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

System Modeling and Simulation 

wo valuable tools of the Systems Engineering discipline are modeling and simulation. 

INL systems engineers use industry proven modeling and simulation processes to 

determine system requirements; predict system performance; calculate process input, 

outputs, and throughput rates; support trade studies; estimate cost and schedules; and 

optimize processes. Modeling and simulation activities can reduce the cost of a project, improve 

the efficiency of a process, and provide a safe mechanism and environment for experimenting. 

► Modeling – A model is a physical, 

mathematical, or logical 

representation of a system, 

phenomenon, or process. There are 

many classifications of models. 

Models may be predictive or 

interpretive, physical or 

mathematical, numerical or 

analytical, and continuous or 

discrete. INL systems engineers use 

tools such as Excel©, Mathcad©, 

Analytica©, ArcView©, AutoCAD©, 

and common programming languages 

to develop both physical and 

mathematical models. 

► Simulation – A simulation is the implementation of a model over time. A simulation is an 

imitation of a system based on knowledge or assumptions about the behavior of the parts 

of that system, with the purpose of obtaining insight into the behavior of the whole 

system. Simulations bring models to life and show how a particular system, object, or 

phenomenon will behave. Like the models they represent, simulations can be continuous 

or discrete. INL systems engineers have developed models using Flexsim©, Extend©, and 

Stella©. Flexsim and Extend are discrete-event process modeling tools. Stella is a 

continuous process modeling tool, often used in the field known as System Dynamics. 

Additional tools, which are less commonly used but perform the same functions, are also 

part of the INL Systems Engineering toolbox and skill set. 

Technical

Contacts 

Ron Klingler 

(208) 526-0183 

ron.klingler@inl.gov 

Lori Braase 

(208) 526-7763 

lori.braase@inl.gov 

Robert Caliva 

(208) 526-4653 

robert.caliva@inl.gov 

John Collins 

(208) 526-3372 

john.collins@inl.gov

Web Page 

http://www.inl.gov/syseng 

T 

“A picture shows me at a 

glance what it takes dozens of 

pages of a book to expound.” 

–Ivan Turgenev 

“One look is worth a thousand 

words.” 

–Fred R. Barnard
---



EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS 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, Arthur D. Levinson, 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 Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 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 of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.                                                     | 
| | ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                    |                                                                                   | 
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
February 27, 2004 | 

I, Louis J. Lavigne, Jr., 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 Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 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 of Genentech, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Genentech, Inc.





| | By:                | /s/ Louis J. Lavigne, Jr.                                                                        | 
| | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
| |                    |                                                                                                  | 
| | Name:
Title:
Date: | Louis J. Lavigne, Jr.
Executive Vice President and 
   Chief Financial Officer
February 27, 2004 | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Genentech, Inc. and will be retained by Genentech, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---
v 129359(6) K. DAVID M. LYONS-BEY, #231703 Petitioner-Appellant,
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISION , Respondent-Appellee. On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for recons ideration of the order of September 13, 2005 is consid ered, and it is DENIED because it does not appear the order was entered erroneously.
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                        COLORADO WYOMING RESERVE COMPANY
                                       AND
                                  KIM M. FUERST



      This AMENDMENT to the Employment Agreement, dated October 1, 1996 (the
"Agreement"), between Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") and Kim
M. Fuerst ("Employee"), is made as of May 17, 1999 by and between the parties
hereto.

      For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

      Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined, have the meaning
ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. Section 2.1 of the Agreement is amended
and replaced in its entirety with the following provision:

      SECTION 2.1  BASIC SALARY.  Except as otherwise provided herein, the
Company shall pay to the Employee a monthly base salary during the term of this
Agreement in the amount of $5,000.00 per month.

      Accepted and Agreed to this 17th day of May, 1999.



COMPANY:

COLORADO WYOMING RESERVE COMPANY


By:  /s/ KIM M. FUERST
     -------------------------------------
     Kim M. Fuerst
     President and Chief Executive Officer




EMPLOYEE:

/s/ KIM M. FUERST
------------------------------------------
Kim M. Fuerst
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 5250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01051]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Medical CBRN Defense Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 8, 2021, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Medical CBRN Defense 
Consortium (``MCDC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Aldevron, LLC, Fargo, ND; Applied Nanotech, Inc., Austin, 
TX; Clark Street Associates, Los Altos, CA; Encryptor, Inc., Plano, TX; 
Entasis Therapeutics, Waltham, MA; ImmunityBio, Inc., El Segundo, CA; 
Polaris Sensor Technologies, Huntsville, AL; Qorvo Biotechnologies, 
LLC, Bend, OR; Rigel Pharmaceuticals, San Francisco, CA; SafetySpect, 
Inc., Los Angeles, CA; and Somnio Global, LLC, Novi, MI have been added 
as parties to this venture.
    Also, 7 Hills Pharma, LLC, Houston, TX; ARMSTEL, Inc., Plano, TX; 
Captura Biopharma, Inc., Little Rock, AR; Chenega Reliable Services, 
LLC, San Antonio, TX; Data Intelligence Technologies, Inc., Arlington, 
VA; DEFTEC Corporation, Huntsville, AL; HDT Bio Corporation, Seattle, 
WA; MAE Group, LLC, Deerfield, NH; Metabiota, Inc., San Francisco, CA; 
Microscale Devices, LLC, Apex, NC; One Health Group, LLC, Chantilly, 
VA; Pathology Assist-Temp, Inc., Chantilly, VA; Peregrine Technical 
Solutions, LLC, Yorktown, VA; Profectus BioSciences, Inc., Baltimore, 
MD; TensorX, Inc., Vienna, VA and the University of Michigan, Ann 
Arbor, MI have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and MCDC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 13, 2015, MCDC filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
January 6, 2016 (81 FR 513).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 20, 
2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 20, 2020 (85 FR 74386).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-01051 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
136 FY 2020 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT AND 

MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES

The following tables provide a summarized report on the Department’s financial statement audit and its management 

assurances. For more details, the auditors’ report can be found beginning on page 92 and the Department’s management 

assurances on page 20.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Audit Opinion: Unmodified

Restatement: No

Material Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance

Total Material Weaknesses 1 1 1 0 1

SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Financial Reporting—Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) 2

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

The Department had no material weaknesses in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting.

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Operations—FMFIA 2 

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conformance with Financial Management System Requirements—FMFIA 4

Statement of Assurance: The Department systems conform to financial management system requirements.

Nonconformances Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total 

Nonconformances 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)

Agency Auditor

1. System Requirements No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

2. Federal Accounting Standards No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

3. United States Standard General Ledger at Transaction Level No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137310 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 137310 

 COA: 285933 

Genesee CC: 07-020850-FC 

DARTON CLIFFORD REESE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
§ 750.25 Scope of liability. ( a ) *Territorial limitations.* The FTCA does not apply to any claim arising in a foreign country. 28 U.S.C. 2680(k) and *Beattie* v. *United States,* 756 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
( b ) *Exclusions from liability.* Statutes and case law have established categories of exclusions from FTCA liability. ( 1 ) *Statutory exclusions.* Section 2680 of Title 28 lists claims not cognizable under the FTCA. They include: ( i ) Claims based on the exercise or performance of, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary Government function;
( ii ) Admiralty claims under 46 U.S.C. 741-752 or 781-790. Claims under the Death on the High Seas Act (46 U.S.C. 761), however, are cognizable under the FTCA. All admiralty claims will be referred to the Judge Advocate General for adjudication. Admiralty claims against the Navy shall be processed under part 752 of this Chapter;
( iii ) Claims arising from intentional torts, except those referred to in § 750.23(b);
( iv ) Claims arising from the combat activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war.
( 2 ) *Additional claims not payable.* Although not expressly statutorily excepted, the following types of claims shall not be paid under the FTCA: ( i ) A claim for personal injury or death of a member of the armed forces of the United States incurred incident to military service or duty. Compare *United States* v. *Johnson,* 481 U.S. 681 (1987); *Feres* v. *United States,* 340 U.S. 135 (1950) with *Brooks* v. *United States,* 337 U.S. 49 (1949);
( ii ) Any claim by military personnel or civilian employees of the Navy, paid from appropriated funds, for personal property damage occurring incident to service or Federal employment, cognizable under 31 U.S.C. 3721 and the applicable Personnel Claims Regulations, 32 CFR part 751;
( iii ) Any claim by employees of nonappropriated-fund activities for personal property damage occurring incident to Federal employment. These claims will be processed as indicated in 32 CFR part 756;
( iv ) Any claim for personal injury or death covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8116c);
( v ) Any claim for personal injury or death covered by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 905 and 5 U.S.C. 8171);
( vi ) That portion of any claim for personal injury or property damage, caused by the negligence or fault of a Government contractor, to the extent such contractor may have assumed liability under the terms of the contract (see *United States* v. *Seckinger,* 397 U.S. 203 (1969) and § 750.23(c)(2);
( vii ) Any claim against the Department of the Navy by another Federal agency. Property belonging to the Government is not owned by any one department of the Government. The Government does not reimburse itself for the loss of its own property except where specifically provided for by law; and
( viii ) Any claim for damage to a vehicle rented pursuant to travel orders.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Stephen Putziger, Respondent, v. Shirley P. Putziger, Appellant.

In a habeas corpus proceeding initiated by a father to enforce his visitation rights with respect to three minor children in the custody of the mother, the mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered August 19, 1963, which sustained the writ, defined the father’s rights of visitation and granted him such rights subject to his making monthly payments of $666.66 to the mother for support, and subject to other stated conditions. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and proceeding remitted to the Special Term for the purpose of: (1) holding a hearing at which testimony under oath should be taken with respect to all the issues of fact raised by the petition and the return; and (2) making a determination *de novo*of all the issues of fact and law on the basis of the proof adduced upon such hearing. No questions of fact have been considered. While an agreement may have been reached between counsel in the chambers of the Trial Justice, no record of such agreement was made; it was not reduced to writing; and it was not the equivalent of an oral stipulation made in open court *(Accarino*v. *Kirsch,*6 A D 2d 795, 797; *Rosen*v. *Grand,*6 A D 2d 799, 801). In our opinion, the letter from the mother’s counsel to the Trial Justice, dated August 7, 1963, constituted an effective withdrawal of any prior consent to the entry of an order. In the absence of such consent, it was error for the trial court to enter an order without a hearing and without a judicial determination on the issues of fact and law raised by the petition and return *(People ex rel. Cachelin*v. *Cachelin,*18 A D 2d 1057; *Matter of Grose,*7 A D 2d 961; *Matter of Jiranek,*267 App. Div. 607, 611). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.2
CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

I, James Harwell, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:



|(1) | I have reviewed this periodic report on Form 10-Q of Reliability Incorporated;                                                                               
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(2) | This quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                             
|(3) | The information contained in this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company
|    |                                                                                                                                                              

/s/ James Harwell
James Harwell
Acting Chief Financial Officer
May 12, 2003

23
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,888
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,445,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,134,541
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,896,619
<PP&E>                                       2,282,033
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,287,827)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,108,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,950,097
<BONDS>                                      1,134,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,176
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,730,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,108,855
<SALES>                                     10,463,199
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,463,199
<CGS>                                        7,631,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,631,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (75,291)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             180,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (153,263)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,400)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (142,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (142,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### 1222.808 Complaints.

Contractors shall, in good faith, cooperate with the Department of Transportation in investigations of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints processed pursuant to 29 CFR part 1614 and in accordance with clause 1252.222-72 as prescribed in this subpart.
Case: 1:12-cv-00858 Document #: 22 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:105
Case: 1:12-cv-00858 Document #: 22 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:106
Case: 1:12-cv-00858 Document #: 22 Filed: 08/28/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:107
#### 1501.404 Class deviations.

Requests for class deviations to the FAR and the EPAAR shall be submitted to the HCA for processing in accordance with FAR 1.404 and this section. Requests shall include the same type of information prescribed in 1501.403 for individual deviations.

[67 FR 5072, Feb. 4, 2002]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL LASSON, DAVID

VIARAMONTES, CHRISTIAN 

ANTILLON, and TYRONE CHRISTMAS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS, 

INC.,

and COMMUNICATION COMPONENTS 

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants

Case No. 12-cv-1609

Judge Susan E. Cox

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on Parties’ Joint Motion, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. On October 1, 2013, this Court approved the parties settlement as a fair and 

reasonable settlement of a bona fide dispute regarding the provisions of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act; and

2. The above cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE to each Plaintiff; each party to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs except 

as otherwise provided for in the Settlement Agreement. 

THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2013.

 .

JUDGE SUSAN E. COX

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 1:12-cv-01609 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/18/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:158
#### In the Matter of Elizabeth W. Morris et al., Respondents, against Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation of the City of Albany et al., Appellants.

Appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County which in each ease appointed a Referee to take evidence and report thereon in proceedings to review certain tax assessments; the appellant tax authorities asserting an improper exercise of the Special Term’s discretion. Respondents assert that the orders are not appealable and that the appeals must be dismissed. We prefer to reach the merits and do not pass upon the procedural question. The unquestioned power of the Special Term in its discretion to refer the cases (Real Property Tax Law, § 720, subd. 2) was properly exercised. The heavy case load in Albany County, to which the Special Term referred, and which counsel in no way questions, afforded ample reason for the court’s action. We pass only on this motion and leave open the questions that might arise in the precedence of litigation and the management of judicial business if a large number of private references were shown to cause undue expense to the municipality or the property owners. Orders unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs, and stays vacated. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
No. 89-927.

#### In re Will, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

C. A. 7th Cir. Motions of Loyola University of Chicago School of Law and Hans Zeisel for leave to file briefs as *amici curiae*granted. Petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition or certiorari denied.