alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffOffice of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress (NUREG-1415)

# Office of the Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress (NUREG-1415, Vol. 20, No. 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - A Message from the Inspector General

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1415, Volume 20, No. 1 (PDF - 6.32 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 2007**Date Published:**October 2007**Reporting Period:**April 1, 2007 – September 30, 2007

Office of the Inspector GeneralU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## A Message from the Inspector General

I am pleased to present this Semiannual Report to Congress on the activities and accomplishments of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) from April 1, 2007 to September 30, 2007. Our work reflects the legislative mandate of the Inspector General Act to identify fraud, waste, and abuse and to recommend appropriate corrective actions. The audits and investigations highlighted in this report demonstrate our commitment to ensuring integrity and efficiency in NRC's programs and operations, and enhancing public confidence in its regulatory process.

During this semiannual reporting period, we issued 8 program audit reports and 4 contract audit reports. As a result of this work, OIG made numerous recommendations to improve the effective and efficient operation of NRC's safety, security, and corporate management programs, and questioned $68,018 in contract costs. OIG also opened 23 investigations, and completed 21 cases. Twelve cases were referred to the Department of Justice, and 27 allegations were referred to NRC management for action.

Looking towards the future, OIG has engaged in an update of its strategic plan based in part on an assessment of the strategic challenges facing the NRC. We seek to add value to NRC technical and administrative programs by aligning our strategic direction with NRC's mission and strategic goals.

My office is dedicated to maintaining the highest possible standards of professionalism and quality in its audits and investigations. I want to recognize the exemplary work of the auditors, investigators, and support staff who form the core of the NRC OIG and are committed to promoting integrity and efficiency within the NRC and its programs.

Finally, the success of the NRC OIG would not be possible without the collaborative work between my staff and agency managers to address OIG findings and implement the recommendations made by my office. I wish to thank them for their dedication and support and look forward to their continued cooperation as we work together to ensure the integrity of agency operations.

Hubert T. BellInspector General

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
The contents of folder 385 are a duplicate

of the contents of folder 386
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-78843, 333-113659and 333-120000 on Form S-3, Registration Statement Nos. 333-106836 on Form S-4 and RegistrationStatement Nos. 333-36977, 333-47370, 333-75264, 333-99799, and 333-117789 on Form S-8 of TheHouston Exploration Company of our report dated February 28, 2007, relating to the financialstatements of The Houston Exploration Company and management’s report of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial AccountingStandards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), “Share Based Payment” on January 1, 2006, and SFAS No. 158,“Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Benefit Plans” onDecember 31, 2006), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Houston Exploration Companyfor the year ended December 31, 2006.   /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP   DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP     Houston, Texas  February 28, 2007
#### Campbell, Assignee, *v.*Mumford.

*A*bond, upon which is an indorsement, purporting that it may be discharged by the payment 0f so much tobacco, is not negotiable under the act of 1786', *liev. c.*248.

Action upon a bond, for ninety-two pounds Virginia money, conditioned for the payment of forty-six pounds. Upon the back of the-bond there was an indorsement purporting that the forty six pounds should be dischargeable in tobacco, delivered at a certain placo. The Defendant objected to tiie Plaintiff’s recovery, upon tiie ground that this bond was not assignable by the act of 1786, c, 4, and he cited a decision at Fayetteville, in the case of *Jamie-son,*an assignee, v. *Farr.*

*Per curiam•*

The indorsement made at tiie same time wiib the bond, is to be taken as a part of the condition, *(vide*2 *Term*641. *Salk.*498. 6 *Mod.*37 *)*and the bond is not assignable. A bond for any specific article is not assignable — such a bond in the hands of the assignee, cannot be sued upon by him. Suppose at tiie day appointed for payment, the Defendant liad tendered tiie r.obacco, would it not have been a good tender ? It certainly would, and would have discharged the debt. Until the day of payment then, the Defendant may consider it as a bond for tobacco only. These bonds do not answer the purpose of commerce as money, inasmuch as their value at the day of payment, is not easily ascertained, but is liable to be disputed between the parties and to prod bee delay. They were not rendered negotiable by tiie act of 1786, as money bonds were. It is true, if no tender be made at tiie day, tin* obligee may consider it a« a bond for money only ; but then if the bond is not originally negotiable, it cannot afterwards become, so, for at the time of its creation the obligor did not mean to subject himself to the action of an assignee. Judgment for the Defendants.

*Note*— Vide *Jamieson v. Farr,*and the note thereto, *ante*182.
#### Primus, Appellant, vs. Waterbury, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Juneau county dated November 19, 1927 : E. W. Crosby, Judge.

Personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *Grady, Farnsworth & Walker*of Portage. _ •

_ For the respondent: *H. J. Mortensen*of New Lisbon.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
 
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
 
<MULTIPLIER>1
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            146,684
<SECURITIES>                                      1,012,161
<RECEIVABLES>                                     332,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                      25,600
<INVENTORY>                                       1,238,768
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3,662,596
<PP&E>                                            3,320,273
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,323,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    10,157,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,496,310
<BONDS>                                           3,040,766
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          323,495
<OTHER-SE>                                        3,427,405
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      10,157,102
<SALES>                                           3,559,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  10,386,715
<CGS>                                             3,334,057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3,334,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                265,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   864,337
<INCOME-TAX>                                      224,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      639,925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        

</TABLE>
Shell Docket FAA- 2007 - 0001 Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking I am filing a Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking for my company, Logton Home Inspections, LLC dba Pillar to Post. My company provides Certified Residential Home Inspections for Chester and Delaware counties in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The scope of the home inspections includes a roof inspection. In order to provide a definitive roof inspection, m y employees must climb on the home owner’s roof. Often the pitch of the roof is not safe for inspectors. By using the drone, my company is able to assess the home owner’s roof and my inspectors are safe from falling. In addition, my workers compensati on insurance is significantly reduced by signing a statement that my inspectors will not climb on the roof. The drone will offer a safer working environment, a better home inspection report and less chance of a workers compensation injury. Thank you for your consideration.

Jeffrey C. Hunt Franchise Owner/Certified Home Inspector 207 Kirkbrae Road Kennett Square, PA 19348 484 - 886 - 1922 Jeff.hunt@pillartopost.com
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CLAUDE LACOMBE

,

Defendant Below

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below

Appellee. §

§ No. 22, 2018

§

§

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID 1 201018188 (N)

§

§

Submitted: February 8 , 201 8

Decided: April 5 , 2018

Before STRINE

, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR , Justices.

O R D E R

This 5 th day of April 2018, after consideration of the opening brief and the

motion to affirm, it is clear that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis

of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well

- reasoned decision

dated December 21, 2017

. This was Lacombe’s second motion for postconviction

relief following his guilty plea in 2013. A second or subsequent postconviction

motion following the entry of a guilty plea is subject to summary dismissal under

Rule 61(d)(2). 1 The Superior Court did not err in denying Lacombe relief.

1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) ( stating that a second or subsequent Rule 61 motion “shall be

summarily dismissed, unless the movant was convicted after a trial and the motion” meets

additional criteria under the rule).2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 9, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00105

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.W., A CHILD

,

From the 57th Judicial Dis trict Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1995EM501946 The Honorable Nick Catoe, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an appeal from a n order foreclosing on a child support lien. The order was signed by the trial court on February 16, 2016. The appellant filed an affidavit of indigence and no

contest was filed. The clerk’s record was filed on April 19, 2016. The reporter’ s record was filed
on June 6, 2016.

On April 11, 2016, a ppellant filed a document in which he asks this court to either (1) appoint appellate counsel to represent him in this appeal or (2) gra nt him an extension of time to file his brief to September 2016. This is appellant’s second request for the appointment of appel la te counsel in this appeal. We denied appellant’s first request for appellate counsel on April 1, 2016. Appellant’s requests fo r appellate counsel in this appeal and for an extension of

time to file his brief are DENIED. However, we direct the clerk of the court to make a copy the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record and mail it to appellant.

Appellant’s brief is due on Jul y 5, 2016

.

____________________________ _____ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of June, 2016

.

_______________________________ ____ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05114741 

lHt 

This 

JIIDaorillllllile IIINl't: C. hi-• .Jw. No. 

lllliilantmi,- of 1:11111 Air r-. ... c .. 

3-ROUP 

~xcluded :fm.m. autom.a&t 

0.0'll!lllgradmg and declamlification 

/7 

H VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL! SYSTEM ONLY. 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05114741 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05114741 

I 

I Signed 

RI 

TOP SEBRET 

OFFICIAL FILE COPY 

PREVIOUS EDITIONS MAY lilE USED. 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05114741
**Exhibit 23.2**
**CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.**
We consent to the references to us and to estimates of reserves contained in“Part I, Item 1 and 2. Business and Properties — Natural Gas and OilReserves” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Houston ExplorationCompany for the year ended December 31, 2003 and in Houston Exploration’spreviously filed Registration Statements (and any prospectus supplementthereto) on: (i) Form S-3, file number 333-78843 dated May 20, 1999; (ii)Form S-8, file number 333-36977 dated October 1, 1997; (iii) Form S-8,file number 333-47370 dated October 5, 2000; (iv) Form S-8, file number333-75264 dated December 17, 2001; (v) Form S-8, file number 333-99799dated September 19, 2002; and (vi) Form S-4, file number 333-106836 datedDecember 4, 2003.         NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.  By: /s/ J. CARTER HENSON,JR.J.Carter Henson, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6923

AMAECHI OSMOND NWAKUCHE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; WARREN COUNTY, NC; WAKE COUNTY, 

NC,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03033-FL-RJ)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amaechi Osmond Nwakuche, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6923 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Amaechi Osmond Nwakuche appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Nwakuche 

v. North Carolina, No. 5:23-ct-03033-FL-RJ (E.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 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: 23-6923 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 99.1

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                             BANK ONE, ARIZONA, N.A.

                       BANK ONE AUTO GRANTOR TRUST 1996-B



     The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Bank One, Arizona,
N.A., as servicer (the "Servicer") under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of June 1, 1996 (the "Agreement") between the Servicer, Banc One ABS
Corporation, as Seller, and Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee, does hereby
certify on behalf of the Servicer as follows:

     1. Bank One, Arizona, N.A. is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under
the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have the meanings set
forth in the Agreement.

     2. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from the
Closing Date to December 31, 1996 (the "Applicable Period") and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made by me or under my supervision.

     3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the Applicable
Period.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed and delivered this
Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this 5th day of March, 1997.


                                             BANK ONE, ARIZONA, N.A.,
                                                as Servicer


                                             By: /s/ Tom Lewis
                                                 ---------------------
                                             Name: Tom Lewis
                                             Title:   Vice President






                                     Page 9
#### State Bank of Greenleaf, Respondent, vs. Nickolai, Sheriff, and others, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Edward M. Goemans,*attorney, and *William F. Morris*of counsel, both of De Pere.

For the respondent: *Fox & Fox*of Chilton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-01-1998
<CASH>                                       7,532,000               8,608,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,430,000               1,628,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,561,000               2,726,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,099,000              13,114,000
<PP&E>                                       4,092,000               3,658,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,933,000               1,562,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,728,000              15,679,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,544,000               1,933,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        63,000                  63,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,094,000              13,645,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,728,000              15,679,000
<SALES>                                      1,590,000               2,805,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,590,000               2,805,000
<CGS>                                        1,098,000               1,594,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,556,000               2,687,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             112,000                  78,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (854,000)                 196,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (304,000)                  73,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (435,000)                 236,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (550,000)                 123,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)                    0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)                    0.02
        

</TABLE>
iftrelr 

.

I

-

. •

....:.

..- .4

....s

-vi.

...:.1

.i.?

.

. .4 , .....

.,

:....• ;

Itiarri;I:.a i.. I .... '... i " -* 46•110 sk . --.ji

.4,11

• 4 Demolisher 195$ '• ff..

.y

;.,

.. .41

•,..1 Special Aesisteat to the Preekleat ter delouse - • •. • and Teehadegy • 41

•• i

SUBJECT I Proposed Curtailment at Freita g CORONA •

: • • :

1. I have bora kept advised at the mew important problems

that have arises boo tiros is time with respect to Project CORONA. 

mod is parttelidar I haw hew aware et the reviser el *at Prefect awl et •

the SENTRY Priem* sowiested by the Advaased Research Project" •

Agway devise the past several eteellos. As et tyre weeks age. I was . ;.- ".;-. .. 1.• •

gives to isderstaud that agreeeteet had beets washed ameei all egeweraed

we cereals raiser sheave la 'ghettoise whisk had a heavies we the sews

treplaeadea ter CORONA bet that la ether respects plass ter the *else!

reetalaed fires. '

a• 1 sow eaderstast. however. that the Advisee& Researeh

Projects Agency has proposed to at the cam* .simodiele by ese.third• '=: • ..I.

to order to tree tor ether purposes hods previously weessaitted to this•

ritejaCto Owe el these Purposes is a mew MIAMI reposed tar Calendar

Tear 1140 se a tollowsea to CORONA %et tray dittereet equipeseat. • • •

3. 3 are well aware a sows, that =RCM is beteg tleastitiii •.•

tar the use part by the Deperweset et Debase sad that the aiailability

al teals ter tads agevity is bawd to be attested by cheeses Is the gamest

Gametal etteaties sad plane et the whole Defeo** esteblisiossue. It stay..: ?;10,5

well be that the proposed certsiloweat et the CORONA ashotrot• to (111400 .

is the light et the seamy corapeties, high priority reguiremeate

COIL-ou4

Copy ble.0 •

. •

MEMORANDUM TOR: Deputy ikossetery et Debase '

41. •

•

••;.*: •••.

th/e"""ti 7 ..2:nnation

.
• ••• a• . •

2..

Novostihot000• Sa vino al *. osonoos Is latish Om &tidos Os oolobilok

C0111014A. so $ somas Preet 1,8 self mod% I woad Ws So

omen At gym moot Is Amman Ow *kW el Ws Aso** below* gm

aortsibuost amides lo Bally sostio,

SIGIeD

ALLiD 

•

vire DULL=

Diavator

Sot Dh•goor, JAVA

And Noy et Os AN Vara OHM)

C011•111114

Cow Oh
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

   
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of Graphix Zone, Inc. (No. 333-09149) of our report dated August 18,
1995, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows of StarPress, Inc. (formerly known as Great Bear
Technology Incorporated) for the year ended June 30, 1995 included in the
Annual Report of Graphix Zone, Inc. (Form 10-K) for 1997 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Walnut Creek, California
October 14, 1997