alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT
99.19   From: Klinger, Mike
 Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009
10:18 AM
 To: Robert L. Chapman,
Jr.
 Cc: 'Clarke H.
Bailey'
 Subject: EDCI Holdings (EDCI):
EDC: Personnel: Unauthorized/Notified (by CEO) Retention Bonus Letters Dated
01/08/2009
  March 17,
2009
  RLCjr
  I have
read the email below. I agree that I failed to notify you of the Rentention
Bonus Letters dated 01/08/2009, thus you didn’t approval the issuance of the
letters. I recognize that you should have been informed and thus involved prior
to the issuance of the letters on 01/08/2009. I made a regretable mistake and
for that I am sorry. Overnight and this morning, I have had time to separate
facts from expectations. Last night during your interview, I was attempting to
explain the curcomstances verses answering your directed questions.
  To
address my responses to your questionsing listed below in red, I will summarize
my comments. Throughout the Sapphire Deal transaction period (August, 2008 to
January, 2009) spreadsheets containing the severance calculation also included
an estimate for the “second payment”- I agree that this level of detail wasn’t
supplied to the Board. I should have questioned the acceptance of this
expectation instead of assuming that it was a given. Further, I wrongly
accepted, without challenging, the payments could occur if approved by TC. I
further accepted, without challenging, verbal and email direction instead of
obtaining written documentation. My only other comment related to my responses
in red relates to the 12/15/08 commentary: “I felt that I had the authority”.....
I would like to add that I discussed the severe issues related to the movement
of printed materials with TC and it is under his authority that I was refering
to.
  In
hindsight, my actions were wrong and I should have required written approvals
from the Compensation Committee after confiring with either you or T/C and
Clarke (prior to January, 2009). I can assure you that I will be a sharper
“financial gatekeeper” going forward.
  MWK
### §2543. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(c)(11)(B), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1075

Section, Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLII, §4233, formerly Pub. L. 104–201, div. C, title XXXI, §3133(c), (d), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2830; renumbered Pub. L. 107–314, div. D, title XLII, §4233, and amended Pub. L. 108–136, div. C, title XXXI, §3141(e)(18), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1761; Pub. L. 113–66, div. C, title XXXI, §3146(c)(11)(A), Dec. 26, 2013, 127 Stat. 1075, related to tritium production.
Exhibit 31.1



I, Gabriel B. Vegh, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cardima, 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(s) 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 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; and



c)
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 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(s) 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; and



b) 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: |  | November 14, 2003 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    GABRIEL B.
VEGH                                           
|----- |  | ----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | Gabriel B. Vegh Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
### §167f. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–40, §7(b), Oct. 2, 2013, 127 Stat. 544

Section, act Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 426, §8, as added Pub. L. 86–777, §2, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 922; amended Pub. L. 104–273, §5, Oct. 9, 1996, 110 Stat. 3318, related to elimination of helium stockpile.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 320]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 1621]]

Public Law 114-320
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To provide for the approval of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the 
  Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 
         Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
               Energy. <<NOTE: Dec. 16, 2016 -  [S. 8]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE 
                              GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF 
                              AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE 
                              KINGDOM OF NORWAY CONCERNING 
                              PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.

    (a) <<NOTE: Effective date.>>  In General.--Notwithstanding the 
provisions for congressional consideration of a proposed agreement for 
cooperation in subsection d. of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), the Agreement for Cooperation Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 
Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at 
Washington June 11, 2016, may be brought into effect on or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, as if all the requirements in such 
section for consideration of such agreement had been satisfied, subject 
to subsection (b).

    (b) Applicability of Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Other Provisions 
of Law.--Upon entering into effect, the agreement referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and any other applicable United 
States law as if such agreement had

[[Page 130 STAT. 1622]]

come into effect in accordance with the requirements of section 123 of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153).

    Approved December 16, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 8:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 13, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
§ 57.6160 Main facilities. ( a ) Main facilities used to store explosive material underground shall be located— ( 1 ) In stable or supported ground;
( 2 ) So that a fire or explosion in the storage facilities will not prevent escape from the mine, or cause detonation of the contents of another storage facility;
( 3 ) Out of the line of blasts, and protected from vehicular traffic, except that accessing the facility;
( 4 ) At least 200 feet from work places or shafts;
( 5 ) At least 50 feet from electric substations;
( 6 ) A safe distance from trolley wires; and
( 7 ) At least 25 feet from detonator storage facilities.
( b ) Main facilities used to store explosive material underground shall be— ( 1 ) Posted with warning signs that indicate the contents and are visible from any approach;
( 2 ) Used exclusively for the storage of explosive material and necessary equipment associated with explosive material storage and delivery: ( i ) Portions of the facility used for the storage of explosives shall only contain nonsparking material or equipment.
( ii ) The blasting agent portion of the facility may be used for the storage of other necessary equipment;
( 3 ) Kept clean, suitably dry, and orderly;
( 4 ) Provided with unobstructed ventilation openings;
( 5 ) Kept securely locked unless all access to the mine is either locked or attended; and
( 6 ) Unlighted or lighted only with devices that do not create a fire or explosion hazard and which are specifically designed for use in magazines.
( c ) Electrical switches and outlets shall be located outside the facility.
### Water-quality effects on Baker Lake of recent volcanic activity at Mount Baker, Washington

By: Gilbert Carl BortlesonR.T. WilsonB. L. Foxworthy

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1022B

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsParallel ALLSPD-3D: Speeding Up Combustor Analysis Via Parallel ProcessingThe ALLSPD-3D Computational Fluid Dynamics code for reacting flow simulation was run on a set of benchmark test cases to determine its parallel efficiency. These test cases included non-reacting and reacting flow simulations with varying numbers of processors. Also, the tests explored the effects of scaling the simulation with the number of processors in addition to distributing a constant size problem over an increasing number of processors. The test cases were run on a cluster of IBM RS/6000 Model 590 workstations with ethernet and ATM networking plus a shared memory SGI Power Challenge L workstation. The results indicate that the network capabilities significantly influence the parallel efficiency, i.e., a shared memory machine is fastest and ATM networking provides acceptable performance. The limitations of ethernet greatly hamper the rapid calculation of flows using ALLSPD-3D.Document ID19970025159Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsFricker, David M.*(Army Research Lab. Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1997Subject CategoryComputer Programming And SoftwareReport/Patent NumberARL-MR-369AIAA Paper 97-3295E-10786NAS 1.15:107489NASA-TM-107489Meeting InformationMeeting: Joint Propulsion Conference and ExhibitLocation: Seattle, WACountry: United StatesStart Date: July 6, 1997End Date: July 9, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics,American Society of Mechanical Engineers,American Society for Electrical Engineers,Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.Accession Number97N24782Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 523-26-33Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970025159.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 586.107 Who can hold a grant under this part? ( a ) You may hold a grant under this part if you can demonstrate that you have the technical and financial capabilities to conduct the activities authorized by the grant and you are a(n): ( 1 ) Citizen or national of the United States;
( 2 ) Alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20);
( 3 ) Private, public, or municipal corporations organized under the laws of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or insular possession subject to U.S. jurisdiction;
( 4 ) Association of such citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or corporations;
( 5 ) Executive agency of the United States as defined in section 105 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code;
( 6 ) State of the United States; or
( 7 ) Political subdivision of a State of the United States.
( b ) You may not hold a grant under this part or acquire an interest in a grant under this part if: ( 1 ) You or your principals are excluded or disqualified from participating in transactions covered by the Federal non-procurement debarment and suspension system (2 CFR part 1400), unless BOEM explicitly has approved an exception for this transaction;
( 2 ) BOEM determines or has previously determined after notice and opportunity for a hearing that you or your principals have failed to meet or exercise due diligence under any OCS lease or grant; or
( 3 ) BOEM determines or has previously determined after notice and opportunity for a hearing that you: ( i ) Remained in violation of the terms and conditions of any lease or grant issued under the OCS Lands Act for a period extending longer than 30 days (or such other period allowed for compliance) BSEE directed you to comply; and
( ii ) You took no action to correct the noncompliance within that time period.
#### § 57.6904 Smoking and open flames.

Smoking and use of open flames shall not be permitted within 50 feet of explosive material except when separated by permanent noncombustible barriers. This standard does not apply to devices designed to ignite safety fuse or to heating devices which do not create a fire or explosion hazard.
§ 203.35 What administrative steps must I take to use the RSV earned by a qualified phase 2 or phase 3 ultra-deep well? To use an RSV earned under § 203.31: ( a ) You must notify the BSEE Regional Supervisor for Production and Development in writing of your intent to begin drilling operations on all your ultra-deep wells.
( b ) Before beginning production, you must meet any production measurement requirements that the BSEE Regional Supervisor for Production and Development has determined are necessary under 30 CFR part 250, subpart L.
( c ) ( 1 ) Within 30 days of the beginning of production from any wells that would become qualified phase 2 or phase 3 ultra-deep wells by satisfying the requirements of this section: ( i ) Provide written notification to the BSEE Regional Supervisor for Production and Development that production has begun; and
( ii ) Request confirmation of the size of the RSV earned by your lease.
( 2 ) If you produced from a qualified phase 2 or phase 3 ultra-deep well before December 18, 2008, you must provide the information in paragraph (c)(1) of this section no later than January 20, 2009.
( d ) If you cannot produce from a well that otherwise meets the criteria for a qualified phase 2 ultra-deep well that is an ultra-deep short sidetrack before May 3, 2009, on a lease that is located entirely or partly in water less than 200 meters deep, or before May 3, 2013, on a lease that is located entirely in water more than 200 meters but less than 400 meters deep, the BSEE Regional Supervisor for Production and Development may extend the deadline for beginning production for up to 1 year, based on the circumstances of the particular well involved, if it meets all the following criteria. ( 1 ) The delay occurred after drilling reached the total depth in your well.
( 2 ) Production (other than test production) was expected to begin from the well before May 3, 2009, on a lease that is located entirely or partly in water less than 200 meters deep or before May 3, 2013, on a lease that is located entirely in water more than 200 meters but less than 400 meters deep. You must provide a credible activity schedule with supporting documentation.
( 3 ) The delay in beginning production is for reasons beyond your control, such as adverse weather and accidents which BSEE deems were unavoidable.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1712-9 Issuance of waivers.

Following the receipt of an application submitted in accordance with the provisions of § 75.1712-8, the Coal Mine Safety District Manager shall, if he determines that the operator cannot meet the location requirements of § 75.1712-6 with respect to any or all of the working places in the mine because of the coal seam thickness or because of other physical restriction, issue a waiver of the requirements of this section and designate an alternative site for installation of such facilities. The waiver issued shall specify each working place to which it shall apply, set forth the reasons for such waiver, and the reasons for designation of the alternative site.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6 35**  **4**

RICHARD E. MURPHY , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,
v. BOB JONES , Respondent

– Appell ee, and RICKY ANDERSON, Respondent
.

Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Eastern District of N o r th Carolina , at R aleigh
. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:09

- h c - 0 2 119

- D )

Submitted : May 31 , 2011 Decided: June 14, 2011

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and K EENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion
. Richard E. Murphy , Appellant Pro Se
. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General , Raleigh, North Carolina , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Richard E. Murphy seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appe alability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable juris ts would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedura l grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the recor d and conclude that Murphy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSE D
#### § 732.14 Resubmission of State programs.

If, by a final decision, the program is disapproved, the State may submit another proposed State program to the Director at any time. Resubmitted State programs must meet the requirements of § 731.14 and will be acted upon pursuant to §§ 732.11-732.16.

[47 FR 26366, June 17, 1982]
§ 764.19 Decision. ( a ) In reaching its decision, the regulatory authority shall use— ( 1 ) The information contained in the data base and inventory system;
( 2 ) Information provided by other governmental agencies;
( 3 ) The detailed statement when it is prepared under § 764.17(e); and
( 4 ) Any other relevant information submitted during the comment period.
( b ) A final written decision shall be issued by the regulatory authority, including a statement of reasons, within 60 days of completion of the public hearing, or, if no public hearing is held, then within 12 months after receipt of the complete petition. The regulatory authority shall simultaneously send the decision by certified mail to the petitioner and intervenors and by regular mail to all other persons involved in the proceeding.
( c ) The decision of the State regulatory authority with respect to a petition, or the failure of the regulatory authority to act within the time limits set forth in this section, shall be subject to judicial review by a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with State law under section 526(e) of the Act and § 775.13 of this chapter. All relevant portions of the data base, inventory system, and public comments received during the public comment period set by the regulatory authority shall be considered and included in the record of the administrative proceeding.