alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Etelos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, ChiefExecutive 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 tothe best of my knowledge:

 

(a)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)                                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| March 17, 2010 |   | /s/  Daniel J.A. Kolke                      |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|                |   | Daniel  J.A. Kolke, Chief Executive Officer |
|                |   | (Principal Executive 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. 003 January 01, 2000

ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN MOUNTAIN TIME ZONE

TRANSITION SAFELY THROUGH THE Y2K ROLLOVER

All three of the nuclear power plants in the Mountain Time Zone (Palo Verde plants

located 36 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona) have reported to the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission that they have transitioned safely through the Y2K rollover.

As of 2:15 a.m. today, 98 of the nation's 103 operating nuclear power plants and both

gaseous diffusion plants have transitioned safely through the Y2K rollover. Four reactors in

California and one in Washington are awaiting the arrival of midnight.

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

§ 134.610 Are there limitations on reimbursement for fees and expenses? ( a ) Awards will be calculated on the basis of fees and expenses actually incurred. If services were provided by one or more of your employees, or were made available to you free, you may not seek an award for those services. If services were provided at a reduced rate, fees and expenses will be calculated at that reduced rate.
( b ) In determining the reasonableness of the fees for attorneys, agents or expert witnesses, the ALJ will consider at least the following: ( 1 ) That provider's customary fee for like services;
( 2 ) The prevailing rate for similar services in the community in which that provider ordinarily performs services;
( 3 ) The time actually spent in representing you; and
( 4 ) The time reasonably spent in light of the difficulty and complexity of the issues.
( c ) An award for the fees of an attorney or agent may not exceed $75 per hour, and an award for the fees of an expert witness may not exceed $25 per hour, regardless of the rate charged.
( d ) An award for the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, project or similar matter prepared on your behalf may not exceed the prevailing rate payable for similar services, and you may be reimbursed only if the study or other matter was necessary to the preparation of your case.
§ 113.425 Counseling and use of appraisal and counseling materials. ( a ) *Counseling.* A recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the counseling or guidance of students or applicants for admission.
( b ) *Use of appraisal and counseling materials.* A recipient that uses testing or other materials for appraising or counseling students shall not use different materials for students on the basis of their sex or use materials that permit or require different treatment of students on such basis unless such different materials cover the same occupations and interest areas and the use of such different materials is shown to be essential to eliminate sex bias. Recipients shall develop and use internal procedures for ensuring that such materials do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Where the use of a counseling test or other instrument results in a substantially disproportionate number of members of one sex in any particular course of study or classification, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination in the instrument or its application.
( c ) *Disproportion in classes.* Where a recipient finds that a particular class contains a substantially disproportionate number of individuals of one sex, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination on the basis of sex in counseling or appraisal materials or by counselors.
##### 



Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

To the Partners of
TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-100494)
of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. of our report dated January 22, 2003, except as to Note 20 which is as of February 10, 2003,
related to the consolidated financial statements of TE Products Pipeline Company, Limited Partnership,
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 filed on March 27, 2003.

KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
March 27, 2003
#### § 429.9 What should I do before filing an application?

Before filing an application, it is important that you contact the local Reclamation office to discuss your proposed use. This discussion can help expedite your application process.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH MALCOMB,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 98 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5269 

To prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring contractors to provide 

information relating to greenhouse gas emissions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2022 

Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. ERNST, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RUBIO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. RISCH, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. CRUZ, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring contractors to provide information relating to greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Focus on the Mission 

5 Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5269 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING DEFENSE CONTRAC2 TORS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION RELATING 

3 TO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

5 (1) GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘‘greenhouse 

6 gas’’ means— 

7 (A) carbon dioxide; 

8 (B) methane; 

9 (C) nitrous oxide; 

10 (D) nitrogen trifluoride; 

11 (E) hydrofluorocarbons 

12 (F) perfluorcarbons; or 

13 (G) sulfur hexafluoride. 

14 (2) GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY.—The term 

15 ‘‘greenhouse gas inventory’’ means a quantified list 

16 of an entity’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

17 (3) SCOPE 1 EMISSIONS.—The term ‘‘Scope 1 

18 emissions’’ means direct greenhouse gas emissions 

19 from sources that are owned or controlled by the re20 porting entity. 

21 (4) SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS.—The term ‘‘Scope 2 

22 emissions’’ means indirect greenhouse gas emissions 

23 associated with the generation of electricity, heating 

24 and cooling, or steam, when these are purchased or 

25 acquired for the reporting entity’s own consumption 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 5269 IS

1 but occur at sources owned or controlled by another 

2 entity. 

3 (5) SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS.—The term ‘‘Scope 3 

4 emissions’’ means greenhouse gas emissions, other 

5 than those that are Scope 2 emissions, that are a 

6 consequence of the operations of the reporting entity 

7 but occur at sources other than those owned or con8 trolled by the entity. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE REQUIRE10 MENTS.—The Secretary of Defense may not require the 

11 recipient of a Federal contract to provide a greenhouse 

12 gas inventory or to provide any other report on greenhouse 

13 gas emissions, including Scope 1 emissions, Scope 2 emis14 sions, or Scope 3 emissions. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Shoreand sea boundaries: with special reference to the interpretation and use ofCoast and Geodetic Survey data**
 
Volumes: 010203
 
SuDoc Number:LinkC 55.2: SH 7/V.3
Item Number:
CGP systemNumber:
 
May 15, 2018
United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Doug Longhini, Plaintiff,

v.

17070 Collins Avenue Shopping 

Center, Ltd. and others, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-61359-Civ-Scola

Order of Partial Settlement

The Plaintiff has informed the Court it has reached a settlement with the

Defendant Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation. (ECF No. 90.) The 

Court directs the Clerk to vacate all currently set dates and deadlines for this

Defendant. On or before March 29, 2021, the Plaintiff must file a stipulation of 

dismissal with respect to the Defendant Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse 

Corporation. 

If the Plaintiff files a stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 

the parties wish to have this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce any settlement 

agreement, the stipulation of dismissal must include the following sentence:

“The effectiveness of this stipulation of dismissal is conditioned upon the 

Court’s entry of an order retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the 

parties’ settlement agreement.” This sentence is necessary because a 

stipulation of dismissal is otherwise self-executing and deprives the Court of 

jurisdiction to do anything further. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 

677 F.3d 1272, 1280 (11th Cir. 2012).

This case shall remain open as the Plaintiff has not dismissed or settled 

this case with respect to certain of the other Defendants.

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on February 26, 2021.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 0:20-cv-61359-RNS Document 91 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2021 Page 1 of 1
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 TransAlta Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald Tremblay, Chief Financial 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 to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/   Donald Tremblay           |   |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Donald   Tremblay               |   |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer       |   |   |
|                            |   |   |
| Dated:   February 19, 2015 |   |   |

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

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

§ 134.809 Review of initial decision. ( a ) If the Chief Human Capital Officer, General Counsel for SBA, or Counsel to the Inspector General (IG) believes OHA's decision is contrary to law, rule, regulation, or SBA policy, that official may file a Petition for Review (PFR) of the decision with the Deputy Administrator (or IG for disputes by OIG employees) for a final SBA Decision. Only the Chief Human Capital Officer, General Counsel, or Counsel to the IG may file a PFR of an OHA decision; the Employee may not.
( b ) To file a PFR, the official must request a complete copy of the dispute file from the Assistant Administrator for OHA (AA/OHA) within five calendar days of receiving the decision. The AA/OHA will provide a copy of the dispute file to the official, the Employee, and the Employee's representative within five calendar days of the official's request. The official's PFR is due no later than 15 calendar days from the date the official receives the dispute file. The PFR must specify the objections to OHA's decision.
[82 FR 25507, June 2, 2017]
<PAGE>


                                   EXHIBIT 23

                      [MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP LETTERHEAD]

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into all Registration
Statements on Form 10-K of Coddle Creek Financial Corp. of our report dated
January 18, 2002, relating to the consolidated statements of financial condition
of Coddle Creek Financial Corp. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2001 and 2000,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31,
2001.


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
---------------------------
Charlotte, North Carolina
March 27, 2001
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Louis Korth et al., Appellants. Michael J. Murphy, as Acting Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

All concur.
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-97-111 August 26, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF CITES AMBRIC ENGINEERING, INC

FOR VIOLATION OF NRC REQUIREMENTS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has cited Ambric

Engineering, Inc., for a violation of NRC requirements associated

with the temporary loss of a radioactive source at a Delaware

construction site. The staff has not proposed a fine for the

violation.

The Philadelphia-based company used a moisture-density gauge

at the Bally Meade development on Delaware State Route 92 in

Claymont, Del., on June 25. Following that work, Ambric sent the

gauge to its manufacturer for maintenance. On July 10, the

manufacturer notified Ambric that the gauge’s cesium-137 source

was missing. That same day, an NRC inspector went to the site to

review the incident and, on July 11, the NRC issued a

confirmatory action letter confirming Ambric’s agreement to

restrict access to the area where the source was believed to have

been lost, to survey the area, and to attempt to recover the lost

source. The source was found buried under about two feet of dirt

at the job site on July 14.

Based on the information developed during the inspection and

at a subsequent predecisional enforcement conference in the NRC

regional office, the NRC staff has determined one violation of

NRC requirements occurred. The staff has cited Ambric for

failing to control and maintain constant surveillance of licensed

material that was in an unrestricted area and not in storage.

In a letter to the company, NRC Region I Administrator

Hubert J. Miller said, “The NRC is also concerned that this

particular gauge was not inspected by the manufacturer prior to

the loss of the source..... An inspection of the rod/source weld

may have detected a crack before the source actually broke off in

June 1997."

The NRC staff did not fine the company because its

corrective actions were prompt and comprehensive. Those actions

included training all gauge operators to recognize the symptoms
of a detached source and obtaining a survey meter to verify that

a source has not become detached from the gauge’s source rod.

Moisture density gauges use radioactive material to measure the

moisture in soils used for road and building foundations.

The company has 30 days to respond to the notice of

violation.

#
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Geology and ore deposits of the Zimapan mining district, 
State of Hidalgo, Mexico

#### Professional Paper 284

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                 
  (21856 pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 1**                                 
    (929 pdf)
- **Plate 2**                                 
    (7593 pdf)
- **Plate 3**                                 
    (577 pdf)
- **Plate 4**                                 
    (895 pdf)
- **Plate 5**                                 
    (879 pdf)
- **Plate 6**                                 
    (964 pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp284 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:09:55
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2 @nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-54

November 9, 1999

NRC COMMISSIONER TO VISIT OCONEE NUCLEAR PLANT NOVEMBER 16

Media Availability at 3:15 P.M.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield will visit Duke Energy’s Oconee nuclear power

plant Tuesday, November 16 to tour the facility and discuss its operation with Duke officials. The Oconee

plant was the second nuclear plant in the United States to file an application to renew its operating license.

Mr. Merrifield will be available to meet with interested news media representatives at 3:15 p.m in the plant’s

Engineering Complex, located just off Highway 183 about one mile east of the intersection with Highway

130.

Mr. Merrifield was sworn in as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on October 23, 1998.

Prior to assuming that post, he served for several years as a senior counsel and legislative assistant to

two United States Senators and as a Washington, D.C., attorney, specializing in environmental and

regulatory issues.

A native of Antrim, N.H., he majored in political science and history at Tufts University where he received

his Bachelor of Arts Degree, magna cum laude, in 1985. He received his Doctor of Jurisprudence degree

from Georgetown University Law Center in 1992. He is a member of the bar of both New Hampshire and

the District of Columbia.

#
#### Hannah Sullivan v. Thomas Rosson and Others.

Motion granted, question certified. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### Otto A. Beever, Individually and as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. Joseph B. King, as Executor, etc., and Others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateEnforcement

# Contact Us About Enforcement

For answers to many frequently asked questions see our Enforcement pages. If after reviewing these pages you wish to send us a comment or question regarding the NRC enforcement policy or specific issues dealing with enforcement, please complete the following form.

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 Monday, June 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Issued Significant Enforcement Actions
          - Authority and Regulations
          - Enforcement Policy
          - Enforcement Program Overview
          - Enforcement Process Diagram
          - Upcoming Conferences
          - Guidance
          - Sanctions for Discrimination Against Employees Who Raise Safety Concerns
          - Alternative Dispute Resolution
          - Public Involvement
          - Contact Us

#### 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 Monday, June 8, 2020