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


I, Frank  Ferraro,  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of  Corporate  Road
Show.Com,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  certify,  pursuant  to  Section  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter  ended
June 30, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 12, 2004

/s/ Frank Ferraro
-------------------------------------
Frank Ferraro
President and Chief Financial Officer
§ 147.1 General policy considerations, purpose and scope of rules relating to open Commission meetings. ( a ) This part contains the rules of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission implementing the open meeting requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409, 90 Stat. 1241, 5 U.S.C. 552b). These rules apply to all deliberations of a quorum of the Commission which determine or result in the conduct or disposition of official Commission business, with the exception of deliberations required or permitted by § 147.4, § 147.5 or § 147.6.
( b ) Among the primary purposes of these rules is the Commission's desire to inform the public to the fullest extent possible of its activities as an aid to its properly carrying out its responsibility for administrating and enforcing the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.,* and the Commission's belief that, in order to guarantee public confidence in the integrity of its decision-making, it must, to the fullest possible extent, conduct its business in an open manner.
#### Ena Kunzer, Respondent, v. Edward J. Kunzer, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified so as to allow injunctive relief to continue only until the trial and disposition of the separation action. In the present state of the pleadings, plaintiff would not be entitled to a permanent injunction. If permanent injunctive relief is sought, a supplemental pleading must be served and should be filed forthwith. At the trial of the separation suit, the court may determine upon the proof submitted whether plaintiff, if successful, is also entitled to permanent injunctive relief. This action, which has already been too long delayed, should be promptly tried. Settle order on notice. Present — Peck, P. J., Cohn, Breitel, Bastow and Rabin, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1129.]
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

July 19, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. McCree 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – COMSECY-16-0012 – 

CORRECTION TO FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 

DISCONTINUING RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES 

The Commission has approved publication of the revised Federal Register notice. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

OPA 

ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

PDR
### subpart i—special projects of national significance
#### In the Matter of Delmar Rampersant, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 864]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules against possessing a controlled substance, smuggling and failing to comply with frisk procedures *1086after he attempted to remove two packets of marihuana from his rectum during an authorized frisk. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charges and the determination was affirmed on administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding by petitioner ensued.

Initially, respondent concedes and we agree that the smuggling charge is not supported by substantial evidence and, thus, the determination must be annulled to that extent *(see Matter of Daum v Goord,*27 AD3d 858, 858-859 [2006]). The remaining charges are supported by substantial evidence consisting of the misbehavior report and testimony of its author, who witnessed the drugs fall from petitioner’s person during the frisk, as well as the positive NIK test results *(see Matter of Williams v Goord,*301 AD2d 983, 984 [2003]; *Matter of Matos v Goord,*300 AD2d 970, 970 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 509 [2003]). Nevertheless, because a loss of good time was imposed as part of the penalty and the smuggling charge must now be dismissed, we remit the matter for a redetermination of the penalty on the remaining violations *(see Matter of Williams v Goord,*28 AD3d 897, 898 [2006]). Petitioner’s additional claims, to the extent that they are preserved for our review, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of smuggling and imposed a penalty; petition granted to that extent, the Commissioner of Correctional Services is directed to expunge all references thereto from petitioner’s institutional record, and matter remitted to the Commissioner of Correctional Services for an administrative redetermination of the penalty imposed on the remaining violations; and, as so modified, confirmed.
### §1488. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–152, title IV, §413(e)(3), Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 399

Section, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title V, §518, as added Aug. 10, 1965, Pub. L. 89–117, title X, §1003(a), 79 Stat. 500, created the Rural Housing Direct Loan Account, set forth the composition of such Account, and authorized the issuance of notes to the Secretary of the Treasury.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Certification
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TranS1 Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: October 31, 2008/s/ Michael Luetkemeyer

Michael LuetkemeyerChief Financial Officer
 21
August 25, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – SECY-15-0050 – CUMULATIVE 

EFFECTS OF REGULATION PROCESS ENHANCEMENTS AND 

RISK PRIORITIZATION INITIATIVE 

This paper provided information on implementation of cumulative effects of regulation (CER) 

process enhancements and provided options for a proposed risk-informed prioritization initiative. 

The Commission fully supports ongoing CER process enhancements. With respect to the 

proposed risk-prioritization initiative, the Commission has not approved Option 2, part 1. The 

Commission has disapproved Option 2, part 2, and Options 3 and 4. However, the Commission 

supports consideration of risk insights in regulatory decision-making through existing agency 

processes. The staff should use its existing authority to ensure that the NRC’s regulatory 

actions are properly prioritized, taking into account risk information and other factors. The staff 

should also use existing agency processes under 10 CFR 50.12 and 10 CFR 50.90 to apply 

risk-informed decision-making in its review of relief requests such as licensee exemption 

requests. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Ostendorff 

 Commissioner Baran 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
#### § 300.7 English language requirement.

All words, statements and other information required by or under authority of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder to appear on the stamp, tag, label, or other mark of identification, shall appear in the English language. If the product bears any stamp, tag, label, or mark of identification which contains any of the required information in a language other than English, all of the required information shall appear both in such other language and in the English language.
§ 148.3 Proceedings covered. ( a ) The Act applies to adjudicatory proceedings conducted by the Commission. These are adjudications under 5 U.S.C. 554 in which the position of the Commission or any other agency of the United States, or any component of an agency, is presented by an attorney or other representative who enters an appearance and participates in the proceeding. Reparation proceedings under section 14 of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 18, Commission review of exchange disciplinary and access denial actions under section 8c of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 12c, and registered futures association disciplinary and membership denial actions under section 17 of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 21, are not covered by the Act. Proceedings brought to determine whether or not to grant or renew registrations pursuant to sections 8a or 17(*o*), of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 8, 12a and 21(*o*), or contract market designations pursuant to section 6(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 8 (a), are excluded, but proceedings brought to suspend or revoke registrations or contract market designations are covered if they are otherwise adjudicatory proceedings. For the Commission, the types of proceedings generally covered are adjudicatory proceedings as defined in § 10.2(b) of this chapter; part 14 proceedings, if they involve a hearing, are also covered.
( b ) The Commission's decision not to identify a type of proceeding as an adversary adjudication shall not preclude the filing of an application by a party who believes the proceeding is covered by the Act; whether the proceeding is covered will then be an issue for resolution in the proceedings on the application.
( c ) If a proceeding includes both matters covered by the Act and matters specifically excluded from coverage, any award made will include only fees and expenses related to covered issues.
[46 FR 57671, Nov. 25, 1981, as amended at 51 FR 18880, May 23, 1986; 59 FR 5528, Feb. 7, 1994]
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3785 

To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2012. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2012 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 1021 OF THE NATIONAL 

4 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2012. 

6 Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization 

7 Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112–81) is hereby 

8 repealed. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
July 12 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOUGLAS LEE MCGOWAN , Appellant
NO. 14

- 11

- 00557

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Summary of NRC Public Meeting with NEI and Industry to Discuss Fuel Cycle Regulatory Activities on June 11, 2015.

Accession Number: ML15174A130

Date Released: Thursday, July 16, 2015

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.
    - ML15174A117 - 06/11/2015 Summary Of Meeting With The Industry And Stakeholders To Discuss Fuel Cycle Regulatory Activities And Cumulative Effects Of Regulation (5 page(s), 7/16/2015)
    - ML15174A118 - Enclosure 1: Slide Presentation for June 11, 2015 Meeting Between NRC and Stakeholders Regarding Fuel Cycle Regulatory Activities. (79 page(s), 7/11/2015)
    - ML15174A120 - Enclosure 2:  Attendees List for June 11, 2015 Meeting Between NRC and Stakeholders Regarding Fuel Cycle Regulatory Activities. (2 page(s), 7/11/2015)
    - ML15174A125 - Enclosure 3:  CER Fuel Cycle Integrated Schedule. (3 page(s), 6/23/2015)
    - ML15174A129 - Enclosure 4: CER Supplement to the Fuel Cycle Integrated Schedule. (19 page(s), 6/23/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 13, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40026 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus MICHAEL LYNN MOSES,

DefendantAppellant.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:02-CR-13-2

---------------------------------------------------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Court-appointed counsel for Michael Lynn Moses has filed a motion to withd raw and an accompanying brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). An independent

review of counsel’s brief, Moses’s response, and the record reflects that there are no nonfrivolous

issues for appeal. Accordingly, Moses’s motion for the appointment of substitute appellate counselNo. 04-40026 -2-
is DENIED; counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.
February 11, 2011

Charter for Task Force for

Assessment of Options for More Holistic Risk-Informed, 

Performance-Based Regulatory Approach

PURPOSE / SCOPE

Develop a strategic vision and options for adopting a more comprehensive and holistic riskinformed, performance-based regulatory approach for reactors, materials, waste, fuel cycle, and 

transportation that would continue to ensure the safe and secure use of nuclear material. The 

options may range from a complement to or alternative to current regulatory framework.

OBJECTIVES

The task force should identify the options and specific actions that the NRC could pursue to 

achieve a more comprehensive and holistic risk-informed, performance-based regulatory 

structure. The task force will address the following basic questions:

1. Are the current practices adequate for accomplishing the goal of a holistic risk-informed 

and performance-based regulatory structure?

2. How effective have past and on-going risk-informed initiatives been? What are the 

relevant lessons learned from these initiatives?

3. Should the use of risk information continue to be voluntary?

4. How effective have recent major deterministic licensing actions (i.e., license renewals, 

power uprates, B5b mitigation strategies) been? What are the relevant lessons learned 

from these actions?

5. What are the visions for a holistic risk-informed, performance-based regulatory structure

for reactors, materials, waste, fuel cycle, and security?

6. How can the transition from the current system to a more holistic risk-informed, 

performance based regulatory structure be optimized?

7. What is the schedule for achieving this regulatory structure?

8. How should this structure be implemented?

9. How should stakeholder input be considered?

10. In each area, what are the capabilities and limitations of current probabilistic risk 

assessment methodologies?
### §13853. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13853 was editorially reclassified as section 12212 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 231 (Thursday, December 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26578]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Hearings of The Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Rules 
of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States; Advisory Committees 
on Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and Civil Procedure.

ACTION: Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committees on Rules of Appellate, Bankruptcy, and 
Civil Procedure have proposed amendments to the following rules:
    Appellate Rule: 25.
    Bankruptcy Rule: 5005.
    Civil Rule: 5.
    The text of the proposed rules amendments and the accompanying 
Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' home 
page at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules.
    The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and 
Procedure submits these proposed rules amendments for public comment. 
All comments and suggestions with respect to them must be placed in the 
hands of the Secretary as soon as convenient and, in any event, not 
later than February 15, 2005. All written comments on the proposed rule 
amendments can be sent by one of the following three ways: by overnight 
mail to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and 
Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood 
Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20544; by 
electronic mail at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules; or by facsimile to 
Peter G. McCabe at (202) 502-1766. In accordance with established 
procedures all comments submitted on the proposed amendments are 
available to public inspection.
    Public hearings are scheduled to be held on the amendments to:
    <bullet> Appellate Rules in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2005;
    <bullet> Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC, on February 3, 2005; 
and in San Francisco, California, on February 7, 2005; and
    <bullet> Civil Rules in San Francisco, California, on January 12, 
2005; in Dallas, Texas, on January 28, 2005; and in Washington, DC, on 
February 11, 2005.
    Those wishing to testify should contact the Secretary at the 
address above in writing at least 30 days before the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: November 24, 2004.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 04-26578 Filed 12-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
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 Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jimmy Wang, Chairman and 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:
 
 (1)
Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
 
 (2)
The information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  By:  /s/ JIMMY WANG
 JIMMY WANG
 Chief Executive Officer and Director
 April 15, 2010
 
 
 
 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 Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA, Inc. and will be retained by Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §12007. No antitrust immunity or defenses

Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to convey to any person, partnership, corporation, or other entity immunity from civil or criminal liability under any antitrust law or to create defenses to actions under any antitrust law. As used in this section, "antitrust laws" means those Acts set forth in section 12 of title 15.

(Pub. L. 101–218, §10, Dec. 11, 1989, 103 Stat. 1869.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 101–218, Dec. 11, 1989, 103 Stat. 1859, known as the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act of 1989, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12001 of this title and Tables.