Lead Based Paint assessment was recently performed on your property by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency as part of the Omaha Lead site investigation. The purpose of 

this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of LBP is present on the exterior 

surface of structures, where deteriorating paint conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc) exist 

that might increase lead concentrations in the yard above acceptable levels.

Enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 3718 South 24 Street. The EPA has developed paint 

stabilization eligibility criteria that involve measuring the amount of deteriorated LBP on a 

structure and calculating the concentration of lead in soils around the home that would result if 

all of the identified deteriorated paint were to fall to the ground and uniformly mix with the soil 

under certain assumptions. During the LBP assessment, the areal extent of the deteriorated paint 

observed on structure surfaces was estimated and the lead content in the deteriorated paint was 

measured using an X-Ray Fluorescence instrument.

The data obtained during the LBP assessment was used to estimate the increase in soil lead 

concentration that would result if all of the deteriorating paint identified in the assessment were 

to fall to the ground and mix with surface soil within six feet of the foundation of the structure. 

For purposes of this calculation, the deteriorating LBP on a structure is assumed to fall onto the 

ground surface within six feet of the foundation and be uniformly mixed with the top one inch 

of soil. The estimated lead concentration in the soil potentially caused by the deteriorating LBP 

provides a measure of the severity of LBP deterioration on individual structures. The EPA uses 

these criteria to rank properties based on the potential for recontamination of soil to occur. Paint 

stabilization is being offered at only those households with the most severe LBP problems, 

particularly where children under the age of seven reside.

 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) Assessment

The LBP assessment performed by the EPA using the above criteria indicated that your 

house IS NOT eligible for paint stabilization. 

RE: SAID: 2390
Enclosures

Para información en español, llame al EPA Information Center (402) 731-3045.

Sincerely,

Pauletta R. France-Isetts

Project Coordinator

Environmental Protection Agency

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center at 

(402) 731-3045.

Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment 

LEGEND: H - N - P - 01 - 12345 Samples Analyzed 

BVID Number 

- Sample Number 

- Mater~al P = Patnt 

Stde of Structure N = North S = South E = East W =West 

Sample Number Concentration StructurelFeature 

(Window, siding, porch. etc.) 

rnglcrnZ 

rngIcrn2 

mglcrn2 

mg1cm2 

Substrate Color Deteriorated 

(wood, concrete, etc.) Area
HomeSite HelpIndex A-Z

# Index A-Z (Q Entries)

**A |****B |****C |****D |****E |****F |****G |****H |****I |****J |****K |****L |****M |****N |****O |****P |****Q |****R |****S |****T |****U |****V |****W |****X |****Y |****Z**
        - Quality of Life

----

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, June 08, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Steam Line Break Analysis Using RELAP5/MOD3.3 for Steam Generator Blowdown Load Assessment (NUREG/IA-0474)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0474 (PDF - 7.00 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2016**Date Published:** May 2017

**Prepared by:** Han-Sik JUNG, Du-Ho HONG, Jong-In KIM, Ae-Ju CHEONG*, Kyung-Won LEE*

Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction 22, DoosanVolvo-ro, Seongsan-gu, Changwon, Gyeongnam, 642-792, Korea

*Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 62 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu Daejeon, 34142, Korea

K. Tien, NRC Project Manager

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

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The RELAP5/MOD3.3 is generally used for best-estimate transient simulation of light water reactor coolant systems during postulated accidents in the Light Water Reactor (LWR). The RELAP5/MOD3.3 code is based on a non-homogeneous, and non-equilibrium model for a two phase system that is solved by a fast, partially implicit numerical scheme to permit economical calculation of system transients. This code is suitable for the analysis of transients and postulated accidents in LWR systems, including both large- and small-break loss of coolant accidents, as well as for the full range of operational transients.

For the evaluation of structural integrity for the steam generator in the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the postulated accidents, such as the Steam Line Break (SLB) in the Advanced Power Reactor (APR1400) at the Korean domestic plants, are considered Design Basis Events (DBE). In order to evaluate the structural integrity of a steam generator during the SLB, the data for the thermo-hydraulic velocity, density and pressure are needed.

This study was performed to calculate thermal hydraulic parameters, such as thermo-hydraulic velocity, density and pressure, using the RELAP5/MOD3.3 code for the structural evaluation of the steam generator internals during the postulated SLB accidents.

The calculation results were verified by comparing with experimental data generated from the experimental facility ATLAS (Advanced Thermal-Hydraulic Test Loop for Accident Simulation).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Will of Loewenbach: Loewenbach, Contestant and Appellant, vs. Loewenbach and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Hugo J. Trost*and *Clarence P. Nett,*both of Milwaukee. .

For the respondents: *McGovern, Curtis ■& Devos*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
#### Elger, Respondent, vs. Beeheim and wife, Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the county court of Waukesha county dated January 10, 1927: David W. Agnew, Judge.

Personal injuries. Automobile accident. Verdict finding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence. Order granting new trial, from which defendants appeal.

For -the appellants: *Quarles, Spence & Quarles*of Milwaukee and *Henry Lockney*of Waukesha, attorneys, and *P. N. Snodgrass*and *Kenneth P. Grubb,*both of Milwaukee, of counsel.

For the respondent: *Jacobson & Malone*of Waukesha.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We have issued our report dated February 26, 1999 accompanying the financial
statements and financial schedule of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1998, that is included in the Company's Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2000. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of SRI/Surgical Express,
Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-31911, effective July 23, 1997).

                                                /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Tampa, Florida
March 26, 2001
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

WASHINGTON SS. D.C.

11 June 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR: Director, National Reconnaissance Office

SUBJECT : NRO Staff Functions of the JCS Joint

Reconnaissance Canter

REFER" CE : Memorandum for DD/NRO from D/NRO,

.11june 1963. subject:same as above

6-63)

•

The reference requested further comments on the NRO

staff functions of the JCS Joint Reconnaissance Center. I don't

believe that at this time any further comments on my part

would be profitable since this matter is presently under

discussion between the DCI and the Secretary of Defense.

Basically, I still hold to my previous views that the organisation

as proposed is unwieldy and poor organisationally. •

Deputy Director

(Research)

taw WIN f= ulna insirafug meg

WINSIIVAN

kindle villa

Control System