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

DAY ELEV

 502.05

 502.07

 502.68

 502.58

 502.85

 502.46

 501.89

 501.86

 501.89

 502.72

 504.21

 503.95

 504.69

 504.14

 504.27

 504.51

 503.45

 503.18

 503.23

 503.35

 503.00

 502.35

 503.18

 504.26

 504.56

 504.11

 504.89

 504.48

 504.14

 504.37

 57,546

 57,568

 58,252

 58,140

 58,442

 58,005

 57,369

 57,336

 57,369

 58,296

 59,993

 59,693

 60,548

 59,912

 60,062

 60,340

 59,123

 58,815

 58,872

 59,009

 58,610

 57,882

 58,815

 60,051

 60,398

 59,877

 60,780

 60,305

 59,912

 60,178

STORAGE

-246

+22

+684

-112

+302

-437

-636

-33

+33

+927

+1,697

-300

+855

-636

+150

+278

-1,217

-308

+57

+137

-399

-728

+933

+1,236

+347

-521

+903

-475

-393

+266

CHANGE

1,066

1,492

1,960

1,722

2,190

1,974

2,172

2,486

2,491

2,689

3,046

1,938

2,410

1,669

2,058

2,151

1,472

1,846

2,415

2,595

2,342

2,172

2,641

2,765

2,531

2,200

2,907

2,230

2,343

2,726

INFLOW

 1,186

 1,477

 1,611

 1,774

 1,849

 1,971

 2,000

 2,000

 2,000

 2,000

 2,183

 2,089

 1,979

 1,980

 1,979

 2,000

 2,000

 1,998

 2,360

 2,443

 2,442

 2,441

 2,139

 2,132

 2,330

 2,446

 2,449

 2,462

 2,471

 2,457

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 125

 168

 31

 86

 54

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 20

 77

 89

 88

 24

 0

 21

 13

 0

 0

 65

 123

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 53

 44

 452

 412

 412

 217

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1

 79

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 4

 4

 4

 4

 11

 11

 10

 5

 8

 5

 7

 0

 0

 10

 3

 10

 7

 3

 6

 6

 12

 10

 8

 10

 5

 4

 3

 7

 5

 12

C.F.S.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

APRIL 2012 TULLOCH RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 05/01/2012

RES.

EVAP

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +2,386 66,699 62,648 984 1,670 194

ACRE-FEET +2,386 132,297 124,262 1,952 3,312 385

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 124,262

SPILL 1,952 129,526

 57,792

OUTLET 3,312

TOTAL 

NEW

MELONES

RELEASE (1)

 965

 1,437

 1,922

 1,693

 2,192

 1,945

 2,165

 2,476

 2,470

 2,702

 2,964

 1,842

 1,847

 1,473

 1,962

 2,080

 1,445

 1,820

 2,389

 2,595

 2,340

 2,207

 2,608

 2,732

 2,502

 2,169

 2,880

 2,217

 2,328

 2,731

 65,098

 129,122

*COMPUTED INFLOW IS SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES, AND

EVAPORATION.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
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 EntreMed, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, John W. Holaday, Ph.D., as Chairman of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or
used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
law.

|                  |  |                                                   
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|November 14, 2002 |  | /s/ John W. HoladayJohn W. Holaday, Ph.D.
Chairman

18
#### § 108.20 Legal basis and applicability of this part 108.

The regulations in this part implement Part B of Title III of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (15 U.S.C. 661 *et seq.*). All NMVC Companies must comply with all applicable SBA regulations, accounting guidelines and valuation guidelines for NMVC Companies, available from SBA.
No: 23-007 February 1, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Opens Hearing Opportunity for Abilene Christian University

Research Reactor Construction Permit Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published in the Federal Register a notice of 

opportunity to intervene in an adjudicatory hearing regarding the Abilene Christian University’s 

application for a construction permit to build a Molten Salt Research Reactor at a site in Abilene, 

Texas.

Petitions to intervene in a hearing must be filed no later than April 3, by anyone whose 

interest may be affected by the proposed issuance of a construction permit and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding. More information on the hearing process is available on 

the NRC website.

The university submitted the application on Aug. 15 and supplemented the application on 

Oct. 14. The one-megawatt, non-power MSRR would use molten salt coolant with fuel dissolved 

in the salt. The facility would provide a platform to research molten-salt technology, as well as 

educational opportunities in nuclear science and engineering. If the NRC issues the construction 

permit and the facility is built, ACU will have to submit a separate application for an operating 

license in the future.
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 Willbros Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren L. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Warren L. Williams 
|                     |  | Warren L. Williams     
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer



52
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.403 Service of appeal petition. Concurrent with its filing with OHA, the petitioner also must serve separate copies of the petition, including attachments, on two SBA officials. ( a ) All 8(a) appeals must be served to: Director, Office of Business Development, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, facsimile (202) 205-5206, or e-mail at *8aBD2@sba.gov .*
( b ) ( 1 ) Appeals of early graduation or termination also must be served to: Associate General Counsel for Litigation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, facsimile (202) 205-7415, or e-mail at *OLITService@sba.gov .*
( 2 ) Appeals of denial of program admission, suspension of program assistance, or denial of a request for waiver also must be served to: Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, facsimile (202) 205-6873, or e-mail at *OPLService@sba.gov .*
[75 FR 47442, Aug. 6, 2010]
EXHIBIT 32.1: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

            In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
of Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended May 31, 2005, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

            (1)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May
                  31, 2005 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 such Quarterly report on Form
                  10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2005 fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of Magna-Lab, Inc.


      July 15, 2005               /s/ Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                  ----------------------------------------------
                                  Name: Lawrence A. Minkoff
                                  Title: President (principal executive officer)
HomeAbout NRCPublic Affairs

# Contact the Office of Public Affairs

If you have questions or comments, or need information about the NRC, nuclear safety, or related topics, please send an e-mail by completing this form. Please see our Contact Us page for Public Affairs (OPA) telephone numbers.

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Media Resources
          - Contact a Public Affairs Officer

#### 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

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 7, 2020
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsExplanation-based generalization of partially ordered plansMost previous work in analytic generalization of plans dealt with totally ordered plans. These methods cannot be directly applied to generalizing partially ordered plans, since they do not capture all interactions among plan operators for all total orders of such plans. We introduce a new method for generalizing partially ordered plans. This method is based on providing explanation-based generalization (EBG) with explanations which systematically capture the interactions among plan operators for all the total orders of a partially-ordered plan. The explanations are based on the Modal Truth Criterion which states the necessary and sufficient conditions for ensuring the truth of a proposition at any point in a plan, for a class of partially ordered plans. The generalizations obtained by this method guarantee successful and interaction-free execution of any total order of the generalized plan. In addition, the systematic derivation of the generalization algorithms from the Modal Truth Criterion obviates the need for carrying out a separate formal proof of correctness of the EBG algorithms.Document ID19920017546Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKambhampati, Subbarao*(Stanford Univ. CA., United States)*Kedar, Smadar*(Sterling Federal Systems, Inc., Moffett Field CA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1991Subject CategoryCyberneticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:107869NASA-TM-107869FIA-91-15Accession Number92N26789Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920017546.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
### §530. Payment of travel and transportation expenses of newly appointed special agents

The Attorney General or the Attorney General's designee is authorized to pay the travel expenses of newly appointed special agents and the transportation expenses of their families and household goods and personal effects from place of residence at time of selection to the first duty station, to the extent such payments are authorized by section 5723 of title 5 for new appointees who may receive payments under that section.

(Added Pub. L. 98–86, §1, Aug. 26, 1983, 97 Stat. 492.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.1 Which loan programs does this part cover?

This part regulates SBA's financial assistance to small businesses under its general business loan programs (“7(a) loans”) authorized by section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. 636(a), its microloan demonstration loan program (“Microloans”) authorized by section 7(m) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 636(m), and its development company program (“504 loans”) authorized by Title V of the Small Business Investment Act, 15 U.S.C. 695 to 697f (“Title V”). These three programs constitute the business loan programs of the SBA.
No: IV-24-002 January 8, 2024 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128 

NRC Names Henry Strittmatter as Resident Inspector

at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Henry Strittmatter 

as the new resident inspector at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in 

Glen Rose, Texas. 

"Henry’s Naval experience, coupled with the hands-on training he 

received during inspector qualifications, will help ensure the continued 

safety of Comanche Peak," said NRC Region IV Administrator John 

Monninger. 

Strittmatter joined the NRC in 2021 and has served as an emergency preparedness inspector 

since 2022 in the agency’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. He is a 10-year veteran of the U.S. 

Navy and served on the USS George Washington aircraft carrier as a nuclear reactor division 

officer. He holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from the University of New Mexico. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC resident inspectors. 

Strittmatter joins senior resident inspector John Ellegood at Comanche Peak. They serve as the 

agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring significant work projects, 

and interacting with plant workers and the public.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2062

GEORGES ARISTIDE BERNARD MEKONGO,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: August 17, 2010 Decided: September 13, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

E. Dennis Muchnicki, Dublin, Ohio, for Petitioner. Tony West, 

Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant 

Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Georges Aristide Bernard Mekongo, a native and citizen 

of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. 

Mekongo first challenges the determination that he 

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal 

of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien 

“must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that 

no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear 

of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Mekongo fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. Having failed to qualify for asylum, Mekongo cannot 

meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. 

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999); INS v.

Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Channing W. Barrett, Plaintiff in Error, v. H. G. Nye, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 16,698.

1. Appeals and *errors—harmless error.*Improper exclusion of evidence as to elements of damage sustained when an automobile is injured in a collision will not necessarily work a reversal if the jury finds there was no liability.

2. Appeals and *errors—record must contain instructions given.*Error in the giving of instructions will not be reviewed where instructions appear in the abstract of the record and none are contained in the record.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Mancha Bruqgemeyeb, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1910.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 30, 1912.

H. R. Lloyd and P. R. Boylan, for plaintiff in error.

Albert H. Meads, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error claimed that while driving Ms automobile in Dearborn Avenue, Chicago, with due care, etc., the defendant in error carelessly and negligently drove his automobile against the automobile of plaintiff in error, breaking same, etc., thereby causing certain damages, to recover wMch he brought smt. *138On a trial before a jury a verdict was returned for the defendant in error and the court entered judgment thereon.

The plaintiff in error urges that the court erred in refusing to admit competent evidence offered by plaintiff in error to show “the time he was out the use of his automobile” and “the value of the use of the automobile while being repaired” as elements of damages for which he was entitled to recover. If it be conceded that the rulings complained of were erroneous, it does not necessarily follow that the judgment should be reversed therefor under the circumstances in this case when the jury found there was no liability. In Oak Island Hotel Co. v. Oak Island Grove Co., 165 Mass. 260, where the same objection was urged, the court say: “The short answer to this exception is, that the jury found a verdict for the defendant.” We refer to that case for a more extended discussion of the question. To the same effect are First Nat. Bank of El Paso v. Miller, 235 Ill. 135, and Doyle v. Cavanaugh, 139 Ill. App. 359.

The only other errors argued by the plaintiff in error relate to the instructions to the jury claimed to have been given by the court. The record contains no instructions. In the abstract of the record appear what is said to be the instructions given by the trial court upon which plaintiff in error bases his arguments. We are at a loss to understand how counsel could insert into an abstract of a record that which is not contained in the record, without expecting and inviting the condemnation of the court. We shall, however, say nothing further in this respect, for we prefer to imagine some charitable excuse rather than consider a wilful attempt was made to mislead or impose upon the court.

The judgment is affirmed.

*'Affirmed.*
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Particulate Sampling Line Bend Radii

## HPPOS-006 PDR-9111210091

See the memorandum from L. B. Higginbotham to W. L. Fisher dated March 8, 1977, and the incoming request from W. L. Fisher dated January 24, 1977. Stack and vent sampling lines should have a bend radius equal to or greater than five times the diameter of the sampling line.

During a preoperational inspection of Unit 1 at Davis Besse, several right angle bends were observed in an airborne sample line that lead to a particulate monitor. In response to the deviation for failure to comply with FSAR (Section 11.4.2.1) requirements for representative sampling, the licensee stated that the right angle bends had been replaced with bends of radii equal to five times the line diameters. The licensee further stated that the new line configuration was in conformance with ANSI N13.1-1969.

ANSI N13.1-1969 states: "Elbows in sampling lines should be avoided if at all possible, but when they are required, the bend radius of the elbow should be as long as practicable ..." (Section B5). Although the phrase, "as long as practicable" does not appear to be defined further in the narrative portion of ANSI N13.1-1969, Section A3.4 and Figures A2 and A5 appear to give some credence to the selection of R equal to or greater than 5D for sampling probes, where R is the bend radius of the sampling line and D is the diameter of the sampling line. Section A3.4 does, however, contain the caveat that in "some probe configurations ... deposition may be significant ...."

In examining the installation of stack and vent sampling systems, a bend radius equal to or greater than five times the diameter of the sampling line should be accepted.

However, some sort of an evaluation must be preformed by the licensee to actually demonstrate that representative samples are being collected. Such an evaluation can sometimes be done by collecting special samples at the location of the sample probe and correlating the results with those obtained at the "remote" sample collector.

**Regulatory references:** ANSI N13.1-1969, Final Safety Analysis Report

**Subject codes:** 6.9, 7.3, 9.1

**Applicability:** Reactors

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 02, 2017