alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Second Department,

May, 1948.

(May 3, 1948.)

#### Rose Cole, Respondent-Appellant, v. Mary Jaeger, Appellant-Respondent.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 cos'ts. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Motion for stay denied, without costs. Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Wenzel, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 911.]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExtension of transonic flow computational concepts in the analysis of cavitated bearingsAn analogy between the mathematical modeling of transonic potential flow and the flow in a cavitating bearing is described. Based on the similarities, characteristics of the cavitated region and jump conditions across the film reformation and rupture fronts are developed using the method of weak solutions. The mathematical analogy is extended by utilizing a few computational concepts of transonic flow to numerically model the cavitating bearing. Methods of shock fitting and shock capturing are discussed. Various procedures used in transonic flow computations are adapted to bearing cavitation applications, for example, type differencing, grid transformation, an approximate factorization technique, and Newton's iteration method. These concepts have proved to be successful and have vastly improved the efficiency of numerical modeling of cavitated bearings.Document ID19910006991Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsVijayaraghavan, D.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH., United States)*Keith, T. G., Jr.*(Toledo Univ. OH., United States)*Brewe, D. E.*(Army Aviation Systems Command Cleveland, OH., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1990Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:103214E-5625AD-A231726NASA-TM-103214AVSCOM-TR-91-C-002Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Tribology ConferenceLocation: Toronto, OntarioCountry: CanadaStart Date: October 7, 1990End Date: October 10, 1990Sponsors:STLE,ASMEAccession Number91N16304Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-1APROJECT: DA PROJ. 1L1-61102-AH-45Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910006991.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
|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 Quarterly Report of MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Kevin J. Wiersma, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 the Company.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |                           
|------------------------ | --------------------------
|Dated:   August 14, 2003 | By:   /s/ Kevin J. Wiersma
|                         | Kevin J. Wiersma          
|                         | Chief Financial Officer   

|32
|--
#### HIRNING, Public Examiner and Superintendent of Banks, Respondent, v. FORSBERG et al, Appellants.

(206 N. W. 475.)

(File Nos. 5793, 5794, 5795, 5796.

Opinion filed December 9, 1925.)

Appeals from Circuit Court, Grant County; Hon. J. J. Bat- . T'Erton, Judge.

*Hanten, Hanten & Henrikson,*of Watertown, for Appellants.

*Loncks, Haische & Foley,*of Watertown, and *Buell F. Jones,*Attorney General ,for Respondent.

MORIARTY, C.

These four cases were grouped with the case of John Hirning, as Superintendent of Banks, v. N. Forsberg and N. A. Dahlberg, 49 S. D. —, 206 N. W. 471, and were submitted to this court upon the same briefs that were filed in the Dahlberg Case.

For all the purposes of adjudicating these appeals, the facts and the questions of law presented in these cases are identical with those of the Dahlberg Case, and these cases are controlled by the decision this day handed down in said Dahlberg Case.

For the reasons given in said decision, the order appealed from in each of the instant cases is hereby affirmed.
§ 3823.2 Mineral locations within National Forest Wilderness. ( a ) Until midnight, December 31, 1983, the mining laws of the United States and the regulations of this chapter pertaining thereto, including any amendments thereto effective during such period, shall to the same extent as applicable before September 3, 1964, extend to National Forest Wilderness, subject to the provisions of such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to section 4(d)(3) of the Wilderness Act.
( b ) All mineral locations established after September 3, 1964, and lying within the National Forest Wilderness, shall be held and used solely for mining or processing operations and uses incident thereto, and such locations shall carry with them no rights in excess of those rights which may be patented under the provisions of § 3823.3 of this chapter.
( c ) All persons wishing to carry on any activity under the mining laws on lands within National Forest Wilderness, on or after September 3, 1964, should make inquiry of the officer in charge of the National Forest in which the lands are located concerning the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture governing activities to be performed thereon in connection with the locations of mining claims.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 7241
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, David I. Rosenthal, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SpectraLink
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. November 8, 2004/s/ DAVID I. ROSENTHALDavid I. RosenthalBy: Executive Vice
President of Finance and
Administration and Chief
Financial Officer
Table 29

U. S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Central Valley Operations Office

Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley - Streamflow Data

2016

Mean monthly flow in cfs

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Sacramento River

Shasta computed inflow 16554 9901 26614 8184 4941 3764 2865 2611 2604 4913 6886 12564

At Keswick 3047 3046 7445 4680 6027 8083 9937 10145 8378 6156 4866 6484

At Bend Bridge 14726 6700 18958 7292 7577 9131 10342 10448 9059 7643 7762 13727

At Vina Bridge 21398 8402 25163 8139 7396 8237 9098 9378 8195 7429 8770 14875

At Ord Ferry 22014 8733 27965 7604 4916 5430 6087 7180 7471 6295 8079 19527

At Colusa 19933 10642 25892 8660 4998 5152 5710 7057 7690 6104 7873 17683

Below Wilkins Slough 17056 10943 20686 8444 3672 3790 4109 6221 7595 5805 7963 16436

At Verona 25876 17586 44432 15787 9436 10265 14100 15374 14800 10214 13232 32471

Sacramento at "I" Street 25872 20951 53639 19063 13412 13705 18457 18260 16197 11180 14385 38017

Miscellaneous Stations

Folsom computed inflow 5331 4484 11416 5737 4725 2642 1687 1520 1229 2015 2759 9037

American R at Nimbus Dam 586 3111 9921 3260 4452 4029 5025 3370 1660 1093 1263 9571

Kings River at Pine Flat 111 78 117 732 2332 5096 5514 2834 1243 157 110 104

San Joaquin River

At Friant Dam 146 187 210 307 326 297 647 562 421 396 334 216

Near Vernalis 1613 1049 2083 1747 1847 594 289 243 276 1205 1162 1064

Putah Creek

Berryessa computed inflow 1265 256 2522 281 87 27 2 0 0 170 238 1076

Putah Creek - Lake Solano 53 42 125 77 52 65 51 37 28 31 55 45

Stanislaus River

New Melones computed inflow 1417 1299 2860 2087 2324 1744 839 784 696 703 591 1745

At Tulloch Dam 211 210 454 1878 2196 1541 1524 1331 939 1058 284 209

At Orange Blossom 261 204 245 1176 1595 522 293 240 177 801 356 290

* Data supplied by Central Valley Operations Office

 Daily mean is derived from 7 am daily reading.
### **CHAPTER 62—TIME AND PLACE FOR PAYING TAX**

Subchapter
Sec. 1
A.
Place and due date for payment of tax
6151
B.
Extensions of time for payment
6161

1  Section numbers editorially supplied.
#### Miller’s Administratrix *vs.*Miller.

1. Where a defendant is entitled to notice of proceedings before a master, under an order of reference, a rule *nisi*to confirm the master’s report should be taken.

2. The complainant took no rule *nisi to*confirm the master’s report, but gave notice to the defendant’s solicitor of the filing of the report; exceptions were filed, but not within eight days from the time of service of the notice ; motion to strike out exceptions on that account, refused.

3. In such case, either party might set down the exceptions for hearing.

4. Objections to a report, that the master has sent np no evidence in support of his finding as to certain matters of fact, should be brought before the court, by motion to refer the report back to the master on those points, or that he send up the, evidence on which liis report in those respects is based. Such objections are not the subject of exception.

*424On motion to strike out exceptions to master’s report as to-the assets of an estate, the claims of creditors, &c., on the ground that the exceptions were not filed in due time.

*Mr. Charles P.*Stratton, for the motion.

The Chakcellok.

The complainant took no rule *nisi*to confirm the master’s report, but gave notice to the solicitor of the exceptants of the filing of the report. The exceptions were not filed within eight days from the time of the service of the notice, and on this ground the complainant now moves to strike them out. The exceptants were, by special order, permitted to appear before the master, and to produce witnesses, &c., on the subject of the reference. They were entitled to notice of the proceeding before the master. They appeared there. The complainant should have entered a rule *nisi*for the confirmation of the report. Decision of Chancellor I. H. Williamson, 1 *Plalst. Dig.*230; *Brundage*v. *Goodfellow,*4 *Halst. Ch.*513. The motion must be denied.

The exceptions have not been set down for hearing. Either-party might have set them down. 1 *Newl. Ch. Pr.*245. Theexceptants ought to have done so at the present term. I have-looked into the exceptions, and find some of them of such a character as entitles the exceptants to a hearing on them, but they must set them down at this term.

Some of the exceptions are based on the ground that the master has sent up no evidence in support of his finding as to certain matters of fact. Objections of this character to the report should be brought before the court, by motion to refer-the report back to the master on those points, or that he send up the evidence on which his report in those respects is based. They are not the subject of exception. *Ridifer*v. O’Brien, 3 *Madd.*44; *Tyler*v. *Simmons,*6 *Paige 127; Douglas*v. *Merceles,*9 *C. E. Green*25.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                  PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Brett M. Clark, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10QSB of General Environmental Management, Inc. for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of General
Environmental Management, Inc. of Nevada.


Date:  November 17, 2005        By: /s/ Brett M. Clark
                                Brett M. Clark, Vice President of Finance,
                                Chief Financial Officer
COOPER INDUSTRIES, LTD.
DIRECTORS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
 (As Amended and Restated as of November 4, 2008)
 BACKGROUND
  ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
 Definitions
 Affiliate
 Beneficiary
 Board
 Change in Control
 Code
 Committee
 Company
 - 1 -




---



##### 



Cooper Deferral Plan
 Deferred Account
 Director
 Fees
 Participant
 Plan
 Plan Year
 Secretary
 Section 409A
 Separation from Service
 1.2 Construction
 ARTICLE II
ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION
  - 2 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE III
DEFERRALS
 3.1 Deferral Requirements and Election Forms
 Deferral Requirements
  provided that
   3.2 Timing of Deferrals
 In General
 Certain First Year Directors
 Prior to Election or Appointment
 - 3 -




---



##### 



Within 30 Days of Election or Appointment
 3.3 Duration of Deferral Elections
  ARTICLE IV
PARTICIPANT ACCOUNTS
 4.1 Establishment of Accounts
  4.2 Income on Accounts
  4.3 Adjustments for Distributions
  ARTICLE V
PAYMENT OF DEFERRED FEES
 5.1 Payment Elections
 Initial Elections
  - 4 -




---



##### 



Subsequent Elections
     Special Election provided that
   - 5 -




---



##### 



5.2 Payment of Fees
  5.3 Acceleration of Distributions
 In General No Acceleration
 Death
 Change in Control th
 Section 409A Violation
 ARTICLE VI
AMOUNT OF PLAN BENEFITS
  - 6 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII
BENEFICIARIES
  ARTICLE VIII
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
  ARTICLE IX
AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION
 provided,
however provided further
 - 7 -




---



##### 



ARTICLE X
MISCELLANEOUS
 10.1 Non-Alienation of Rights or Benefits
  10.2 Payment of Benefits to Others
  10.3 Funding
  10.4 Claims of Other Persons
  10.5 Severability
  - 8 -




---



##### 



10.6 Governing Law
  10.7 Tax Treatment
  10.8 Claims Procedure
     - 9 -




---



##### 



- 10 -
November 24 2009
§ 3175.60 Timeframes for compliance. ( a ) *New FMPs.* ( 1 ) Except as allowed in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this section, the measuring procedures and equipment installed at any FMP on or after January 17, 2017 must comply with all of the requirements of this subpart upon installation.
( 2 ) The gas analysis reporting requirements of § 3175.120(e) and (f) will begin on January 17, 2019.
( 3 ) High- and very-high-volume FMPs must comply with the sampling frequency requirements of § 3175.115(b) starting on January 17, 2019. Between January 17, 2017 and January 17, 2019, the initial sampling frequencies required at high- and very-high-volume FMPs are those listed in Table 1 to § 3175.110.
( 4 ) Equipment approvals required in §§ 3175.43, 3175.44, and 3175.46 through 3175.49 will be required after January 17, 2019.
( b ) *Existing FMPs.* ( 1 ) Except as allowed in § 3175.61, measuring procedures and equipment at any FMP in place before January 17, 2017 must comply with the requirements of this subpart within the timeframes specified in this paragraph (b).
( 2 ) High- and very-high-volume FMPs must comply with: ( i ) All of the requirements of this subpart except as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section by January 17, 2018;
( ii ) The gas analysis reporting requirements of § 3175.120(e) and (f) starting on January 17, 2019; and
( iii ) Equipment approvals required in §§ 3175.43, 3175.44, and 3175.46 through 3175.49 starting on January 17, 2019.
( 3 ) Low-volume FMPs must comply with all of the requirements of this subpart by January 17, 2019.
( 4 ) Very-low-volume FMPs must comply with all of the requirements of this subpart by January 17, 2020.
( c ) During the phase-in timeframes in paragraph (b) of this section, measuring procedures and equipment in place before January 17, 2017 must comply with the requirements in place prior to the issuance of this rule, including Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 5, Measurement of Gas, and applicable NTLs, COAs, and written orders.
( d ) Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 5, Measurement of Gas, statewide NTLs, variance approvals, and written orders that establish requirements or standards related to gas measurement and that are in effect on January 17, 2017 are rescinded as of: ( 1 ) January 17, 2018 for high-volume and very-high-volume FMPs;
( 2 ) January 17, 2019 for low-volume FMPs; and
( 3 ) January 17, 2020 for very-low-volume FMPs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 738

 721

 709

 715

 727

 742

 749

 753

 742

 708

 710

 701

 740

 737

 724

 737

 733

 758

 729

 723

 738

 758

 759

 752

 714

 733

 779

 769

 744

 731

 706

 711

 648

 666

 697

 700

 722

 733

 714

 693

 668

 688

 687

 700

 702

 707

 691

 698

 704

 655

 698

 705

 726

 748

 673

 658

 659

 667

 709

 685

 688

 695

 720

 668

 699

 706

 717

 731

 742

 731

 709

 681

 702

 695

 715

 718

 713

 714

 722

 730

 708

 713

 726

 748

 753

 709

 679

 695

 748

 755

 724

 706

 700

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2002 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 13, 2002

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER
### §1311. Model code

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to recommend to the Congress, on or before July 1, 1968, a model code to govern the administration of justice by courts of Indian offenses on Indian reservations. Such code shall include provisions which will (1) assure that any individual being tried for an offense by a court of Indian offenses shall have the same rights, privileges, and immunities under the United States Constitution as would be guaranteed any citizen of the United States being tried in a Federal court for any similar offense, (2) assure that any individual being tried for an offense by a court of Indian offenses will be advised and made aware of his rights under the United States Constitution, and under any tribal constitution applicable to such individual, (3) establish proper qualifications for the office of judge of the court of Indian offenses, and (4) provide for the establishing of educational classes for the training of judges of courts of Indian offenses. In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Indians, Indian tribes, and interested agencies of the United States.

(Pub. L. 90–284, title III, §301, Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 78.)