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

----

| EXHIBIT      32.2                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                 |
| CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                                          |
| PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350) |
|                                                                                 |

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

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                   |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Timothy J.      Olphie                                        |   |   |   |
| Timothy      J. OlphieChief      Financial OfficerAugust      18, 2008 |   |   |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7436

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD DIXON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-464-A, CA-97-839-AM) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 4, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Bernard Dixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Dixon , Nos. CR-92-464-A; CA-97-839-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 10, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6207

DEBORAH V. HUBBARD, a/k/a Deborah Videtto Hubbard, a/k/a 

Deborah Hubbard-Sarvis,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM BYARS, JR.; JUDY ANDERSON; T. TYLER; D. FOULK, a/k/a 

Officer Foulks; SADI RAFI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-00033-BHH)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah V. Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, 

South Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah V. Hubbard appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Hubbard v. Byars, 

No. 8:14-cv-00033-BHH (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2015). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 280.216 Proceeding without a hearing.

If the parties have waived a hearing, the case will be decided on the record by the administrative law judge. Proceeding without a hearing does not relieve the parties from the necessity of proving the facts supporting their charges or defenses. Affidavits or declarations, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories and stipulations may supplement other documentary evidence in the record. The administrative law judge will give each party reasonable opportunity to file rebuttal evidence.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Fers, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 567]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 9, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree (three counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (three counts), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 60 days and five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Defendant’s evidentiary claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit. Defendant opened the door to evidence and summation comment concerning his pretrial silence. Defendant testified on direct examination that he had an innocent explanation for his possession of the wallet he allegedly stole, but that the civilians who seized him prevented him from explaining, and that the police never asked him what happened. Thus, defendant, by his own testimony, put his pretrial silence in issue. In his responses to cross-examination by the People, defendant developed these matters in greater detail and further opened the door (see *People v Davis,*61 NY2d 202 [1984]). In any event, were we to find any error, we would find it to be harmless in light of the court’s careful limiting instructions and the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 as
filed with the SEC on the date hereof, I, Eva Chen, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:



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



| | 2. | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 24, 2014



By:

/s/ Eva ChenName:

Eva ChenTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 930.85 Failure to substantially comply with an approved OCS plan. ( a ) The Department of the Interior and State agencies shall cooperate in their efforts to monitor federally licensed or permitted activities described in detail OCS plans to make certain that such activities continue to conform to both federal and State requirements.
( b ) If a State agency claims that a person is failing to substantially comply with an approved OCS plan subject to the requirements of this subpart, and such failure allegedly involves the conduct of activities affecting any coastal use or resource in a manner that is not consistent with the approved management program, the State agency shall transmit its claim to the Minerals Management Service region involved. Such claim shall include a description of the specific activity involved and the alleged lack of compliance with the OCS plan, and a request for appropriate remedial action. A copy of the claim shall be sent to the person.
( c ) If a person fails to substantially comply with an approved OCS plan, as determined by Minerals Management Service, pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and applicable regulations, the person shall come into compliance with the approved plan or shall submit an amendment to such plan or a new plan to Minerals Management Service. When satisfied that the person has met the requirements of the OCSLA and this subpart, and the Secretary of the Interior or designee has made the determination required under 30 CFR 250.203(n)(2) or § 250.204(q)(2), as applicable, the Secretary of the Interior or designee shall furnish the State agency with a copy of the amended OCS plan (excluding proprietary information), necessary data and information and consistency certification. Sections 930.82 through 930.84 shall apply to further State agency review of the consistency certification for the amended or new plan.
[65 FR 77154, Dec. 8, 2000, as amended at 71 FR 829, Jan. 5, 2006]
No: 15-011 March 2, 2015

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Meeting March 13 in Rockville, Md, to Discuss Fukushima Lessons

at Facilities Other Than Operating U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the public Friday, March 13, to 

discuss the agency’s ongoing efforts to implement lessons from the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi 

nuclear accident.

The meeting will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in room O8B4 in the NRC’s One White Flint building 

at 11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville, Md. The agenda seeks public comment on the staff’s preliminary 

assessment of how the agency’s lessons-learned effort applies to NRC-regulated sites other than 

operating nuclear power plants. Facilities covered by the assessment include decommissioning reactors, 

spent fuel storage sites, industrial irradiators, research and test reactors, and sites that play a role in 

creating nuclear fuel.

The meeting includes a teleconference and webinar for those unable to attend in person. Anyone 

interested in the call-in or webinar information should contact Joseph Sebrosky at 

joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov or 301-415-1132, or Margie Kotzalas at margie.kotzalas@nrc.gov or 

301-287-3870 by March 9. The public can also comment on the preliminary assessment via e-mail at 

JLD_Public.Resource@nrc.gov by March 13; comments received after that date will be considered to 

the extent possible.
EXHIBIT 32




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, Simon
B. Moss, 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
Avistar Communications Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Avistar
Communications Corporation.




Date: March
      31, 2009
            
            By:
            
            /s/
      Simon
      B. MossSimon
      B. MossChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)







I, Elias
A. MurrayMetzger, 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 Avistar Communications Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2008 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of Avistar
Communications Corporation.




Date: March
      31, 2009
            
            By:
            
            /s/
      Elias
      A. MurrayMetzgerElias
      A. MurrayMetzgerActing
      Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Jon E. Kirchner hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

Dated:
August 13, 2004

| |  | By: |  | /s/JON E. KIRCHNERJon E. Kirchner President and Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Digital Theater Systems, Inc. and will be
retained by Digital Theater Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
No: 14-014 March 4, 2014

CONTACT: Holly Harrington, 301-415-8200 

NRC Proposes FY 2015 Budget to Congress;

Detailed Budget Slides Available

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested $1,059.5 million (including the Office of 

the Inspector General) in its Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal to Congress to regulate nuclear power 

plants and users of nuclear materials to protect people and the environment. The budget represents a

slight increase of $3.6 million from the enacted 2014 budget. However, because the fees the NRC 

charges licensees are sent directly to the Treasury, the net appropriation requested is actually 

$124.2 million, which is $1 million less than in the previous year.

“This budget request will allow the NRC to continue to fulfill its vital safety and security 

mission on behalf of the American people,” said NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane.

The FY 2015 budget breakout includes $815.2 million for nuclear reactor safety and 

$232.2 million for nuclear materials and waste. The budget also includes resources to continue lessonslearned activities related to the Fukushima nuclear accident, including seismic and flooding 

reevaluations.

The budget reflects an increase of 66.8 full-time equivalent employees, in comparison to the 

FY 2014 enacted budget. The FY 2015 budget funds 3,881.8 full-time equivalent employees, including 

the Office of the Inspector General.

Included in the budget request is $12.1 million for the Office of the Inspector General, which 

independently and objectively conducts audits and investigations to ensure the efficiency and integrity 

of NRC programs, and to promote cost-effective management. The Office of the Inspector General’s 

budget also includes funding to provide Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board.

The budget briefing slides are available on the NRC website. The NRC Congressional Budget 

Justification will be available by March 11th. A limited number of hard copies of the report will be 

available from opa.resource@nrc.gov.
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 Annual Report of Tabatha IV, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), I, John Ballard, President and 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:

> 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/John Ballard



 John Ballard,

 President and Chief Financial Officer

May 21, 2004
§ 1025.33 Production of documents and things. ( a ) *Scope.* Any party may serve upon any other party a request: ( 1 ) To produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on behalf of that party, to inspect and copy any designated documents (including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono-records, and any other data compilation from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the party in possession through detection devices into reasonably usable form), or to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things which constitute or contain matters within the scope of § 1025.31(c) and which are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request is served, or
( 2 ) To permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection (including photographing), or sampling any designated object or operation within the scope of § 1025.31(c).
( b ) *Procedure for request.* The request may be served at any time after the filing of an answer without leave of the Presiding Officer. The request shall set forth the items to be inspected, either by individual item or by category, and shall describe each item or category with reasonable particularity. The request shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner for making the inspection and performing the related acts.
( c ) *Procedure for response.* The party upon whom the request is served shall respond in writing within thirty (30) days after service of the request. The Presiding Officer may allow a shorter or longer time for response. The response shall state, with respect to each item or category requested, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated. If objection is made to only part of an item or category, that part shall be specified. The party submitting the request may move for an order under § 1025.36 with respect to any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or to any failure to permit inspection as requested.
( d ) *Persons not parties.* This section does not preclude an independent action against a person not a party for production of documents and things.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.16

    


    PROMISSORY
      NOTE

    


    Amount:
      $200,000.00

     

    FOR
      VALUE RECEIVED,
      the
      undersigned GARESTE LTDA., promises to pay Pacific Copper Corp. or to its order,
      the principal sum of Two
      Hundred Thousand US Dollars ($200,000.00) which is non-interest
      bearing.

    


    The
      undersigned promises to pay the outstanding principal on demand.

    


    All
      or
      part of the principal sum due hereunder may be prepaid from time to time without
      notice, bonus or penalty by presentation of invoices for work completed on
      behalf of Pacific Copper Corp.

    


    The
      undersigned waives presentment for payment, demand, notice of non-payment,
      notice of dishonor, protest and notice of protest of this promissory note and
      diligence in collection or bringing suit, and consents to all extensions of
      time, renewals, waivers or modifications that may be granted by the holder
      with
      respect to the payment or any other provision of this promissory
      note.

    


    DATED
      this 1st
      day of
      May, 2007.

     

    
      
        	GARESTA
                LTDA. 
	 	 
	By:  	
                /s/
                  Harold Gardner 

              
	 	     
                Harold Gardner
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Buckingham of Long Beach, Inc., Respondent, against Jacob W. Osmann et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors in and for the City of Long Beach, Nassau County, Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
September 10, 2014

 

***FOR THE RECORD***

Clarification of Security Regulations for Nuclear Power Plants 

There have been several recent news stories contending that security is lax at the nation’s nuclear 

power plants. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, they are among the best-protected parts of our 

national infrastructure. 

NRC requires nuclear power plant owners to take a graded approach to physical protection 

focusing on the areas most important to safety. For example, the area encompassing a nuclear power 

plant and its safety equipment is the Protected Area. NRC regulations require stringent access control 

measures before personnel and vehicles can enter a Protected Area. Within the Protected Area are the 

Vital Areas, which have even more access barriers and alarms to protect important equipment. All 

plants are required to have security checkpoints into the Protected Area. The outermost area, or the 

Owner-Controlled Area, does not have the same access control requirements and can be accessible by 

the public. 

In the recent news stories, a reporter was able to drive onto the owner-controlled area, but was 

not able to enter the protected area. Being able to drive around a parking lot does not mean security has 

been breached or that there was a danger to the public.

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, the NRC has required numerous security 

enhancements at the nation’s nuclear plants. While the plants are secure, robust structures designed and 

built to withstand a variety of natural and man-made events, the agency ordered additional measures. 

For example, we strengthened requirements related to physical barriers, access controls, and intrusion 

detection and surveillance systems, as well as the existing well-trained and armed security officers. 

NRC regulations require plants be able to defend against an assault by multiple determined and capable 

adversaries attacking by land or water, truck bombs, boat bombs, insider threats and cyber attacks. 

Finally, the NRC has an extensive security oversight program. The NRC reviews and approves 

a plant’s security plan. NRC inspectors conduct onsite inspections of personnel and equipment on an 

on-going basis to ensure our requirements are met. Force-on-force security inspections are another part 

of this program. In these inspections, a specially trained mock adversary force “attacks” the facility. 

Should NRC inspectors find deficiencies, they are corrected or compensated for before the inspectors 

leave the site.
Page | 2

In total, NRC regulations and oversight ensure security at the 100 operating nuclear power 

plants, as well as Independent Spent Fuel Installations and decommissioning plants, is appropriate to 

protect the public health and safety.