alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
BY PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING 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 for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kathy R.
Wehmeir-Davis, as Principal Accounting 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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
      for the dates and periods covered by the
Report.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.





/s/ Kathy R. Wehmeir-DavisAugust
      16, 2010
                Kathy
      R. Wehmeir-Davis
                  Principal
      Accounting Officer
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-96

November 17, 1999

NRC TO MEET WITH CONSOLIDATED EDISON TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE

AT INDIAN POINT 2 NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

representatives of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant on

Tuesday, November 23, to discuss the results of the agency's

latest Plant Performance Review for the facility. Consolidated

Edison Company (of New York) operates the plant, which is located

in Buchanan, NY.

Issuance of the reviews was announced in NRC news release

I-99-87 on October 13. The Plant Performance Review letter can be

found on the agency's Internet web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/247ppr2.htm

The meeting, which will be open to the public, will begin at

11 a.m. in the Indian Point 2 Visitors Center Auditorium at

Broadway and Bleakley Avenue in Buchanan. At its conclusion, NRC

staff will be available to answer questions from interested

observers and to meet with state and local officials.

#
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsCommunications and tracking expert systems studyThe original objectives of the study consisted of five broad areas of investigation: criteria and issues for explanation of communication and tracking system anomaly detection, isolation, and recovery; data storage simplification issues for fault detection expert systems; data selection procedures for decision tree pruning and optimization to enhance the abstraction of pertinent information for clear explanation; criteria for establishing levels of explanation suited to needs; and analysis of expert system interaction and modularization. Progress was made in all areas, but to a lesser extent in the criteria for establishing levels of explanation suited to needs. Among the types of expert systems studied were those related to anomaly or fault detection, isolation, and recovery.Document ID19900017688Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLeibfried, T. F.*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Feagin, Terry*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Overland, David*(Research Inst. for Advanced Computer Science Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 30, 1987Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:185935NASA-CR-185935Accession Number90N27004Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC9-16Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017688.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
400 EAST BAY STREET, LLC, a Virginia limited liability co mpany, and CUTHRELL & KLOEPPEL PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company , Petitioner s ,

v. THE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT BERKMAN PLAZA, INC., a Florida not

- for

profit corpor ation , Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5553

Opinion filed Decembe r 1, 2015. Certiorari

– Original Jurisdiction.
Wm. J. Sheppard, Bryan E. DeMaggio, Matthew R. Kachergus and Amanda J. Woods of Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DeMaggio, P.A., Jacksonville , for Petitioner s . Suzanne C. Quiñó nez, P.A., Middleburg , for Respond ent.

PER CURIAM. In this second

- tier certiorari action, condominium owners 400 East Bay Street, LLC., and Cuthrell & Kloeppel Properties, LLC., (collectively the Owners) filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court, claiming error by the circu it judge acting in2 his appellate capacity. In order to be granted relief in second

- tier certiorari, the petitioners/Owners must show that the circuit court did not afford procedural due process and did not observe the essential requirements of law. See H aines City C mty

. Dev

. v. Heggs , 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); State v. Bolware , 999 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Certiorari review of a circuit court ’s appellate decision is narrow and must not be utilized as a means of obtaining a second app ea l. Heggs , 658 So. 2d at 52 9 (quoting Combs v. State , 436 So. 2d 93, 95

- 96 (Fla. 1983)). The Florida Supreme Court has recently reiterated, in no uncertain terms, that second

- tier certiorari review is to be granted on a very limited basis. Florida Parole Comm’n v. Taylor , 132 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 2014). That is, a grant of second

- tier certiorari review requires “a departure from the essential requirement of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice .” Id

. at 783 (citation omitted). We find that the circui t court afforded the Owners due process and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in reviewing the decision of the county court. Therefore, the standards for se cond

- tier certiorari are not me t here.
DENIED. SWANSON and BILBREY, JJ., CONC UR , MAKAR, J., CONCURS WITH WRITTEN OPINION

.3 MAKAR, J., concurs with opinion. The appellate opinion of the circuit court is sustainable in light of the high bar that second

- tier certiorari review sets, and for that reason I concur in the majority opinion. As to the accord and satisfaction issue, I write to note that the county court’s factual finding (affirmed by the circuit court) that the Owners did not act in good faith is supportable only if based on the actions of the Owners overall vis

- à

- vis the
Asso ciation; making payments to a “lockbox” as a means of obtaining an accord and satisfaction of the parties’ disputes, if standing alone, would appear to be insufficient for such a finding.
### §1400. Approval of amendments

#### (a) Amendment of covered multiemployer plan; procedures applicable

Except as provided in subsection (b), if an amendment to a multiemployer plan authorized by any preceding section of this part is adopted more than 36 months after the effective date of this section, the amendment shall be effective only if the corporation approves the amendment, or, within 90 days after the corporation receives notice and a copy of the amendment from the plan sponsor, fails to disapprove the amendment.

#### (b) Amendment respecting methods for computing withdrawal liability

An amendment permitted by section 1391(c)(5) of this title may be adopted only in accordance with that section.

#### (c) Criteria for disapproval by corporation

The corporation shall disapprove an amendment referred to in subsection (a) or (b) only if the corporation determines that the amendment creates an unreasonable risk of loss to plan participants and beneficiaries or to the corporation.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title IV, §4220, as added Pub. L. 96–364, title I, §104(2), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1239.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For the effective date of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), see 1461(e)(2) of this title.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 8
 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 8
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 8
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 8
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 8
 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 8
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 8
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAR K WI L L I AM S T AN L E Y, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S UP E R I ORC OU R T OF C AL I F ORNI A, S o u th C o u n tyR e g io n a l C e n te r ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 55752 D. C. No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 2 2 6 - H- BL M ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M ar i l y n L . H uf

f , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d Jul y12, 2011 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , A L A R C Ó N , an dL E A V Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ark W i l l i a m S t anl e y , aC a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng de ni a l of a c c e s s t o c o u rt s an dr e l a t e ds t a t e l aw c l a i ms . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED JU L 25 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 55752 2 § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v i e w d e n o v o ad i s mi s s a l f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § § 1 9 1 5 A an d1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( ii) . R es ni ck v. H ayes , 21 3 F . 3d 44 3, 44 7 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ; B arr e n v . H

arr i ngton , 1 5 2 F .3 d1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( o r d e r ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyd is m is s e dS tan le y ’s a c c e s s - to - c o u rts c la im be c aus e an i nm a t e ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghtt o a c c e s s the c ourt s i s l i m i t e d t o a tt a c ks on h is o rh e rc o n v ic tio n , s e n te n c e , o rc o n d itio n s o f c o n f in e m e n t. See L ew is v . Casey , 5 1 8 U . S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 5 (1 9 9 6 ). “ Im p ai rm en to f an y otherlitig a tin g c ap a c ityis s im p ly one of the i nc i de nt a l ( and pe r f e c t l yc ons t i tut i ona l ) c ons e que nc e s of c onvi c t i on and i ncar ce rat i on . ” Id . (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). S t anl ey ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. W e a ss um e thatthe di stri ctcourtdecl i ned t o exerci se supp l em ent al j ur i s di c t i on ove rS t anl e y ’ s s t a t e l aw c l a i m s a f t e rdi s m i s s i ng hi s § 1983 c l a i m , and th e r e f o r e c o n s tru e th e d is m is s a l o f th e s e c la im s to h a v e b e e n w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . See 28 U . S . C . § 1 36 7(c) (3); cf . G i niv. L as V

egas Metro. P ol i ce D ep’t , 40 F . 3d 10 41 , 10 46 (9th C i r. 19 94 ) ( re qu i ri ng cl ar i fi cat i on on re m and thatdi sm i ss albase d on decl i ni ng supp l em ent alj uri sdi ct i on w as w i tho utprej ud i ce ). AF F I RME D.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 46

**Question 46:** Will determination of the "eye dose equivalent," at a tissue depth of 300 mg/square cm, be included in the NVLAP personnel dosimetry accreditation program?

**Answer:** Not until ANSI N13.11, which defines the testing program used in the NVLAP accreditation program, is revised to include tests for the 300 mg/square cm depth and this revised standard is adopted by the NVLAP program. (Note: Requirements under the old Part 20 include the determination of the dose to the eye at a tissue depth of 300 mg/square cm. See Instructions for Preparation of NRC Form 5, Item 5.)

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1201 (a) (2) (i))

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 12, 2017
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-99-28 April 27, 1999

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICIALS

TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE AT KEWAUNEE NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Monday,

May 3, with Wisconsin Public Service Corporation officials to

discuss the recent Plant Performance Review of the Kewaunee

Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located at Kewaunee,

Wisconsin.

The meeting will be at 1 p.m. (EST) in the Carlton Town

Hall, N1296 Town Hall Road, Kewaunee. The meeting is open to

public observation. NRC officials will be available after the

meeting for questions and comments from members of the public and

the news media.

[The Plant Plant Performance Review assessment of Kewaunee

was previously covered in News Announcement RIII-99-20, issued on

April 5.]

In a March 26 letter to Wisconsin Public Service, which

operates the plant, Geoffrey Grant, Division Director in the

NRC's Region III Office, said, "Overall, performance at Kewaunee

during this assessment period was acceptable."

The text of the plant performance review letter is available

from the NRC Region III Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC

web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/305ppr1.htm. The review

covered the time period from February 1997 through January 31.

NRC reviews safety performance twice a year at every

licensed nuclear power plant in the nation. These reviews give

the agency staff an integrated assessment of plant performance

and provide a basis for planning inspection activities.

Plant performance reviews are an interim measure NRC is

using to monitor nuclear power plant safety. The agency began

using it for this purpose after suspending the Systematic

Assessment of License Performance (SALP) process until a new

assessment program is developed. Previously, SALP reports were

issued every 12 to 24 months.

#####
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-80993-WPD

TIMOTHY O’BRYAN

Plaintiff,

vs. 

JOE TAYLOR RESTORATION, INC., a Florida

Corporation, AARON GETTY, individually, 

KAREN RADEWICZ, individually, and

GLENDA GALARZA, individually, 

Defendants.

 /

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ VERIFIED MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, NON-TAXABLE COSTS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’, Joe Taylor Restoration, Inc., Aaron 

Getty, Karen Radewicz, and Glenda Galarza, verified motion for attorneys’ fees, non-taxable costs, 

and the Court having reviewed the motion and the file in this cause, and being otherwise fully 

advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees, non-taxable 

costs is _______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this ______ day of _____________, 

2021. 

___________________________________

WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of Willbros Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael F. Curran,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Michael F. Curran
---------------------

Michael F. Curran
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:see attached file
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 Fellows Energy Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form
10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brooke E.
Horspool, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Fellows Energy Ltd. and will be retained by Fellows Energy Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:
      April 11, 2008
            By:/s/ BROOKE E. HORSPOOLBrooke
      E. HorspoolChief
      Financial Officer
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-267

December 22, 1999

NRC COMPLETES ITS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO RENEW

OPERATING LICENSE FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has concluded that the adverse environmental

impacts of renewal of the operating licenses for Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3 in

Oconee County, South Carolina are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for

energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable.

These conclusions are spelled out in a newly published supplement specific to Oconee to

the final generic environmental impact statement for license renewal.

NRC has had renewal of the Oconee licenses under consideration since Duke Energy,

which operates the plants, filed an application in July 1998. Under NRC regulations, the original

operating license for a nuclear power plant was issued for up to 40 years. The license may be

renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating

licenses for Oconee will expire on February 6 and October 6, 2013, and July 19, 2014, for Units

1, 2, and 3, respectively. The environmental impact is a key element in the NRC staff's review of

the application, which is also undergoing scrutiny in a number of technical areas.

The final environmental statement just issued is an Oconee-specific supplement to an

existing document, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear

Plants," (NUREG-1437), which assesses the environmental effects associated with license

renewal at any nuclear power plant site. In preparing the supplement, the NRC staff considered

comments received on the draft supplement, issued in May. As part of that process, public

meetings were held in July in Clemson, South Carolina.

The final Supplement 2 to NUREG 1437 is available for public inspection and

reproduction at the NRC Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW

Washington, D.C. The document will be posted on the NRC Internet web page at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1437/S2/index.html

###
Docket FAA

- 2014

- 1073
Uneven Slot Transfer Lists: Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Airports 2009

- 2012 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) categorizes certain slot (operating authorization) transfers as “uneven” if the transaction is not a one

- for

- one swa p or transfer at the same airport. Transfers between carriers with unified market control, such as mainline and regional carriers, are not included in the lists. Reports on holder changes reflect permanent changes to the carrier holding a slot in FAA

reco rds. Operator changes are temporary for the period noted. The report headers are explained below:
MCF : An FAA internal correspondence tracking number.
Auth No

. : The Slot Identification Number is a unique number assigned by FAA to identify a particular slo t at an airport.

Time : The half hour slot time in local time, using the twenty

- four hour clock

. A/D : Arrival or Departure. Slots are allocated for a specific type of operation.
Lose Carr .: The carrier that holds (or operates) the slot before the transfer.
Gain Carr .: The carrier that holds (or operates) the slot after the transfer. Freq .: The frequency or days of the week of the slot.
Start/End : Holder Change indicates a permanent change. Otherwise, the effective dates of a transfer.
Obt. Date : The date of the transfer.
Date Posted : FAA system update. Unev/Trans Type/SS/OB : FAA internal database sort codes

Source: FAA Slot Administration Office March 4, 2015
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 9 -00240-CV In re L is a L as er US A, I n c. a n d Li sa La ser Prod u cts , O HG. ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS COUNTY M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N We gra nt t he re a l par

ty in int e re st’ s mo tio n to strike , a nd we de ny the pe tit ion

fo r wri t of mandamus. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.3, 52.7, 52.8(a) . T h e s t ay o rd er issued April 30, 2009, is lifted.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Patterson and H enson Filed: May

15, 2009