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
  (1)
    
    This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    That the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: May 15, 2009
    /s/ Mark A. LibratoreMark A. LibratorePresident and Chief Executive Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Fracture Analysis of Vessels — Oak Ridge FAVOR, V04.1, Computer Code: User's Guide (NUREG/CR-6855, ORNL/TM-2004/245)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6855 (PDF - 18.50 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 2004****Date Published:****August 2007

**Prepared by:**T.L. Dickson, P.T. Williams, and S. Yin

Heavy Section Steel Technology ProgramOak Ridge National LaboratoryP.O. Box 2008, Mail Stop 6085Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6283Managed by UT-Battelle, LLC

E. Focht, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:**Division of Fuel, Engineering, and Radiological ResearchOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6533

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The current regulations to insure that nuclear reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) maintain structural integrity when subjected to transients such as pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events were derived from computational models developed in the early-to-mid 1980s. Since that time, advancements and refinements in relevant technologies that impact RPV integrity assessment have led to an effort by the NRC to re-evaluate its PTS regulations. Updated computational methodologies have evolved through interactions between experts in the relevant disciplines of thermal hydraulics, probabilistic risk assessment, materials embrittlement, fracture mechanics, and inspection (flaw characterization). Contributors to the development of these methodologies include the NRC staff, their contractors, and representatives from the nuclear industry. These updated methodologies have been integrated into the **F**racture **A**nalysis of **V**essels — **O**ak **R**idge (FAVOR, v04.1) computer code developed for the NRC by the Heavy Section Steel Technology (HSST) program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The FAVOR, v04.1, code represents the baseline NRC-selected applications tool for re-assessing the current PTS regulations. Intended as a user’s guide to the computer system requirements, installation, input data-deck preparation, and execution of the FAVOR, v04.1, deterministic and probabilistic fracture mechanics code, this report is one of a series of software quality assurance documentation deliverables being prepared according to the guidance provided in IEEE Std. 730.1-1995, *IEEE Guide for Software Quality Assurance Planning* and IEEE Std. 1063-1987, *IEEE Standard for Software User Documentation*. Additional documents in this series include (1) *FAVOR, v01.1, Computer Code: Software Requirements Specification*, (2) *FAVOR, v01.1, Computer Code: Software Design Description*, and (3) *FAVOR, v04.1, Computer Code: Theory and Implementation of Algorithms, Methods, and Correlations*.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
');
	document.write('

## Office Of The Chief Financial Officer

### Chief Financial Officer 
Larry Kean (Acting)
 
202-401-0330

### Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer & Senior Procurement Executive 
  James Hairfield

202-245-6219

### Executive Staff
Jennifer Sheriff-Parker, Executive Officer
202-245-8257

### Financial Improvement  Operations
Phillip Juengst, Director
202-245-8030

### Ellen Safranek, Deputy Director
202-245-7515

**Post Audit Group**
Charles Laster
202-245-8017

**Indirect Cost Group**
  Frances Outland
  202-245-8082

**Internal Controls Operations Group**
    April Bolton-Smith
    202-245-6345

### Contracts and Acquisitions Management

Janet Scott, Director

202-245-6216

### Sherese Lewis, Deputy Director
202-245-6235

**Program Contracts  Group** 
Christopher Rosier

202-245-6502

**Operations Contracts  Group**
    Matthew Manning
    202-245-6485

**Performance & Logistics Group**
  Michele Moore
  202-245-6194

**Education Sciences  Contracts Group**
    Veronica Price
    202-245-6158

### Financial Management Operations
  Gary Wood, Director
  202-245-8118

**General Accounting Group**
    Cynthia Heath
    202-245-8043

**Bank Change & Receivables Group**
Sylvester Osineme
202-245-8081

**Credit Reform Group**
    Christina Dyson
  202-245-8028

**Debt & Payment Management Group**
    Charles Allen (Acting)
   202-245-8002

**Accountability & Financial Reporting Group** 
    Gail Matthews

202-245-8074

### 



Top
Exhibit 32.1

       Form of Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                 of Title 18 of the United States Code


I, Joseph F. Kruy, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
Cambex Corporation, certify that

(i) This quarterly report on Form 10QSB for the fiscal quarter ended October
1, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

(ii) The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Cambex Corporation.


Dated: November 14, 2005     /s/ Joseph F. Kruy
                             Joseph F. Kruy
                             President and Treasurer
                             [principal executive officer and
                              principal financial officer]


This certification accompanies this quarterly report pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the
Company for purposes of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Earl L. Jordan, Appellant, v. Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Wyoming County Court dismissing the writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the Warden of Attica Prison.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Case: 1:12-cr-00367 Document #: 4 Filed: 05/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:8
#### In the Matter of the Construction of the Will of George Phoenix, Deceased. Edna Lajeunesse et al., as Executrices of George Phoenix, Deceased, Respondents; Stanley Phoenix, Appellant.

Decree unanimously affirmed, upon the opinion of Koreman, S. (22 Mise 2d 1009), with costs to all parties filing a brief, payable from the estate. Appellant’s application for counsel fees should be addressed to the Surrogate. (Surrogate’s Ct. Act, § 78.) Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
#### A.B. Medical Services, PLLC, Respondent, v GEICO Casualty Insurance Co., Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 616]

In an action to recover no-fault benefits under an insurance contract, the defendant appeals, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, dated April 6, 2006, which modified an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (R. Garson, J.), dated May 17, 2004, granting the plaintiffs motion *779for summary judgment awarding the sum of $4,061.96, plus interest and an attorney’s fee, to provide that the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of awarding the plaintiff the sum of $3,971.20, and remitting the matter for the calculation of interest and an assessment of an attorney’s fee.

Ordered that the order of the Appellate Term is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, is reversed, and the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied.

Under the circumstances presented, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *cf. Hospital for Joint Diseases v Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co.,*34 AD3d 532 [2006]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should have been denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see *Ayotte v Gervasio,*81 NY2d 1062, 1063 [1993]).

Even assuming the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment, we conclude that the defendant succeeded in raising a triable issue of fact in response (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra).*For the reasons set forth in *A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.*(39 AD3d 779 [2007] [decided herewith]), and *New York Univ. Hosp. Rusk Inst. v Government Empls. Ins. Co.*(39 AD3d 832 [2007] [decided herewith]), we disagree with the Appellate Term’s conclusion that the defendant’s denial of claim forms were insufficient because they failed to set forth with sufficient particularity the factual basis and medical rationale upon which they were based. The applicable regulations provide that if a no-fault claim is denied in whole or in part based on a medical examination or peer review report requested by the insurer, then the insurer shall release a copy of that report to, among others, the applicant or its attorney, upon written request *(see*11 NYCRR 65-3.8 [b] [4]). Had it been the intent of the Department of Insurance to require the carrier to set forth a medical rationale in the prescribed denial of claim form *(see*NYS Form N-F 10; 11 NYCRR 65-3.4 [c] [11]), it would have so provided.

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Canal Electric Company for
the nine months ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000016906
<NAME> CANAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          264,058
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>          2,828
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              20,690
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            26,833
<OTHER-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     314,409
<COMMON>                            38,080
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>            8,321
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 56,517
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     102,918
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                83,568
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                   3,150
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>          350
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>         10,800
<LEASES-CURRENT>                       570
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     113,053
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      314,409
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          134,821
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 5,939
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         112,687
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         118,626
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             16,195
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     403
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      16,598
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             6,280
<NET-INCOME>                        10,318
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>       10,318
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>             6,931
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            5,933
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              29,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0
        


</TABLE>
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA-NMFS-NWFSC TM-9: Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Protecting Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Released from Bonneville Hatchery, 1991 
Figure 9. Fork length distributions of fish after recovery in the estuary, comparing midstream Columbia River to Tanner Creek release groups. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text. 

Table of Contents
R O B E R T M O S E S S T A T E P K W Y

R O B E R T M O S E S S T A T E P K W Y

ATLANTIC OCEAN

GREAT SOUTH BEACH

Fire Island

44

12'

54

44

FEET

130

30"

E

6 000 FEET

73°

95

E

49

44 000m

44

88

000m

44

87

96

85

000

44

44

96

37'

07'

FEET

10'

51

86

89

54 6 6

30'

57

44

44

07'

44

85

56

44

30"

15'

6

93

44

30"

6

N

55

6

160

6

44

1 57

44

35'

58

44

32'

73°

44

40°

73°

58

56 1

N 000m

6

89

30"

6

91

51

92

200

91

44

90

32'

15'

94

6

30"

12'

52

93

44

49

44

44

6

53 6

44

10' 73°

40°

98

37'

6

30" 50

6

6 6

88

30"

44

000

44

53 30"

35'

50

92

94

98

95

97

97

90

55

52

86

44

44

6

44

6 6 6

44

000 FEET 000m

220 40°

40°30'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

BAY SHORE EAST OE S, NY

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

BAY SHORE EAST OE S QUADRANGLE

NEW YORK

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

Zone 18T

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2006

Roads.....................................US Census Bureau TIGER data

with limited USGS updates, 2004

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2006

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 1998

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New York Coordinate System of 1983

(Long Island zone)

×

Ø

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 11 ́

21 MILS

13° 27 ́

239 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

18T

XK

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Bay

Shore

West

Bay

Shore

East

Sayville

Bay Shore

East OE S

Bay Shore

West OE S

NEW YORK
The Assistant Secretary is assisted by a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Planning and four Deputy Assistant Secretaries who have leadership and oversight responsibilities for the four major program units in OPE:  Higher Education Programs (HEP); International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE);  Policy, Planning and Innovation (PPI); and Accreditation.

**U.S. Department of Education Information Resource Center:** 1-800-872-5327 (toll-free)

**Internship Opportunities with OPE**

**Key Staff -- Office of the Assistant Secretary**
NameTitle**Dr. Nasser Paydar**Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education**Roxanne Garza**Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary**Tiwanda Burse**Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Planning**Amanda Miller**Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs**Vacant** Senior Director  for Institutional Service**Gaby Watts** Senior Director for Student Service **Vacant**Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Foreign Language Education**Cheryl Gibbs**Senior Director,   International and Foreign Language Education**Antoinette Flores**Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning and Innovation**Scott Prince**Senior Director, Policy Development, Analysis, and Accreditation ServicesMain Headquarters Address:Mailing/Street Address for VisitorsU.S. Department of Education400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC  20202U.S. Department of Education*Office of Postsecondary Education400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.Washington, DC 20202Main Telephone:  202-453-6914*include contact name when available
**Other OPE Office ContactsOPE Office Organization Chart (PDF, 199K)Department of Education Organization Chart**

 Top
  Last Modified: 11/14/2023
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND
      CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





The
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      the Quarterly Report of DCAP Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
      period ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Company.











Date:
                November 13, 2006
            /s/
                Barry B. Goldstein
              Barry
                B. Goldstein,
              Chief
                Executive Officer and
              Chief
                Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                              E X H I B I T   9 9

                        OPINION OF FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN,
                  INDEPENDENT AUDITORS FOR ALPNET CANADA INC.



To the Shareholder of
Alpnet Canada Inc.


We have audited the balance sheets of Alpnet Canada Inc. as at December 31, 1997
and 1996 and the statements of earnings, deficit and changes in financial
position for each of the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain
reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of the Company as at December 31, 1997 and 1996
and the results of its operations and the changes in its financial position for
each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.


\s\ FRIEDMAN & FRIEDMAN


Chartered Accountants

Montreal, Quebec
February 13, 1998
16.402-2 Performance incentives. ( a ) Performance incentives may be considered in connection with specific product characteristics (e.g., a missile range, an aircraft speed, an engine thrust, or a vehicle maneuverability) or other specific elements of the contractor's performance. These incentives should be designed to relate profit or fee to results achieved by the contractor, compared with specified targets.
( b ) To the maximum extent practicable, positive and negative performance incentives shall be considered in connection with service contracts for performance of objectively measurable tasks when quality of performance is critical and incentives are likely to motivate the contractor.
( c ) Technical performance incentives may be particularly appropriate in major systems contracts, both in development (when performance objectives are known and the fabrication of prototypes for test and evaluation is required) and in production (if improved performance is attainable and highly desirable to the Government).
( d ) Technical performance incentives may involve a variety of specific characteristics that contribute to the overall performance of the end item. Accordingly, the incentives on individual technical characteristics must be balanced so that no one of them is exaggerated to the detriment of the overall performance of the end item.
( e ) Performance tests and/or assessments of work performance are generally essential in order to determine the degree of attainment of performance targets. Therefore, the contract must be as specific as possible in establishing test criteria (such as testing conditions, instrumentation precision, and data interpretation) and performance standards (such as the quality levels of services to be provided).
( f ) Because performance incentives present complex problems in contract administration, the contracting officer should negotiate them in full coordination with Government engineering and pricing specialists.
( g ) It is essential that the Government and contractor agree explicitly on the effect that contract changes (e.g., pursuant to the Changes clause) will have on performance incentives.
( h ) The contracting officer must exercise care, in establishing performance criteria, to recognize that the contractor should not be rewarded or penalized for attainments of Government-furnished components.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 44815, Aug. 22, 1997]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 96-11143

Summary Calendar

____________________

MARYAM KANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ERICSSON, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(95-CV-2138)

_________________________________________________________________

February 27, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Maryam Kany, pro se, appeals from the summary judgment granted

Ericsson, Inc. Kany, who has been on long-term disability leave

since 28 Marc 1994, brought claims against Ericsson, her employer,

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to

e-17, for failure, because of her sex, religion, and national

origin, to provide a healthy work environment, to promote, and to

increase pay. Pursuant to our review of the record, we AFFIRM for
- 2 -

essentially the reasons stated by the district court. Kany v.

Ericsson, Inc. (95-CV-2138) (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 1996) (unpublished).

Kany’s motion to correct the record on appeal is DENIED as

moot.

AFFIRMED