alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          the financial statements of Peripheral Connections, Inc. as of and for
          the three months ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
          by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000894557
<NAME>                        Peripheral Connections, Inc.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         125,252
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,465
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          13,333
<BONDS>                                        200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (22,868)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,465
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,096)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>
### §1345. United States as plaintiff

Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 933.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §41(1) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, par. 1, 36 Stat. 1091; May 14, 1934, ch. 283, §1, 48 Stat. 775; Aug. 21, 1937, ch. 726, §1, 50 Stat. 738; Apr. 20, 1940, ch. 117, 54 Stat. 143).

Other provisions of section 41(1) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1331, 1332, 1341, 1342, 1354, and 1359 of this title.

Words "civil actions, suits or proceedings" were substituted for "suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity" in view of Rules 2 and 81(a)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Word "agency" was inserted in order that this section shall apply to actions by agencies of the Government and to conform with special acts authorizing such actions. (See definitive section 451 of this title.)

The phrase "Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress," at the beginning of the section was inserted to make clear that jurisdiction exists generally in district courts in the absence of special provisions conferring it elsewhere.

Changes were made in phraseology.
EXHIBIT 99.14

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


In connection with the Annual Report of  Warp 9, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").  I, Jonathan L. Lei,
President, CFO, and CEO of the company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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.


                                         /s/ Jonathan L. Lei
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Jonathan L. Lei, President/CFO/CEO

Dated:  10/22/02
### [§1024. Renumbered §1023]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61267-CIV-SINGHAL

LORENZO SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on a sua sponte review of the record. On August 4, 2021, 

Plaintiff’s counsel moved to withdraw from representing Plaintiff in this case, (DE [29]), which the 

Court granted (DE [30]). In the withdrawal Order, the Court gave Plaintiff until August 26, 2021, to 

either: (a) retain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance; or (b) file a notice of 

intent to proceed pro se. Id. The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply may result in a 

dismissal without prejudice without further notice. Id. Plaintiff’s now-withdrawn counsel filed a notice 

of compliance indicating that a copy of the withdrawal Order was both emailed and mailed to Plaintiff. 

(DE [31]).

The time for compliance has passed, and Plaintiff has neither retained new counsel nor filed 

a notice of intent to proceed pro se. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 

Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 27th day of August 2021.

Copies furnished to counsel via CM/ECF and to Lorenzo Sanchez, pro se, via U.S. Mail

Case 0:20-cv-61267-AHS Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2021 Page 1 of 1
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Sunset Point to Sunrise Point Hike

Bryce Canyon National Park
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 457

**Question 457:** Some licensees have established administrative dose control levels or guidelines, below regulatory dose limits, as a tool to support supervisory and management involvement in dose minimization. Procedures commonly describe certain review actions to be taken at successive dose levels, with a higher level of management involvement at higher dose levels. If an administrative dose control level or guideline is exceeded without all of the described actions being taken, but no regulatory limit is exceeded, is the fact of exceeding the control level or guideline a violation of NRC regulations?

**Answer:** Exceeding an administrative dose control level or guideline that is below the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 is not a violation of 10 CFR Part 20. This is generally true with respect to other parts of the NRC regulations, although it is subject to exceptions; for example, for medical licensees, 10 CFR 35.25 (a) (2) specifies requirements for a "supervised individual" including following "the written radiation safety and quality management procedures established by the licensee". Such procedures might include administrative dose control levels or guidelines and failure to follow such procedures could be a violation of 10 CFR 35.25 (a) (2). Furthermore, exceeding an administrative dose control level or guideline could be a violation of procedural requirements in the plant technical specifications at a nuclear power plant or a violation of specific license conditions in a material license.

(Reference: Other) 

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
### **CHAPTER 15—CONFERENCES AND COUNCILS OF JUDGES**

Sec.
331.
Judicial Conference of the United States.
332.
Judicial councils of circuits.
333.
Judicial conferences of circuits.
334.
Institutes and joint councils on sentencing.
335.
Judicial Conference of the Court of International Trade.

#### Amendments

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–466, §2(b), Oct. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 1190, added item 335.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–458, §2(d)(2), Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2036, inserted "of circuits" in item 332.

**1958**—Pub. L. 85–752, §2, Aug. 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 845, added item 334.
### §1713. Protection against loss by class members

The court may approve a proposed settlement under which any class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel that would result in a net loss to the class member only if the court makes a written finding that nonmonetary benefits to the class member substantially outweigh the monetary loss.

(Added Pub. L. 109–2, §3(a), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 7.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Feb. 18, 2005, see section 9 of Pub. L. 109–2, set out as an Effective Date of 2005 Amendment note under section 1332 of this title.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000310

10-JUN-2019

08:38 AM
HomeAbout NRCFire Protection

# Fire  Safety Research

In its broadest sense, the regulatory research program sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) encompasses experiments, technical studies, and analyses. These research endeavors help the agency make realistic decisions, assess the safety-significance of potential technical issues, and prepare the NRC and the nuclear industry for the future by evaluating potential safety issues involving new designs and technologies. This program is designed to improve knowledge where uncertainty exists, safety margins are not well-characterized, or regulatory decisions need to be confirmed.

Within the context of fire protection, research addresses fire-related issues in the three arenas of nuclear reactors, nuclear materials, and radioactive waste, particularly where those issues are of potentially high safety or security risk or significance.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Fire Protection for Operating Reactors
          - Fire Protection for Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities
          - Fire  Safety Research
          - Related Information

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - Fire Research Program
            - Fire Safety Research (NUREG-1925, Chapter 7)
            - Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities
            - Fire Human Reliability Analysis Methods Development
            - Fire Modeling Activities
            - Cable Heat Release, Ignition, and Spread in Tray Installations During Fire (CHRISTIFIRE)
            - Direct Current Electrical Shorting in Response to Exposure Fire (DESIREEFIRE)
            - Fire Effects on Electrical Cables and Impact on Nuclear Power Plant System Performance: Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) and Expert Elicitation Programs
            - Beyond-Design-Basis Fires for Spent Fuel Transportation: Shipping Cask Seal Performance Testing
            - Training Programs for Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Human Reliability Analysis, and Fire Modeling
            - Fire Research and Regulation Knowledge Management

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, March 20, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61227-CIV-ALTMAN/Hunt

DANIEL MONCADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WAWA, INC.,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE

The Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges violations of one of the following: the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(the “FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, et seq, or the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

(the “TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. Consistent with the Court’s practices in such cases, 

counsel are directed to appear at a status conference on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, at 1:00 p.m.

The conference will be conducted telephonically. At that time, the parties shall dial 1-888-363-

4734 and enter access code 9127026, followed by the # symbol. Counsel must not utilize 

speakerphone functionality during the hearing. If possible, counsel should use a landline. 

Instructions for the status conference are as follows:

1. The parties are not personally required to appear, but a representative of each 

party with full authority to enter a full and complete compromise must appear. 

2. If an agreement is reached, the parties shall promptly notify the Court.

3. The Plaintiff’s counsel must appear with the entire case file. If any of the 

Defendants have not yet appeared, the Plaintiff must serve a copy of this 

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

Order on any such Defendant within two business days of the date of this 

Order. 

4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter this Order in the following cases:

a. 20-cv- 61227 – Moncada v. WAWA, Inc.

i. (Call in time: 1:00 p.m.)

b. 20-cv-81004 – Fernandez v. Applebee’s

i. (Call in time: 1:10 p.m.)

c. 20-cv-80836 – Cohan v. Lowe’s

i. (Call in time: 1:20 p.m.)

d. 20-cv-61384 – Mahlberg v. Chico’s FAS, Inc.

i. (Call in time: 1:30 p.m.)

e. 20-cv-21346 – Ezold v. Tracfone Wireless

i. (Call in time: 1:40 p.m.)

f. 20-cv-61206 – St. Clair v. USHealth Advisors

i. (Call in time: 1:50 p.m.)

g. 20-cv-60900 – Durrant v. Fiserv, Inc.

i. (Call in time: 2:00 p.m.)

h. 20-cv-61297 – Hall v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.

i. (Call in time: 2:10 p.m.)

i. 20-cv-60804 – Harwood v. Nationwide Credit

i. (Call in time: 2:20 p.m.)

j. 20-cv-61295 – Amodio v. Cavalry Investment, LLC et al.

i. (Call in time: 2:30 p.m.)

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 2 of 3
k. 20-cv-61257 – Aitboukil v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC et al.

i. (Call in time: 2:40 p.m.)

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of July 2020.

 _________________________________

 ROY K. ALTMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 0:20-cv-61297-RKA Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2020 Page 3 of 3
### [§7515. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XII, §1202(h)(4), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1688]

Section, added Pub. L. 87–870, §3(a)(1), Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1160, authorized Secretary, within his discretion and upon written request, to make special statistical studies and compilations from any information received by compliance with this title, such studies were authorized to be made jointly with party or parties requesting them and transcripts to be made available to requesting party for a fee.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Jan. 1, 1977, see section 1202(i) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date of 1976 Amendment note under section 6103 of this title.
No. 13,123.

#### Pinkus *v.*Redman.

(12 P. [2d] 1117)

Decided June 27, 1932.

Mr. H. A. Davis, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. T. E. Anderson, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam.
Exhibit 4.424

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182245 dated April 06, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Mobile radio telephone communication services in the allocated telecommunications network

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until April 06, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 06, 2020 No. 145-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here

Official seal:
    MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS,
   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119300
EXHIBIT 32

            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER , PRESIDENT AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Thomas R. Butkus,  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,  Lyn
G.  Rupich,  President  and Pamela N.  Favero,  Chief  Financial  Officer of AJS
Bancorp,  Inc. (the "Company") each certify in their capacity as officers of the
Company that they have  reviewed  the annual  report of the Company on Form 10-K
for the  fiscal  year  ended  December  31,  2005  and that to the best of their
knowledge:

1.    the report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003.

March 16, 2006                              /s/ Thomas R. Butkus
Date                                        --------------------
                                            Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                            Executive Officer

March 16, 2006                              /s/ Lyn G. Rupich
Date                                        --------------------
                                            President

March 16, 2006                              /s/ Pamela N. Favero
Date                                        --------------------
                                            Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anthony Gillette. Unity Life and Accident Insurance Association, Appellant; Frieda S. Miller, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

All concur.
FILED

January 28, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

CHARLES JACKSON, )

)

Petitioner/Appellant, )

) Davidson Chancery

) No. 95-1889-I

VS. )

) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9606-CH-00276

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF )

AMERICA, et al., )

)

Respondent/Appellee. )

ORDER

CORRECTED JUDGMENT

For good cause shown, the opinion filed by this Court on March 12, 1997, and the judgment

entered the same date are corrected and modified as follows:

Said opinion and judgment are corrected by changing the caption to read:

CHARLES JACKSON,

Petitioner/Appellant

VS.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al.,

Respondents/Appellees.

The last paragraph of said opinion is hereby modified to read as follows:

The judgment of the Trial Court is reversed and

vacated, and the cause is remanded to the Trial Court for

further proceedings in conformity with the opinion of this

Court. All costs, accrued in the Trial Court and this Court are

assessed against the Respondent, Corrections Corporation of

America.
Said judgment is hereby modified to read as follows:

In accordance with the opinion of the Court filed

herein, the judgment of the Trial Court is reversed and

vacated. All costs accrued in this Court and the Trial Court

are assessed against the respondent/appellee, Corrections

Corporation of America. The cause is remanded to the Trial

Court for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion

of this Court.

ENTER __________________

___________________________________

HENRY F. TODD

PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION

___________________________________

SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

___________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Max Swersky, and David Kalhofer, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered on the 21st day of January, 1914, convicting the defendant of the crime of horse poisoning, and from an order denying a motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment.

Judgment and order affirmed. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.

Dowling, J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that it was error to charge that there were three accomplices only—Friedman, O’Brien and Mrs. Erlichman; that it was also error for the court to hold that Joseph Erlichman was not in law an accomplice; and that it was further error to refuse the request to charge that it was for the jury to determine whether Joseph Erlichman was or was not an accomplice. In my opinion, the question of his being an accomplice was one of fact which should have been submitted to the jury.
#### William Junkermann, an Infant, etc., Respondent, v. Tilyou Realty Company, Defendant. Samuel Jankelson and Jankelson Realty Company, Appellants.

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Judgment and order unanimously affirmed on reargument, on the law and the facts, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ.