alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.4



CERTIFICATION



I, Dale E. Parker, Chief Financial Officer of Paperweight Development Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Paperweight Development Corp.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) 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 and 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 controls over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of 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.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2004
|                     | 
|Signature:           |  | /S/    DALE E. PARKER  
|                     |  |                        
|                     |  | Dale E. Parker         
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### § 4770.5 Criminal penalties.

Any person who commits any act prohibited in § 4770.1 of these regulations shall be subject to a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, for each violation. Any person so charged with such violation by the authorized officer may be tried and sentenced by a United States Commissioner or magistrate, designated for that purpose by the court by which he/she was appointed, in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3401.
HomeAbout NRCEmergency Preparedness & ResponseAbout Emergency  Preparedness

# Emergency Planning Zones

A keystone of any plant's preplanned protective action strategy involves two emergency planning zones (EPZs) around the plant. The EPZ's size and shape vary for each plant due to detailed consideration of the specific site conditions, unique geographical features of the area, and demographic information. EPZ-specific strategies provide a strong starting point for implementing additional measures beyond the planning zone, if extremely unlikely events unfold.

The two EPZs are described as follows:

## Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ

The first EPZ is a plume exposure pathway extending about 10 miles in radius around the reactor site. Protective action plans within this area are designed to avoid or reduce dose from potential exposures such as inhaling radioactive particles. These actions include sheltering, evacuation, and the use of potassium iodide pills where appropriate. More information is available in the Typical 10-Mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ Map.

## Ingestion Exposure Pathway EPZ

The second EPZ is an ingestion exposure pathway extending about 50 miles in radius around the reactor site. Protective action plans for this area are designed to avoid or reduce dose from eating or drinking radioactive materials. These actions include a ban of contaminated food and water.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Friday, November 13, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Emergency Classification
          - Emergency Action Level Development
          - Emergency Planning Zones
          - Protective Action Recommendations
          - Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Responsibilities
          - Emergency Exercise Schedule
          - Response to Terrorism
          - Research and Test Reactor Emergency Preparedness
          - Use of Potassium Iodide

#### 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 Friday, November 13, 2020
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 Annual Report of iCurie, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB
      for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Karpheden,
      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 to the best of
      my knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the
                Company.





/s/
      Michael Karpheden


Michael
      Karpheden


Chief
      Financial Officer


March
      _ 9 _,
      2006
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF GILLES OUELLETTE


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002





CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of M45 Mining
Resources, Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:




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
10, 2009





/s/ Gilles
  Ouellette


Gilles
Ouelette


Chief
Financial Officer
**Exhibit 99.2**

          I, James F. Verhey,Chief Financial Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC, certify that:

          1.          The Form10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the year ended December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the year ended December 31,2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer. 

| Date:  | March 25, 2003 |                                                                  | /s/ JAMES F. VERHEY |
|--------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|   |           |                                                                  |                     |
|   |           | **James F. Verhey, Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer** |
### §1149. Prohibition on false statements and representations

No person, in connection with a plan or other arrangement that is 1 multiple employer welfare arrangement described in section 1002(40) of this title, shall make a false statement or false representation of fact, knowing it to be false, in connection with the marketing or sale of such plan or arrangement, to any employee, any member of an employee organization, any beneficiary, any employer, any employee organization, the Secretary, or any State, or the representative or agent of any such person, State, or the Secretary, concerning—

(1) the financial condition or solvency of such plan or arrangement;

(2) the benefits provided by such plan or arrangement;

(3) the regulatory status of such plan or other arrangement under any Federal or State law governing collective bargaining, labor management relations, or intern union affairs; or

(4) the regulatory status of such plan or other arrangement regarding exemption from state 2 regulatory authority under this chapter.

This section shall not apply to any plan or arrangement that does not fall within the meaning of the term "multiple employer welfare arrangement" under section 1002(40)(A) of this title.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title I, §519, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title VI, §6601(a), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 779.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in par. (4), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–406, known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Titles I, III, and IV of such Act are classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by "a".

2 So in original. Probably should be capitalized.
### SUBCHAPTER II—TRAINING SERVICES FOR THE DISADVANTAGED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. Dollars

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                                     6368520
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              6033712
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 167949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          15153202
<PP&E>                                     8820582
<DEPRECIATION>                             7047793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            17325096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      9487638
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    101772
<OTHER-SE>                                 7595812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              17325096
<SALES>                                    5957106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           7821414
<CGS>                                      1036425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              2363201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           7117193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           20347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (1601048)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 15851
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (1616899)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (1616899)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.16)


</TABLE>
#### David Daniels, Doing Business under the Name of Daniels *&*Daniels, Respondent, v. Samuel L. Golden et al., Appellants.

Appeal by a real estate broker to recover the amount of commission allegedly earned by procuring a prospective lessee who was ready, able and willing to enter into a lease upon the terms prescribed by the defendants. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff, upon which judgment was entered. Judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Lewis, P. J., Carswell and Sneed, JJ., concur; Adel and Wenzel, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment atid to grant a new trial on the ground'that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
- 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

# Paddling Dillards Ferry to Buffalo Point

Buffalo National River
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7128

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JASON MICHAEL BROWN, a/k/a Gigatribal007,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00167-MOC-1; 3:18-cv00125-MOC)

Submitted: May 1, 2019 Decided: June 25, 2019

Before MOTZ, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Michael Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Michael Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.*

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED

 * Contrary to Brown’s challenge of this court’s jurisdiction under Porter v. Zook, 

803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015), the district court’s order is final and appealable.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Charles H. Roberts, Deceased. Frances P. Roberts and Another, Appellants; John N. Vanderlyn and Others, Respondents.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30744 C onfer enc e Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee
v. W I LLI E L C O O K S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 5: 07- C R
- 50116- 1 B e fo r e J O N E S , C h ie f J u d g e , a n d J O L L Ya n d E L R O D , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * Th e at t or neyappoi nt ed t o re pre se nt W i l l i e L . C oo ks h as m ove d forl eave t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ersv. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U .S . 7 3 8 (1 9 6 7 ). C o o k s h a s file d a re s p o n s e . T h e re c o r d is in s u ffic ie n tly deve l ope d t o a l l ow c ons i der at i on att hi s t i m e o f C oo ks’ s c l ai m s of

i nef fec t ive as si st ance of

c ounse l ; s uch c l ai m s gener al l y “ c annotbe r es olved on di r ec tappeal w h en [th eyh a ve ] n ot be en raised be fore th e d i stri ct co u rt sin ce n o op p ortu n i ty ex i sted to de ve l op the reco rd on th e m erits of th e al l eg a ti on s. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30744

2 Ca n tw ell , 4 70 F. 3d1 08 7, 1 09 1 ( 5t h Ci r. 2 006) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) . Ouri nde pend en t revi e w o f t he r e c o r d, c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f, a nd C oo ks ’ s r es ponse di sc l os es n o no nf r ivol ous i ss ue f

orappeal . Acc or di ngl y, coun sel ’ s m ot i on f

or l eave to w i t h draw i s G R A N T E D , coun seli s excused f rom fu r th e r r e s p o n s ib ilitie s h e r e in , a n d th e A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D . S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7527

LORENO NEAL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RALPH S. BEARDSLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-97-1891-3-23BC)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 12, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Loreno Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Loreno Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Neal v. Beardsley, No. CA-97-1891-3-23BC (D.S.C.

Sept. 28, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06750

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06750\06750_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06750\06750_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 06750\06750_Followup Questions.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

06750\06750_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06750\06750_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06750\06750_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06750\06750_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06750\06750_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06750\06750_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 06750\06750_telecon1.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

x 06750\06750_telecon2.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

06750\Certification Statement_06750.pdf Plant certification statement

x 06750\Supporting Documentation\06750_POWER PLANT AERIAL-Model.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 06750\Supporting Documentation\06750_Water Balance Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[Exhibit 31.1]

                            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 Med Gen, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report'), I, Paul B.
Kravitz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 result of
             operations of the Company.





                                        /s/ Paul B. Kravitz
                                        ---------------------------
                                        Paul B. Kravitz,
                                        Principal Executive Officer


December 30, 2004



<PAGE>
Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-3   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 1 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-3   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 2 of 3

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM   Document 25-3   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/05/2020   Page 3 of 3