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

                            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 Silver Star Energy,  Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2006,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert McIntosh,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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/    Robert McIntosh
Robert McIntosh
President, CEO and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)


August 11, 2006


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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 831.1702 Definitions. In this subpart— *Authorized agency official* means— ( 1 ) For the executive branch agencies, the head of an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105;
( 2 ) For the legislative branch, the Secretary of the Senate, the Clerk of the House of Representatives, or the head of any other legislative branch agency;
( 3 ) For the judicial branch, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts;
( 4 ) For the Postal Service, the Postmaster General;
( 5 ) For any other independent establishment that is an entity of the Federal Government, the head of the establishment; or
( 6 ) An official who is authorized to act for an official named in paragraphs (1)-(5) in the matter concerned.
*Composite retirement annuity* means the annuity computed when a phased retiree attains full retirement status.
*Director* means the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
*Full retirement status* means that a phased retiree has ceased employment and is entitled, upon application, to a composite retirement annuity.
*Full-time* means— ( 1 ) An officially established recurring basic workweek consisting of 40 hours within the employee's administrative workweek (as established under § 610.111 of this chapter or similar authority); or
( 2 ) An officially established recurring basic work requirement of 80 hours per biweekly pay period (as established for employees with a flexible or compressed work schedule under 5 U.S.C. chapter 61, subchapter II, or similar authority).
*Phased employment* means the less-than-full-time employment of a phased retiree.
*Phased retiree* means a retirement-eligible employee who— ( 1 ) With the concurrence of an authorized agency official, enters phased retirement status; and
( 2 ) Has not entered full retirement status.
*Phased retirement annuity* means the annuity payable under 5 U.S.C. 8336a before full retirement.
*Phased retirement percentage* means the percentage which, when added to the working percentage for a phased retiree, produces a sum of 100 percent.
*Phased retirement period* means the period beginning on the date on which an individual becomes entitled to receive a phased retirement annuity and ending on the date on which the individual dies or separates from phased employment.
*Phased retirement status* means that a phased retiree is concurrently employed in phased employment and eligible to receive a phased retirement annuity.
*Working percentage* has the meaning given that term in § 831.1712(a).
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-08-0008 - Section 274b Agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Accession Number: ML073390178

Date Released: Thursday, April 3, 2008

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML073390182 - SECY-08-0008 - Section 274b Agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (8 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390195 - SECY-08-0008 - Enclosure 1: Proposed Agreement Between the NRC and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (6 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390196 - SECY-08-0008 - Enclosure 2: Staff Analysis of Public Comments (5 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390200 - SECY-08-0008 - Enclosure 3: NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program (20 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390203 - SECY-08-0008 - Enclosure 4: Current Milestone Schedule for Processing Proposed Agreement (2 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390224 - SECY-08-0008 - Enclosure 5: Draft Letter from Chairman Dale E. Klein to Governor Edward G. Rendell (2 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390240 - SECY-08-0008 - Enclosure 6: Draft Federal Register Notice of Agreement Signing (5 page(s), 1/11/2008)
    - ML073390243 - SECY-08-0008 - Supplemental Materials (6 page(s), 1/11/2008)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
No. III-08-020 

Contacts: 

Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662 

Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663 

 May 15, 2008 

 E-Mail: opa3@nrc.gov 

Web site: www.nrc.gov

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS 

AT AMERICAN RADIOLABELED CHEMICALS 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday, 

May 20, to discuss five apparent violations of NRC regulations associated with radiation safety 

practices at American Radiolabeled Chemicals, Inc. (ARC), a manufacturer and distributer of 

radiolabeled chemicals, based in St. Louis, Missouri. 

The meeting, called a predecisional enforcement conference, is scheduled to begin at 1:00 

p.m. in the NRC Region III Office, at 2443 Warrenville Road, in Lisle, Ill. It will be open to the 

public, and those in attendance will have an opportunity to ask questions of NRC staff before the 

end of the meeting. Visitors need to check in on the 2nd floor of the building prior to the meeting. 

The NRC conducted a two-part inspection at ARC, in January and March 2008. During 

the inspection in January, NRC inspectors identified contamination on workers’ clothing and in 

the lunchroom -- areas where radiological contamination is not expected to be found. 

In February 2008, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to the company. The 

letter outlined commitments made by the company to address issues identified by the NRC and to 

improve its radiation safety practices. 

The NRC conducted a follow-up inspection in March to complete its January reviews and 

to assess the company’s actions in response to the Confirmatory Action Letter. 

NRC inspectors identified five apparent violations of NRC regulations: the company’s 

failure to comply with license commitments in the area of management oversight of the 

Radiation Protection Program; failure to comply with license commitments in the area of 

radiological surveys; failure to secure radiological material from unauthorized removal or limit 

access; discharging radiological material into the sanitary sewer in excess of NRC limits; and 

failure to perform and document investigations of contamination. 

The purpose of the May 20 conference is to discuss the apparent violations and provide 

the company an opportunity to respond and to provide details of its corrective actions and other 

additional information to enable the NRC to determine what, if any, enforcement action is 

warranted. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region III 

2443 Warrenville Road 

Lisle IL 60532 
No enforcement decision will be made by the NRC staff at the conference. Agency 

managers will make a decision following a review of information from the enforcement 

conference and final evaluation of the apparent violations. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

Notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
§ 630.1308 Disabled veteran leave forfeiture, transfer, reinstatement. ( a ) Disabled veteran leave not used during the 12-month eligibility period may not be carried over to subsequent years and must be forfeited.
( b ) If a change in the employee's disability rating during the 12-month eligibility period causes the employee to no longer have a qualifying service-connected disability (as described in § 630.1304(d)), any unused disabled veteran leave to the employee's credit as of the effective date of the rating change must be forfeited.
( c ) When an employee with a positive disabled veteran leave balance transfers between positions in different agencies, or transfers from the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission to a position in another agency, during the 12-month eligibility period, the agency from which the employee transfers must certify the number of unused disabled veteran leave hours available for credit by the gaining agency. The losing agency must also certify the expiration date of the employee's 12-month eligibility period to the gaining agency. Any unused disabled veteran leave will be forfeited at the end of that eligibility period. For the purpose of this paragraph, the term “transfers” means movement from a position in one agency (or the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission) to a position in another agency without a break in employment of 1 workday or more in circumstances where service in both positions qualifies as employment under this subpart.
( d ) ( 1 ) An employee covered by this subpart, or an employee of the United States Postal Service or Postal Regulatory Commission, with a balance of unused disabled veteran leave who has a break in employment of at least 1 workday during the employee's 12-month eligibility period, and later recommences employment covered by 5 U.S.C. 6329 within that same eligibility period, is entitled to a recredit of the unused balance.
( 2 ) When an employee has a break in employment as described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the losing agency must certify the number of unused disabled veteran leave hours available for recredit by the gaining agency. The losing agency must also certify the expiration date of the employee's 12-month eligibility period. Any unused disabled veteran leave must be forfeited at the end of that eligibility period.
( 3 ) In the absence of the certification described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the recredit of disabled veteran leave may also be supported by written documentation available to the employing agency in its official personnel records concerning the employee, the official records of the employee's former employing agency, copies of contemporaneous earnings and leave statement(s) provided by the employee, or copies of other contemporaneous written documentation acceptable to the agency.
( e ) An employee may not receive a lump-sum payment for any unused disabled veteran leave under any circumstance.
No. II-09-043 July 24, 2009 

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 562-4416 

AREVA NP, INC.’S RICHLAND FACILITY AGREES TO SITE ACCESS 

IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH NRC ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory has issued a Confirmatory Order to AREVA NP Inc.’s 

Richland facility as part of a settlement agreement involving a security guard who falsified 

access authorization forms. The guard’s actions caused AREVA to be in violation of its security 

procedures, and allowed unauthorized individuals unescorted access to the Richland, Wash., 

nuclear materials facility. 

AREVA requested the alternative dispute resolution process to resolve differences with 

the NRC concerning the apparent violations and to discuss corrective actions. The ADR process 

uses a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority to assist the NRC and its licensees in 

coming to an agreement. 

As part of the settlement agreement, AREVA has agreed to a number of corrective 

actions and enhancements related to security procedures, site access and training, not only at 

Richland but at other AREVA sites. Some of the steps agreed to by AREVA go beyond what 

would have been required under the NRC’s traditional enforcement process. 

In consideration of the commitments, the NRC will not propose a civil penalty, issue a 

Notice of Violation or take other enforcement action on the matter. The NRC will, however, 

evaluate adherence to the commitments during future inspections. 

In a letter to AREVA, the NRC noted that the security guard deliberately falsified a Site 

Access Authorization procedure on five separate occasions from January 2007 through March 

2008 by signing the name of an individual listed on the Authorization List. As a result, 

individuals were granted access to the site without proper authorization. There was no indication 

of any malicious intent, and no harm was done during any of the unauthorized entries. Separate 

NRC enforcement action is pending against the individual involved. 

Copies of the letter and the Confirmatory Order are available in the electronic reading 

room on the NRC website at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The NRC will also post 

copies on its public website at www.nrc.gov; select Public Meetings and Involvement, then 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov 
Enforcement. AREVA’s response, should it provide one, will also be made available online for 

public inspection. 

 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Solelyfor the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, theundersigned Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and ChiefOperating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of New York &Company, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge,that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for thequarter ended October 28, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
| Dated: December 7, 2006 |                                                   |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| * *                     | /s/ RICHARD P. CRYSTAL                                 |
| * *                     | Richard P. Crystal                                     |
|                         | *Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer*      |
| * *                     | /s/ RONALD W. RISTAU                                   |
| * *                     | Ronald W. Ristau                                       |
|                         | *Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial  Officer* |

 

----
§ 831.109 Initial decision and reconsideration. ( a ) *Who may file.* Except as noted in paragraph (b) of this section any individual or agency whose rights or interests under the Civil Service Retirement System are affected by an initial decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) may request OPM to review its initial decision.
( b ) *Actions covered elsewhere.* ( 1 ) A request for reconsideration of termination of annuity payments under 5 U.S.C. 8311-22 shall be made in accordance with the procedures set out in subpart K of this part.
( 2 ) A request for reconsideration of a decision to collect a debt will be made in accordance with § 831.1304(b).
( c ) *Initial decision.* A decision shall be considered an initial decision when rendered by OPM in writing and stating the right to reconsideration.
( d ) *Reconsideration.* A request for reconsideration must be in writing, must include the individual's name, address, date of birth and claim number, if applicable, and must state the basis for the request.
( e ) *Time limits on reconsideration.* ( 1 ) A request for reconsideration must be received by OPM within 30 calendar days from the date of the original decision.
( 2 ) The representative of the Associate Director for Compensation responsible for reconsiderations may extend the time limit for filing when the individual shows that he/she was not notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it, or that he/she was prevented by circumstances beyond his/her control from making the request within the time limit.
( f ) *Final decision.* ( 1 ) After reconsideration, the Associate Director's representative shall issue a final decision which shall be in writing, shall fully set forth the findings and conclusions of the reconsideration, and shall contain notice of the right to request an appeal provided in § 831.110. Copies of the final decision shall be sent to the individual, to any competing claimants and, where applicable, to the agency.
( 2 ) OPM may issue a final decision providing the opportunity to appeal under § 831.110 rather than an opportunity to request reconsideration under paragraph (c) of this section. Such a decision must be in writing and state the right to appeal under § 831.110.
( g ) *Competing claimants.* ( 1 ) When a competing claimant files a request for reconsideration under this section, the other competing claimants shall be notified of the request and given an opportunity to submit written substantiation of their claim.
( 2 ) When a determination in favor of one claimant would affect another claimant, all claimants concerned will be notified of that decision and those adversely affected will be given an opportunity to request reconsideration. OPM shall not execute its decision until the time limit for requesting reconsideration has expired. If reconsideration has been requested, OPM shall take no action after the reconsideration decision is rendered until the time limit to appeal has expired.
[45 FR 23632, Apr. 8, 1980, as amended at 49 FR 1330, Jan. 11, 1984; 50 FR 34664, Aug. 27, 1985; 62 FR 22873, Apr. 28, 1997]
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-04-31 May 27, 2004

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NEW NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR ASSIGNED 

TO INDIAN POINT 3 NUCLEAR PLANT

Thomas R. Hipschman has been assigned as the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission

senior resident inspector at the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant. He joins NRC Resident

Inspector Robert Berryman at the plant, in Buchanan, N.Y. Mr. Hipschman replaces Peter

Drysdale, who is retiring after 30 years of government service. 

NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller said, "Tom Hipschman’s extensive

experience and commitment to safety will help the NRC in its mission to ensure that Indian

Point meets the high standards we insist upon for reactor operation in the United States."

Hipschman first joined the NRC in December 1997 as a reactor inspector in the Region I

Office in King of Prussia, Pa. He was assigned as an NRC resident inspector at the Oyster

Creek nuclear plant in Lacey Township, N.J. in 1998. In July 2001, Hipschman took a position

with the National Nuclear Security Agency in Oak Ridge Tennessee. He returned to the NRC in

June 2002 as a reactor inspector in the Region I office. 

Prior to joining the NRC, Hipschman worked as an operations supervisor at the Salem

Generating Station in Lower Alloways Creek, N.J., and at the Westinghouse Hanford Company

in Richland, WA. He also served as an officer in the United States Navy. 

Hipschman is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., where

he earned a bachelor’s degree in applied science. He also earned a master’s degree in science of

engineering from the Wharton School and the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the

University of Pennsylvania. 

Hipschman lives in Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
-2-

Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve

as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work

projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. 

The Indian Point resident inspectors can be reached at 914/739-8565.

###
### §200306. Exclusive right to name, seals, emblems, and badges

The corporation and its subordinate divisions have the exclusive right to use the name "Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War". The corporation has the exclusive right to use and to allow others to use seals, emblems, and badges the corporation adopts.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1454.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 200306 | 36:547. | Aug. 20, 1954, ch. 774, §17, 68 Stat. 752. |

Section

The words "sole" and "or refuse" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "corporation adopts" are substituted for "as it may legally adopt" for consistency in the revised title and to eliminate unnecessary words. The words "and such emblems, seals, and badges as have heretofore been used by the Illinois corporation described in section 548 of this title and the right to which may be lawfully transferred to the corporation" are omitted as executed and obsolete.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

JOHNNY DANIEL CAYEROS, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 21-0269 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2005-009971-001 DT 

The Honorable Ronee Korbin Steiner, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Amanda M. Parker 

Counsel for Respondent 

Johnny Daniel Cayeros, Buckeye

Petitioner

FILED 12-2-2021
STATE v. CAYEROS

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge 

Maria Elena Cruz delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Johnny Daniel Cayeros seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. This is 

petitioner’s first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.