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





Ener1,
      Inc.


500
      West
      Cypress Creek Road-Suite 100


Ft.
      Lauderdale, Florida, 33309





August
        8,
        2006





Securities
      and Exchange Commission


100
      F
      Street, NE


Washington,
      DC 20549





Re:
      Certification Of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350





Dear
      Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
      connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form
      10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Ronald Stewart, Interim Chief Executive
      Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1)
            such
                Amendement No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc.,
                for
                the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
                of
                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and








2)
            the
                information contained in such Amendement No. 1 to Quarterly Report
                on Form
                10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, fairly
                presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
                of
                operations of Ener1, Inc.








/s/
                Ronald StewartRonald
              Stewart
              Interim
                Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and
              Duly
                Authorized Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.





This
      certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc. `s
      quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
      to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
      reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
      except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
      filing.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-65 June 27, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

MEETINGS ON CLINTON PLANT SCHEDULED FOR JULY 2 AND 3;

NRC REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR TO MEET WITH NEWS MEDIA

Two meetings between the NRC staff and Illinois Power Co.

officials will be held July 2 and 3, and NRC Regional

Administrator A. Bill Beach will conduct a news briefing

following the July 2 meeting.

Both meetings will be at the Energy and Environmental Center

at the Clinton Power Station, Route 54, east of Clinton,

Illinois. They are open to public observation.

At 1 p.m. on July 2 the NRC staff will meet with utility

officials to discuss the recent Systematic Assessment of Licensee

Performance (SALP) report on the Clinton plant. (This report was

announced in News Release 97-62, issued June 24.)

Following the meeting, A. Bill Beach, NRC Regional

Administrator, will meet with the news media to review NRC

regulatory activities at the Clinton plant. He will also discuss

the planned Diagnostic Evaluation Team inspection to be conducted

at Clinton. The inspection was announced at a meeting of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Wednesday.

In the second meeting, at 9 a.m. on July 3, the NRC staff

and utility personnel will discuss the progress and effectiveness

of Clinton Power Station's Startup Readiness Plan. This meeting

is expected to be the final status meeting prior to the

resumption of operations at the plant.

#####
### §1314. Rights and protections under Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988

#### (a) Polygraph practices prohibited

#### (1) In general

No employing office, irrespective of whether a covered employee works in that employing office, may require a covered employee to take a lie detector test where such a test would be prohibited if required by an employer under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 3 of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2002(1), (2), or (3)). In addition, the waiver provisions of section 6(d) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2005(d)) shall apply to covered employees.

#### (2) Definitions

For purposes of this section, the term "covered employee" shall include employees of the Government Accountability Office and the term "employing office" shall include the Government Accountability Office.

#### (3) Capitol Police

Nothing in this section shall preclude the Capitol Police from using lie detector tests in accordance with regulations under subsection (c).

#### (b) Remedy

The remedy for a violation of subsection (a) shall be such remedy as would be appropriate if awarded under section 6(c)(1) of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 2005(c)(1)).

#### (c) Regulations to implement section

#### (1) In general

The Board shall, pursuant to section 1384 of this title, issue regulations to implement this section.

#### (2) Agency regulations

The regulations issued under paragraph (1) shall be the same as substantive regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor to implement the statutory provisions referred to in subsections (a) and (b) except insofar as the Board may determine, for good cause shown and stated together with the regulation, that a modification of such regulations would be more effective for the implementation of the rights and protections under this section.

#### (d) Effective date

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), subsections (a) and (b) shall be effective 1 year after January 23, 1995.

#### (2) Government Accountability Office and Library of Congress

This section shall be effective with respect to the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress 1 year after transmission to the Congress of the study under section 1371 of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–1, title II, §204, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 10; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814; Pub. L. 115–141, div. I, title I, §153(a)(2)(A), Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 785.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 115–141 struck out "and the Library of Congress" after "the Government Accountability Office" in two places.

2004—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office" in two places.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office" in heading and text.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTemperature and melt solid interface control during crystal growthFindings on the adaptive control of a transparent Bridgman crystal growth furnace are summarized. The task of the process controller is to establish a user specified axial temperature profile by controlling the temperatures in eight heating zones. The furnace controller is built around a computer. Adaptive PID (Proportional Integral Derivative) and Pole Placement control algorithms are applied. The need for adaptive controller stems from the fact that the zone dynamics changes with respect to time. The controller was tested extensively on the Lead Bromide crystal growth. Several different temperature profiles and ampoule's translational rates are tried. The feasibility of solid liquid interface quantification by image processing was determined. The interface is observed by a color video camera and the image data file is processed to determine if the interface is flat, convex or concave.Document ID19900017348Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsBatur, Celal*(Akron Univ. Akron, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1990Subject CategorySolid-State PhysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:186731NASA-CR-186731Accession Number90N26664Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC3-109Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017348.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
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThermoviscoplastic response of Ti-15-3 under various loading conditionsMetal matrix composites (MMC's) are candidate materials for use in high temperature, high loading applications. In particular, an MMC consisting of a titanium alloy reinforced with silicon-carbide fibers is being considered for use on the National Aerospace Plane (NASP). Compared to other metals and metallic alloys, titanium alloys retain relatively high stiffness, strength, and corrosion resistance at elevated temperatures. However, above roughly 316 C titanium exhibits a significant thermoviscoplastic (creep) response. Since the temperatures encountered in many regions of the NASP are expected to exceed 316 C, the potential thermoviscoplastic behavior of titanium-based MMC's at elevated temperatures must be thoroughly investigated.Document ID19920002173Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsTuttle, M. E.*(Washington Univ. Seattle, WA, United States)*Rogacki, J.*(Washington Univ. Seattle, WA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1991Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-187621NAS 1.26:187621Accession Number92N11391Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-50-04CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-974Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002173.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
#### Rodney Elmer ANDERSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. XYZ CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; Ronald J. Angelone; D.A. Garraghty; M.C. Millard; Doctor Sweater; John Doe; Doctor Swetter; Joe Doe, Defendants—Appellees, and Andrew J. Winston; James A. Smith, Jr.; K.W. Davis; Mr. Zummer; Marsha Foresman, Defendants.

No. 05-7523.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 3, 2006.

Decided: Feb. 27, 2006.

Rodney Elmer Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Carlton Hollowell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Ashton Marie Jennette, Rawls & McNelis, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Elmer Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Anderson v. XYZ Corr. Health Serv., Inc.,*No. CA-02-1045-1-GBL (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 26, 2005 & entered Aug. 29, 2005). We deny Anderson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4774 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4774

To amend the Clean Air Act to modify the ethanol waiver for Reid vapor 
             pressure limitations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 4, 2022

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Clean Air Act to modify the ethanol waiver for Reid vapor 
             pressure limitations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ethanol Access for a Sustainable 
Economy Act of 2022'' or the ``EASE Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. ETHANOL WAIVER.

    Section 211(h)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(h)(4)) is 
amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
        ``or more of'' after ``10 percent''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``additional alcohol 
        or''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 97-40 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson July 14, 1997

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

COMANCHE PEAK RATED ‘SUPERIOR’ IN ALL AREAS

IN LATEST NRC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, a nuclear power plant near Glen Rose, Texas,

has received performance ratings of “superior” in all four functional areas rated in the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s latest systematic assessment of licensee performance (SALP) for the

facility.

The SALP report was sent July 7 to TU Electric, which operates the plant. The report

evaluates the plant’s performance from November 25, 1995, through June 7 of this year.

NRC and TU Electric officials will discuss the report during a meeting set for 9 a.m. on

Wednesday, July 30, in the Comanche Peak Personnel Processing Center. The meeting will

be open to public observation. NRC officials will be available afterwards to speak with

reporters, state and local officials, and members of the public.

NRC systematic assessment reports rate licensees in four functional areas -- plant

operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support -- and assigns ratings of Category 1,

2, or 3 depending on whether performance in those areas was superior, good or acceptable.

Comanche Peak was given the following scores on the current SALP and previous SALP in

1995:

Functional areas & ratings

Current Previous

Plant Operations 1 1

Maintenance 1 1

Engineering 1 2

Plant Support 1 1

In his cover letter to the report, NRC Regional Administrator Ellis W. Merschoff noted
that performance in engineering had improved. This was evident in a strong trend in improving

plant material conditions and in the reduction of plant reliability challenges. Safety assessment

and quality verification activities continued to be a strength, Mr. Merschoff noted, emphasizing

that strong self-assessments had made a large contribution to the superior safety performance

at the plant.

As a result of this overall superior safety performance the next SALP period will be 24

months instead of the normal 18 months. Also, the amount of NRC inspection at the plant will

be reduced.

###
§ 112.42 Application for identification card. An application for an identification card required pursuant to § 112.41 of this part, shall be filed personally by the applicant with the port director on Customs Form 3078 together with two 11 ⁄ 4′′ × 11 ⁄ 4′′ color photographs of the applicant. The fingerprints of the applicant shall also be required on form FD 258 or electronically at the time of filing the application. The port director shall inform the applicant of the current Federal Bureau of Investigation user fee for conducting fingerprint checks and the Customs administrative processing fee, the total of which must be tendered with the application. The application may be referred for investigation and report concerning the character of the applicant. [T.D. 93-18, 58 FR 15772, Mar. 24, 1993, as amended by T.D. 01-14, 66 FR 8767, Feb. 2, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.456 Accessories, spare parts or tools. Accessories, spare parts or tools that form part of the good's standard accessories, spare parts or tools and are delivered with the good will be treated as a material used in the production of the good, if— ( a ) The accessories, spare parts or tools are classified with and not invoiced separately from the good; and
( b ) The quantities and value of the accessories, spare parts or tools are customary for the good.
[No. 6740.

Decided January 8, 1908.]

#### Joseph Duteau, *Respondent,*v. R. W. Barto, *as Administrator of the Estate of George M. Godfrey, Deceased, et al., Appellants.**1*

Appeal — Review—Findings. Findings upon conflicting evidence where the trial judge saw and heard the witnesses, will not be disturbed on appeal, unless clearly unsupported by the weight of competent evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered December 22, 1906, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

Affirmed.

*Walter B. Beals*and *Blaine, Tucker & Hyland,*for appellants.

*Arthur C. Dresbach*and *F. A. Gilman,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 93 Pac. 220.

Per Curiam.

This action was commenced by Joseph Duteau against George M. Godfrey and Lee Melleur, to recover $1,263, less $186.20 paid, for services rendered by the *208plaintiff to the defendants from May, 1904, to July 11, 1905, as their housekeeper and cook, and also in caring for and nursing the defendant Godfrey at times when he was not in a condition to care for himself. The defendants, after denying the allegations of the complaint, alleged that, in May, 1904, the plaintiff, being unable to do hard manual labor, offered to do the housework and cooking for the defendant Godfrey for his lodging and board; that his offer was accepted; that in July, 1904, the defendant Melleur went to live with plaintiff and Godfrey under this arrangement, and that the defendants were not indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatever. Prior to trial the defendant Godfrey died, and his administrator having been substituted as a party defendant, amended pleadings were filed, raising the same issues, with the additional allegation made by the administrator that Godfrey during his lifetime had loaned $185.20 to the plaintiff, no part of which had been paid, and for which he asked judgment. The trial judge made findings upon which judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants for $397.57 and costs. The defendants have appealed.

No question of law is raised on this appeal, appellants’ controlling contention being that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence. We have repeatedly said that, when a trial judge has tried an issue of fact, has seen the witnesses, heard them testify, has been in a position to pass upon their credibility, and has on conflicting evidence made findings of fact, this court will not, on a trial *de novo,*disturb such findings, unless they are clearly unsupported by the weight of competent evidence. Having carefully read the entire record, we have concluded that the evidence, although conflicting, is amply sufficient to sustain each and all of the findings made, and the judgment entered thereon.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 3 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 4 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 5 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 6 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 7 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 8 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 9 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 10 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 11 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 12 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 13 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 14 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 15 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 16 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 17 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 18 of 19


Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-9 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 19 of 19
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.460 Indirect materials.

An indirect material, as defined in § 10.402(o), will be considered to be an originating material without regard to where it is produced.

# Example.

Chilean Producer C produces good C using non-originating material A. Producer C imports non-originating rubber gloves for use by workers in the production of good C. Good C is subject to a tariff shift requirement. As provided in § 10.451(b)(1) and General Note 26(n), each of the non-originating materials in good C must undergo the specified change in tariff classification in order for good C to be considered originating. Although non-originating material A must undergo the applicable tariff shift in order for good C to be considered originating, the rubber gloves do not because they are indirect materials and are considered originating without regard to where they are produced.

[CBP Dec. 05-07, 70 FR 10873, Mar. 7, 2005, as amended by CBP Dec. 06-39, 71 FR 76134, Dec. 20, 2006]
#### § 122.185 Report of loss or theft of Customs access seal.

The loss or theft of an approved Customs access seal must be promptly reported in writing by the employee to the port director. The Customs access seal may be replaced, as provided in § 122.182(f).

[T.D. 02-40, 67 FR 48986, July 29, 2002]