alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §525. Procurement of law books, reference books, and periodicals; sale and exchange

In the procurement of law books, reference books, and periodicals, the Attorney General may exchange or sell similar items and apply the exchange allowances or proceeds of such sales in whole or in part payment therefor.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §4(c), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 615.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 341e. | July 28, 1950, ch. 503, §3, 64 Stat. 380. |

Statutes at Large

The words "Attorney General" are substituted for "Department of Justice".
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 29, 2014

t0721 

# Order

Clerk July 29, 2014

148838

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148838

COA: 305917

Wayne CC: 76

- 002436

- FC

RONALD EARL WILLIAMS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### VERNON FLYNN, Movant, v. EUNICE BARKET EDWARDS, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1945.

Shumate & Shumate for movant.

W. Li. Kash and Jphn W. Walker opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied; Judgment affirmed.
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 92

**Question 92:** At power reactor facilities, when the reactor is at power, very high radiation areas (due to neutron andN-16 gamma radiation fields) can exist inside the primary containment. At some facilities, these areas inside containment are not readily locked, without substantial plant modifications to make them lockable. In recognition of this situation, the following controls are planned to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1602 as it relates to a PWR or de-inerted BWR containment at power: When thereactor is at power and entry is not required, the primary containment access hatch (and any other access way) will be locked and posted as a very high radiation area. The keycontrol access and special radiation work permit for entry will be in accordance with, or provide protection equivalent to, the guidance in draft Regulatory Guide DG-8006. When the reactor is at power, and entry isrequired, a qualified (in accordance with the applicable ANSI standard) radiation protection technician will accompany and provide continuous job coverage to each(small) group of workers assigned to perform a particular task (e.g., surveillance). Do the preceding controls meet the intent of 10 CFR 20.1602?

**Answer:**Yes. The controls outlined are an example of one way (but not the only way) to comply with 10 CFR 20.1602 in this situation.

(References: 10 CFR 20.1003, 10 CFR 20.1602).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Dr. Adya S. Tripathi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Tripath Technology Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30,
2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations
of Tripath Technology Inc.



|       |  |                                               
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /S/    ADYA S.
TRIPATHI                       
|Name:  |  | Dr. Adya S. Tripathi                          
|Title: |  | Chairman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer



Date: December 15, 2005



I, Jeffrey L. Garon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Tripath Technology Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tripath Technology Inc.



|       |  |                                                    
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /S/    JEFFREY L.
GARON                            
|Name:  |  | Jeffrey L. Garon                                   
|Title: |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer



Date: December 15, 2005
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAsymptotic modal analysis and statistical energy analysisThe sound field of a structural-acoustic enclosure was subject to experimental analysis and theoretical description in order to develop an efficient and accurate method for predicting sound pressure levels in enclosures such as aircraft fuselages. Asymptotic Modal Analysis (AMA) is the method under investigation. AMA is derived from classical modal analysis (CMA) by considering the asymptotic limit of the sound pressure level as the number of acoustic and/or structural modes approaches infinity. Using AMA, results identical to those of Statistical Energy Analysis (SEA) were obtained for the spatially-averaged sound pressure levels in the interior. AMA is systematically derived from CMA and therefore the degree of generality of the end result can be adjusted through the choice of appropriate simplifying assumptions. For example, AMA can be used to obtain local sound pressure levels at particular points inside the enclosure, or to include the effects of varying the size and/or location of the sound source. AMA theoretical results were compared with CMA theory and also with experiment for the case where the structural-acoustic enclosure is a rectangular cavity with part of one wall flexible and vibrating, while the rest of the cavity is rigid.Document ID19900017318Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsDowell, Earl H.*(Duke Univ. Durham, NC, United States)*Peretti, Linda F.*(Duke Univ. Durham, NC, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186732NASA-CR-186732Meeting InformationMeeting: Acoustical Society of America MeetingLocation: Saint Louis, MOCountry: United StatesStart Date: November 27, 1989End Date: December 1, 1989Accession Number90N26634Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-709Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017318.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
# NRC_Service_Contract_Inventory_

&14NRC Service Contract Inventory FY14		

Page &P of &N		

# Sheet1
#### Thomas O. Lindsey, Respondent, v. Joseph Zagame, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
### Part G—Training To Fulfill Affirmative Action Obligations
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. 001 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tel. 301-415-8200 (Saturday, January 01, 2000)

OPA@NRC.GOV TIME 1:15 a.m.

ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN EASTERN UNITED STATES

TRANSITION SAFELY THROUGH Y2K ROLLOVER

All 60 nuclear power plants and one fuel facility in the Eastern United States have

reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they have transitioned safely through

the Y2K rollover. There are a total of 103 operating nuclear power plants and two fuel facilities

in the United States.

Plants from New Hampshire to Florida were operating normally as the focus of the NRC's

attention prepared to shift to the mid-west where another 35 nuclear plants and an additional

fuel cycle facility in the Central Time Zone prepare for midnight.

"The NRC will continue to monitor the operations of all of the commercial nuclear power

plants and fuel cycle facilities in the U.S. for any Y2K-related problems," NRC Chairman

Richard A. Meserve said from the agency's emergency operations center in Rockville, Md. "So

far things look good and we are heartened to see that years of hard work by the NRC and the

nuclear industry are paying off in a smooth transition through the new millennium."

The Chairman added that the real test of the nuclear industry's efforts will come within the

next few days when other problems might arise.

Three nuclear power plants safely shut down in the past 36 hours in South Carolina,

Georgia and Pennsylvania although the shutdowns are not believed to be Y2K-related. All of

the plants are in stable condition.

The Limerick nuclear power plant, operated by PECO Energy Co., about 20 miles northwest

of Philadelphia, shut down about 1:10 a.m. December 31, due to a failure of the plant's main

electrical transformer. The reactor shut down without any complications and is stable.

The Catawba nuclear power plant, operated by Duke Power. Co., near Rock Hill, S.C.,

automatically shut down about 6:20 p.m. Thursday, December 30, without any complications.

The cause of the shutdown appears to have been an equipment failure.

The Vogtle nuclear reactor, operated by the Southern Nuclear Operating Co., about 25 miles

southeast of Augusta, Ga., was manually shut down shortly before 5 p.m. Thursday, December

30, because of an equipment problem. The problem was corrected and the plant is restarting.

#
#### § 128.300 How is a concern certified as a VOSB or SDVOSB?

A concern must apply to SBA for certification as a VOSB or SDVOSB. The concern must submit evidence that it is a small business owned and controlled by one or more qualifying veterans. SBA will consider the information provided by the concern in order to determine whether the concern qualifies. If SBA determines that a concern meets the eligibility requirements of a VOSB or SDVOSB, it will notify the concern and designate the concern as a certified VOSB or SDVOSB in the certification database.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Eugene BUNTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-51108.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Kevin Eugene Bunton raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
> Case1:12- cv-0O743-RCL Document68 Filed08/26/15 Page 1Of3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

DISTRICT OF CO LUM BIA

FILED BY D.C.

JdL 08 2222

AL-NCELAJ.sja!E iloEIR. oK:pflyjj. i--kjnjgèz. COM M ISSION S IM PORT EXPORT o. kul , S.A., )

)

Plaintf )

)

)

)

THEREPUBLICOFTHECONGO AND )

CAISSECONGOLAISED'AMORTISSEMENT, )

)

Defendants. )

)

O RDER GRANTING M OTION TO A LTER OR AM END JUD GM ENT

CivilActionNo.

1:12-CV -000743-RCL

In consideration ofPlaintiff'sM otionto AlterorAm end theOrderand Judgm entissued

/ .P

inthiscaseon July 31,2015,and > opposltion thereto,itishereby

ORDERED thatPlaintiff's M otion to AlterorAmend the Orderand Judgment is

granted;

ORDERED thattheCourt'sOrderandJudgment(Dkt.No.65)bealteredoramendedas

follows,in orderto retlectthe am ountsawarded forPlaintiffand againstDefendants in U.S.

Dollarsasofthedateofjudgment:

Cayegptyof AmpuntAWàrded Exçhaqge .Amokàj#inU.S.

M oneta Award R#è:'. . Dèllàrs

Princial 62,855,071 $1.09743 $3,133,240.57

Princial fl8,903,708 $1.56049 $29,499,047.30

Princial $31,184,837 $1.00 $31,184,837

Princial CFA 1,731,267,415 $0.00167 $2,891,216.58

Penalt interest 67,163,027 $l.09743 $7,860,920.72

Penalt interest f34,3l2,232 $1.56049 $53,543,894.91

Penalt interest $56,402,208 $1.00 $56,408,208

Penalt interest CFA 2,899,457,582 $0.00167 $4,842,094.16

Arbitrationcosts $393,333 $l.00 $393,333

Arbitrationcosts 622,867 $1.09743 $25,094.93

Total $189,781,887.17

Case 1:20-mc-22804-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:12-cv-00743-RCL Document68 Filed08/26/15 Page 2Of3

ORDERED thatPlaintiffisentitled to U.S.$189,781,887.17asofJuly31,2015,plus

taxablecostsarisingoutoftheseproceedingspursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.54(d)(1);and itis

further

ORDERED thatpost-judgmentinterestshallbeassessedinaccordancewith28U.S.C.

j196l.

FG

Enteredthis x- dayof w çf- ,2015.

C.

U.S.D.J.

ECF

DOC UM ENT

lherebyattest:ndcertifythatthlsIsaprintedcopyofa

daellm*qtwbl& waseleçtronlc4lYfiledwiththeUnited

SIt.KDldrld andBankruptryCourtsfortheDistrttof

Columbia. w

DateFjed: # 2d'2& 2

ANGE D. AESAR,CLERK

By: w .

Case 1:20-mc-22804-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:12-cv-00743-RCL Docum ent68 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3Of3

ATTORNEYSTO BE N OTICED :

FrancisA.Vasquez,Jr.

(D.C.BarNo.442161)

NicolleKownacki

(D.C.BarNo.1005627)

AttorneysforPlaintiff

701Thirteenth Street,N .W .

W ashington,D .C.20005

Phone:(202)626-3600

Facsimile:(202)639-9355

fvasquez@whitecase.com

nkownacki@whitecase.com

RobertA .Schw inger

(D.C.BarID #NY0092)

Attorney forDefendants

1301AvenueoftheAmericas

New York,NY 10019

(212)408-5100

rschwinger@chadbourne.com

Case 1:20-mc-22804-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/08/2020 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22587]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Changes to Section IV of the Field Office 
Technical Guide (FOTG) of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 
Indiana

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the 
FOTG of the NRCS in Indiana for review and comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS in Indiana to issue five revised 
conservation practice standards in Section IV of the FOTG. The revised 
standards are: Animal Mortality Facility (316); Composting Facility 
(317); Closure of Waste Impoundment (360); Stripcropping (585) and 
Underground Outlet (620). These practices may be used in conservation 
systems that treat highly erodible land and/or wetlands.

DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with 
this date of publication.

ADDRESSES: Address all requests and comments to Jane E. Hardisty, State 
Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 6013 
Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. Copies of this standard 
will be made available upon written request. You may submit your 
electronic requests and comments to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c787d6e6e797070327e6e736b725c757232696f787d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e6a6f7c7c6b6262206c7c6179604e6760207b7d6a6f20696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane E. Hardisty, 317-290-3200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the 
law, revisions made to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of changes will be made.

    Dated: September 22, 2004.
Jane E. Hardisty,
State Conservationist, Indianapolis, Indiana.
[FR Doc. 04-22587 Filed 10-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 4.425

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

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

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182246 dated April 06, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Mobile radio telephone communication services in the allocated telecommunications network

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

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

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

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

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until April 06, 2025.

 

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

 

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

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A.   Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS 
   COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN   FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR   SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,
   INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119301
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Ener1, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Gerard A. Herlihy, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(3)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


(4)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Gerard A. HerlihyGerard
      A. HerlihyChief
      Financial Officer(Duly
      Authorized Principal Financial and PrincipalAccounting
      Officer and Duly Authorized
Officer)





May 10,
2010





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Ener1, Inc. and will be retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
CONTACT: Mark

Hammond

Office: (510)

975-0254

Home: (415) 674-1024

Pacer: (800)

916-4952

Dec. 16,

1996

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE RIV-6496 email: mfh2Qnrc.gov

NRC, PG&E OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

APPARENT VIOLATION AT DIABLO

CANYON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a predecisional

enforcement conference this week with officials of the Pacific Gas and Electric

Co. to discuss an apparent violation of NRC requirements at the Diablo Canyon

nuclear power plant.

The conference will begin at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 18, at the NRC Region IV

* office in Arlington, Texas. PG&E operates the Diablo Canyon plant near Avila Beach,

California. The meeting will be open to the public for observation; NRC officials

will be available afterwards for questions.

~~W..~

The violation to be discussed was discovered during an NRC inspection of

Diablo Canyon conducted from late September through early November. NRC

inspectors determined that PG&E had failed to conduct a required safety evaluation.

v1 ~a W z ~
The safety evaluation should have been conducted in 1984, when changes were

made to the plant's emergency operating procedure as to certain steps that operators

should take if primary coolant to the reactor was lost.

The evaluation was required because the revised emergency operating

procedure, although technically acceptable, differed slightly from the

steps outlined in the plant's Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. That

document, reviewed and approved by the NRC, provides the design basis for

the safe operation of the plant.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that

NRC has made a final determination that a violation did occur or that enforcement

action, such as a monetary fine, will be taken. The purpose is to discuss the

apparent violation, its cause and safety significance; to provide PG&E an opportunity

to challenge or correct portions of the NRC inspection report; and for the licensee

to outline its corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violation or any enforcement action will be made at

the nnnference. Those decisions will be made later by senior NRC officials.

-- 30 -
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Schieren Realty Corporation, Appellant, against William W. Mills et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York, et al., Respondents. [26-28, 30-38 Ferry *991St., 61-65 Cliff St., 82, 84-90 Beekman St., Borough of Manhattan.]

— Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with §20 costs and disbursements. 'No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.