alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES ACT RULES 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)

I, Melvin L. Flanigan, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DTS, 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date: November 9, 2009By:

/s/ MELVIN L. FLANIGAN Melvin L. Flanigan Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
Extreme Flood Frequency Analysis: 

Practicing Risk Analysis

Jery R. Stedinger

Cornell University and USGS

Member HFAWG

sabbaticals USGS, USACE
Estimating Flood Risk

B17B

Empirical

Use observed

Flood Data

PFHA (?)

Imagine

Construct using

regional flood,

rainfall, climate, 

storm-track, & 

orographic data

T = 100 to 1000 comfortably T = 10,000 to 1 million
23 January 2013 Jery Stedinger 

Lecture 2 3

2011 Japanese Nuclear Accident
23 January 2013 Jery Stedinger 

Lecture 2 4

2011 Japanese Nuclear Accident
Japanese government and utility 

officials have repeatedly said that 

“... that engineers could never have anticipated the magnitude 9.0 

earthquake — by far the largest in Japanese history — that caused 

the sea bottom to shudder and generated the huge tsunami. “

“We can only work on precedent, and there was no precedent,” 

said Tsuneo Futami, a former Tokyo Electric nuclear engineer who 

was the director of Fukushima Daiichi in the late 1990s. “When I 

headed the plant, the thought of a tsunami never crossed my mind.”

“What we understand we can manage.

What we do not imagine, we leave to fate.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/world/asia/27nuke.html?_r=1&nl=todayshea

dlines&emc=tha2&pagewanted=print
“What we understand we can manage.

What we do not imagine, we leave to fate.”
7

Dr. Mattson, NRC Safety Expert (quoted NEWSWEEK 4/25/79)

"We saw failure modes the likes of which 

had never been analyzed.”

Bignell, V., and J. Fortune, Understanding Systems Failure,

Manchester University Press, 1984. , p. 10,

“Designers of nuclear plants or any piece of equipment for that matter can 

only give assurances that they have faced up to the known dangers. To cope 

with problems beyond these they depend upon general and detailed care 

being taken during the building, inspection and operation and maintenance of 

a system. In addition they rely upon the intelligence, training and wits of 

those who are present when the unexpected occurs.”

Protection against System Failure
Risk Analysis

Not sufficient just to meet a probability design target, or 

the most obvious natural hazards.

WE created the potential for disaster, so we must design 

for when standards are exceeded because the cost of a 

real failure is too great.

Fate is not responsible – we are.

Thoughtful Probabilistic Hazard Analysis 

is how we seek to understand that responsibility.
§ 12.33 Admissions. ( a ) *Request for admissions.* Any party may, within the time permitted by § 12.30(d) of these rules, serve upon any other party a written request for admissions of the truth of any matters set forth in the request that relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the application of law to fact, including the genuineness of any document described in the request. Copies of documents shall be served with the request unless they have been or are otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying. A copy of the request shall be filed with the Proceedings Clerk.
( b ) *Reply.* Each matter of which an admission is requested shall be separately set forth. The matter is admitted unless within twenty (20) days after service of the request, the party upon whom the request is directed files and serves upon the party requesting a verified written answer or objection to the matter. If objection is made, the reasons therefor shall be stated. The answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission and when good faith requires that an answering party qualify the answer and deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, the answering party shall specify so much of it as is true and qualify or deny the remainder. Answering parties may not give a lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless they state that they have made reasonable inquiry and that the information known or reasonably available to them is insufficient to enable them to admit or deny. Parties who consider that a matter of which an admission has been requested presents a genuine issue for trial may not, on that ground alone, object to the request; they may deny the matter or set forth reasons why they cannot admit or deny it.
( c ) *Determining sufficiency of answers or objections.* The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections. Unless the objecting party sustains the burden of showing that the objection is justified, the official presiding over discovery shall order that an answer be served. If such official determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this section, that official may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served.
( d ) *Effect of admission.* Any matter admitted under this section is conclusively established and may be used as proof against the party who made the admission. However, the discovery or decisionmaking official may permit withdrawal or amendment when the presentation of the merits of the proceeding will be served thereby and the party who obtains the admission fails to satisfy such official that withdrawal or amendments will prejudice them in maintaining an action or defense on the merits.
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 86 FR 64355, Nov. 18, 2021]
#### § 1702.13 Labeling and packaging samples.

Each petition for an exemption under this part shall include a sample of the label and complete packaging for each size in which each form of the product for which an exemption is sought is packaged. This shall include the immediate container labeling, any package inserts, and other carton or wrapping labeling in which the product is offered to the consumer. In the case of drugs, each petition shall be accompanied by labeling on the outer carton or wrapping in which the product is offered to the retailer, as well as samples of the promotional and advertising information for the product.
§ 1212.16 Production testing. ( a ) *General.* Manufacturers and importers shall test samples of multi-purpose lighters subject to the standard as they are manufactured, to demonstrate that the multi-purpose lighters meet the specifications, required under § 1212.15, of the surrogate that has been shown by qualification testing to meet the requirements of the standard.
( b ) *Types and frequency of testing.* Manufacturers, private labelers, and importers shall determine the types of tests for production testing. Each production test shall be conducted at a production interval short enough to provide a high degree of assurance that, if the samples selected for testing pass the production tests, all other multi-purpose lighters produced during the interval will meet the standard.
( c ) *Test failure* — ( 1 ) *Sale of multi-purpose lighters.* If any test yields results which indicate that any multi-purpose lighters manufactured during the production interval may not meet the standard, production and distribution in commerce of multi-purpose lighters that may not comply with the standard must cease until it is determined that the lighters meet the standard or until corrective action is taken. (It may be necessary to modify the multi-purpose lighters or perform additional tests to ensure that only complying multi-purpose lighters are distributed in commerce. Multi-purpose lighters from other production intervals having test results showing that multi-purpose lighters from that interval comply with the standard could be produced and distributed unless there was some reason to believe that they might not comply with the standard.)
( 2 ) *Corrective actions.* When any production test fails to provide a high degree of assurance that all multi-purpose lighters comply with the standard, corrective action must be taken. Corrective action may include changes in the manufacturing process, the assembly process, the equipment used to manufacture the product, or the product's materials or design. The corrective action must provide a high degree of assurance that all multi-purpose lighters produced after the corrective action will comply with the standard. If the corrective action changes the product from the surrogate used for qualification testing in a manner that could adversely affect its child-resistance, the multi-purpose lighter must undergo new qualification tests in accordance with § 1212.14.
#### Reinforce, Inc., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Hugh Birney, as President of Local No. 46 N. Y. of the Wood, Wire & Metal Lathers’ International Union, et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs in an action to recover damages for an alleged malicious refusal of a union, prompted by two of its officials, to permit its members to accept employment offered by the plaintiff corporation, of which the individual plain*737tiff is controlling stockholder. Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion to add interest from the date of the alleged wrong and from so much of the judgment as fails to include such interest. Judgment reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed, on the law, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the verdict are affirmed, save as to malice and as to the amount of the verdicts, which are excessive. The appeal from the order denying motion to add interest is dismissed, without costs, as academic. The members of the union, who ratified the determination of their executive committee, had the absolute right to refuse to work for the plaintiffs, for any reason or for no reason at all. The element of malice, therefore, is immaterial. *(National Protective Assn.*v. *Cumming,*170 N. Y. 315, 326; *Pochette é Parzini Corp.*v. *Campo,*301 N. Y. 228; *Nash*v. *Mennan,*279 App. Div. 609, affd. 303 N. Y. 956; *Hunt*v. *Crumboch,*325 U. S. 821, 824.) Carswell, Mac-Crate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs in result, with the following memorandum: I am in disagreement with the statement by the majority that the element of malice is immaterial. This appeal involves a concerted action by defendants, which plaintiffs assert was actuated by malice and designed to prevent them from exercising their lawful right to engage in business. Such concerted action, if prompted solely by malice, would be sufficient to subject defendants to liability for the damage incurred. *(Exchange Bakery & Restaurant*V. *Rifkin,*245 N. Y. 260; *Opera on Tour*v. *Weber,*285 N. Y. 348; *American Guild of Musical Artists*v. *Petrillo,*286 N. Y. 226.) However, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the action complained of was prompted *solely*by malice, or that defendants’ *sole*purpose was to do injury to plaintiffs. Reversal of the judgment is therefore required. (Cf. *Roseneau*v. *Empire Circuit Co.,*131 App. Div. 429, 436; *National Protective Assn.*v. *Cumming,*170 N. Y. 315; *Rochette & Parzini Corp.*v. *Campo,*301 N. Y. 228, and *Martin*v. *Curran,*303 N. Y. 276.)
### Part G—Public Service Announcements

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 111–148, title V, §5310(b)(9)(B), Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 631, redesignated part H "Public Service Announcements" as G.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part G, consisting of section 297t, was redesignated part F of this subchapter.
### §13601. Compliance by owners as condition of Federal assistance

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall require owners of federally assisted housing (as such term is defined in section 13641(2) of this title), as a condition of receiving housing assistance for such housing, to comply with the procedures and requirements established under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title VI, §641, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3820.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Chapter applicable upon expiration of 6-month period beginning Oct. 28, 1992, except as otherwise provided, see section 13642 of this title.
No. II-12-016 April 10, 2012

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

NRC BEGINS SPECIAL INSPECTION AT

CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is beginning a special inspection this week at Duke 

Energy’s Catawba nuclear power plant to assess the circumstances surrounding an event last 

Wednesday (April 4) that resulted in both of the plant’s units losing offsite power. 

The plant is located near York, S.C., about 18 miles south of Charlotte, N.C.

One of the two units at the plant was already shut down for an outage and the other unit 

automatically shut down. The plant's emergency diesel generators started and provided power to

the plant’s safety systems, which operated as needed. Plant employees were able to return offsite

power a few hours later, but the event was reported as an Unusual Event, the lowest of four NRC 

emergency classifications for nuclear plants.. 

“While there were no immediate safety implications, the loss of offsite power at a nuclear 

plant is always significant,” said Victor McCree, NRC Region II Administrator. “We want to 

make sure we completely understand what happened and felt that under these circumstances, a 

special inspection was needed.” 

The NRC’s resident inspectors at Catawba immediately began assessing the incident, and 

have continued to monitor the plant staff’s activities. The Special Inspection Team will be 

composed of a total of three inspectors from the NRC’s Region II offices in Atlanta. The team 

will, among other things, develop a timeline, review Duke Energy’s actions leading up to the 

event and evaluate the company’s response. 

The on-site portion of the inspection will take several days. A report documenting the 

results should be issued within 45 days of the completion of the inspection. 

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave. NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Web Site: www.nrc.gov
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §
1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of
Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark H. Towe, 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, that, to our knowledge:

(a) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



|    |  |                                                |  |  |  |                      
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III                       |  |  |  | Date: August 13, 2009
|    |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.                          |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer          |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  |  |  |  |                      
|    |  |                                                | 
|By: |  | /s/ Mark H. Towe                               |  |  |  | Date: August 13, 2009
|    |  | Mark H. Towe                                   |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | Sr. Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |                      
|    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)s                 |  |  |  |                      



29
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo122334 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
No: I-15-026 May 21, 2015

CONTACT: Diane Screnci 610-337-5330

 Neil Sheehan 610-337-5331

NRC, Army Corps to Take Public Comments on Draft Environmental Report

for Application to Build New Nuclear Power Plant in Salem Township, Pa.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff will receive 

comments on June 4 in Bloomsburg, Pa., on a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a new 

nuclear power plant proposed for Salem Township (Luzerne County), Pa.

The meetings will take place from 3 to 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 to 10 p.m. in Monty’s Building, 

Upper Campus, at Bloomsburg University. The building is located at 400 E. Second St. in Bloomsburg. 

NRC and Army Corps staff will also hold open houses for one hour prior to each meeting at the same 

location. However, formal comments will only be accepted during the meetings.

PPL submitted the application on Oct. 10, 2008, for the construction of a new reactor – to be 

named Bell Bend – on a site adjacent to the Susquehanna nuclear power plant, which the company also 

owns and operates. The proposal calls for the use of a single U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR) at 

the site. That design has not yet been approved by the NRC.

On April 24, the NRC and Army Corps, Baltimore District, issued the DEIS. The NRC staff’s 

preliminary environmental recommendation is that a license for the new reactor could be issued. This 

recommendation is based on the application, including the environmental report submitted by the 

company; consultation with federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; the NRC review team’s 

independent evaluations; the consideration of public comments; and the assessments summarized in the 

draft environmental report.

Public comments on the DEIS will be accepted through July 7, 2015. A copy of the DEIS is 

available on the NRC’s website.

The NRC’s evaluation of the application involves both safety and environmental reviews. The 

safety review for the application is currently on hold at the request of PPL.

The notice for the June 4 meetings can be found on the NRC website.
February 16, 2016 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am providing the enclosed 

report on the NRC’s strategy to reform in-house printing practices in response to a request in the 

Senate Appropriations Committee’s Report associated with the Energy and Water Development 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (the Act). The Senate Report directed each 

agency funded by the Act to submit a report with a description of the steps that the agency has 

taken to reduce printing volume and costs. 

Please feel free to contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional

Affairs, at 301-415-1776, if you have questions or need more information. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: Senator Barbara Mikulski 

 

 
 

Identical letter sent to: 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Barbara Mikulski 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Nita Lowey
#### Trustees of the Freeholders and Commonalty of the Town of East Hampton, Respondent, v. R. E. Dowling Realty Corporation et al., Appellants.

-In an action in ejectment involving title to land in the Eastern Plains in the town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, both sides moved for a directed verdict at the end of the case. The court discharged the jury and took the case under advisement, and thereafter granted plaintiff’s motion and denied defendants’ motion. Defendants appeal from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The find*967ings of fact contained in the court’s memorandum decision are affirmed. Plaintiff claims the Dongan Charter of 1686 as its original source of title. That charter granted to the plaintiff “ all * * s"' parcell or pareells tract or tracts of land * * 6 [in the town of Bast Hampton] not yet taken up or appropriated to any particular person or persons”. There is no proof in the record whereby it can be determined whether the land from which plaintiff seeks to eject defendants, situated between defendants’ land and the mean high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, was or was not “ taken up or appropriated ” at the time the Dongan Charter was granted; nor can it be determined where any of the lands in the Eastern Plains then “ taken up or appropriated ” were actually situated. The plaintiff, therefore, has failed to sustain the burden of proving its title. *(Jarvis*v. *Lynch,*157 N. Y. 445; *Beers*v. *Hotchkiss,*256 N. Y. 41.) Present — -Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ.