alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Open Text Corporation
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan
Hoverd, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


                                                         /s/ Alan Hoverd
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Alan Hoverd
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

Dated: February 14, 2003
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1999

# NRC Amends Licensing, Inspections and Annual Fees

----

----

No. 99-118 June 7, 1999

**NRC AMENDS LICENSING, INSPECTION AND ANNUAL FEES**

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its licensing, inspection and annual fees that it charges to licensees for the 1999 fiscal year.

The agency is required to collect nearly all of its operating budget through fees. For fiscal year 1999, the Commission must recover $449.6 million.

This year, the Commission is rebaselining the annual fees. In the future, rebaselining will occur every three years or sooner, if warranted.

Under the rebaselining method, the agency determines the approximate costs attributable to each type of licensee, such as power reactors or fuel facilities. These costs, less the estimated amounts to be recovered through fees for actual licensing and inspection services at specific facilities, comprise the annual fee. While rebaselining can result in significant fee increases for some licensees, the agency believes it provides a fair and equitable allocation of costs.

The Commission also approved a new annual fee category for all power reactors with facilities being decommissioned that store spent fuel in a dry cask facility or in a pool. Reactor licensees who have ceased operations and have no fuel onsite will not be assessed the new spent fuel storage/decommissioning fee.

In other decisions regarding the fee rule, the Commission expanded cost recovery for certain reviews and inspections, eliminated "flat" license amendment fees for small materials licenses, and increased hourly rates for inspection and other professional services performed by NRC staff.

The Commission announced these changes after public comments were received and considered on the proposed rule published in April.

For fiscal year 1999, fees for certain classes of licensees increased, while others decreased. The fiscal year 1999 rebaselined annual fees for some licensees are as follows:

The final rule will be available in the *Federal Register*, and published on the internet at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov . To request a mailed copy of the final rule, contact the License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch, Division of Accounting and Finance, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, at 301-415-7554, or e-mail fees@nrc.gov.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
MEMORANDUM 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

JUL 3 0 2014 

OFFICE OF 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

SUBJECT: Evaluation of the First Draft Report on Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Oral Absorption in 

Male and Female Rats Submitted by the Section 211 (b) Research Group 

FROM: ~Fred S. Hauchman ~ ,p--

Director 0 

Office of Science Policy (81 04R) 

TO: Christopher Grundler 

Director 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality (640 I A) 

I am pleased to provide you with the Office of Research and Development's (ORO) evaluation of the 

first draft report "Ethyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Oral Absorption in Male and Female Rats" (RTI Study 

Code: Rt05-932) dated March 6, 2013. We received this report and checklist of peer review comments 

on May 12, 2014. These materials were submitted by the Section 2ll(b) Research Group (RG) to 

partially fulfill the requirements of EPA's November 2, 1998, 21l(b) Alternative Tier 2 health effects 

testing program for baseline gasoline and six oxygenated fuels. ORO's review of the draft report was 

conducted by the 211 (b) Health Effects Team, comprised of scientists from the National Health and 

Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, with assistance by my staff from the Office of Science 

Policy. 

ORO reviewed the first draft report and the comments checklist. In general, we found the report to 

comport to the requirements and objectives of the original protocol. We agree with the reviewers' 

recommendations in terms of editing for completeness and clarity. A major limitation in the data 

generated is that the maximal ethyl tertiary butyl ether concentration in blood (Cmax) and time of 

maximal concentration (Tmax) cannot be determined with certainty because both occurred by the first 

sampling time and thus should be designated as "apparent Cmax" and "apparent Tmax" so this is clear 

throughout the document. The non-compartmental analysis performed is entirely appropriate for this 

type of data and was conducted as specified in the original approved protocol. Deviations from the 

protocol were also documented (Appendix A) and should not impact the results of their interpretation. 

If you have any questions concerning our review, please contact Sarah Mazur of my staff at (202) 564-

2678. 

cc: Byron Bunker, OAR/OTAQ 

Joe Sopata, OAR/OTAQ 

John Wiehrauch, OAR/OTAQ 

William Boyes, ORD/NHEERL 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable •Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
David Herr, ORD/NHEERL 

Elaina Kenyon, ORD/NHEERL 

Sarah Mazur, ORD/OSP 

Stan Durkee, ORD/OSP 

Tim Benner, ORD/OSP
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J. Lewis, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1014]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Conspiracy, 4th Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
<PAGE>   1





                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                    ALPHANET SOLUTIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

                  COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPT 30,             NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPT 30,
                                                    ---------------------------             --------------------------
                                                    1995                1996                1995                1996
                                                    ----                ----                ----                ----
 <S>                                                 <C>                 <C>                <C>                 <C>
  Pro forma net income . . . . . . . . .              $620                $969              $1,732              $2,057
                                                  ========            ========            ========            ========    
  Weighted average number of
 common shares and common
 shares equivalent:
  Common shares  . . . . . . . . . . . .             3,400               5,100               3,400               4,554
  Shares necessary to fund
 S Corporation Distribution  . . . . . .               551                  --                 551                 173
  Cheap stock (treasury stock method)  .                37                  --                  37                  12
                                                  --------            --------            --------            --------    
                                                     3,988               5,100               3,988               4,739
                                                  --------            --------            --------            --------    
  Pro forma net income per share . . . .             $0.15               $0.19               $0.43               $0.43
                                                  ========            ========            ========            ========    
</TABLE>
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph P. Cavanaugh, Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                    |  |                         
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|               |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.           
|               |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY          
|               |  | By: STAR GAS LLC (General Partner)
|               |  |                                   
|August 8, 2005 |  | By:                                |  | /s/ Joseph P. Cavanaugh 
|               |  |                                    |  | Joseph P. Cavanaugh     
|               |  |                                    |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|               |  |                                    |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P. 
|               |  |                                    |  | Star Gas Finance Company
June 30, 2016

Federal Aviation Administration

Regulatory Dockets 

Orville Wright Building (FOB-10A)

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Subject: Time-limited Exemption from 14 CFR 91.227 (c)(1)(i) and (iii) – Automatic Dependent 

Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out Equipment Performance Requirements

Reference: Grant of Exemption Number 12555, regulatory docket No. FAA-2015-0971

Grant of Exemption No. 12555 provides for a time-limited grant of exemption from the ADS-B Navigation 

Integrity Category (NIC) and Navigation Accuracy Category for position (NACp) requirements of 14 CFR 

section 91.227(c)(1)(i) and (iii) from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024.

American Airlines, Inc., 4333 Amon Carter Blvd. Fort Worth, TX 76155, hereby notifies the FAA that we 

intend to utilize the exemption cited above. In accordance with Condition 2 of the Grant of Exemption, we 

will submit a more detailed equipage plan by August 1, 2018. 

Captain Paul Morell

Vice President

Safety, Security, Regulatory Compliance & Environmental 

Copies:

Richard Bell AAL PAI

Dec Lee Vice President –EPQA

Kimball Stone Vice President - Flight
No. 91-632.

#### Millspaugh et al. *v.*County Department of Public Welfare of Wabash County et al.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 90-1846.

#### Denton, Director of Corrections of California, et al. *v.*Hernandez.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 937.] Motion of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
EXHIBIT 32

Exhibit 32  Certification of Periodic Financial Report

James C. Holly and Kenneth R. Taylor
hereby certify as follows:

1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Sierra Bancorp.

2. The Form 10-K of Sierra Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2007 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 the information contained in the report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sierra Bancorp.



|               |  |                                                   
|-------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|March 12, 2008 |  | /s/ James C. Holly                                
|Date           |  | James C. Holly                                    
|               |  | President & Chief Executive Officer               
|               | 
|March 12, 2008 |  | /s/ Kenneth R. Taylor                             
|Date           |  | Kenneth R. Taylor                                 
|               |  | Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Argued November 27,

affirmed December 3, 1973

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*TIMOTHY DEAN CHASE (No. 72-4694), *Appellant.*

515 P2d 1336

*J. Marvin Kuhn,*Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With bim on tbe brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.

*John W. Burgess,*Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Thornton and Tanzer, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *State v. Franks,*13 Or App 278, 508 P2d 454, Sup Ct *review denied*(1973).
EXHIBIT 32.2



              Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ludger
Viefhues, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
     Company.




May 7, 2004                                         /S/ LUDGER VIEFHUES
                                              --------------------------------
                                                      Ludger Viefhues
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Mattson Technology, Inc. and will
be retained by Mattson Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                       39
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2010Page 1 of 211/19/2014 09:10:08

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Hatch 2 Docket (050- 00366)

Human-System Interface & Environmnt / IR170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 170 - HSI or information availability / quality LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 

211

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 113 - Procedure / reference document development and maintenance LT E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 

113 - Procedure / reference document development and maintenance LT M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

317

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR140 - Problem not completely or accurately identified S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 142 - Operating experience (OE) review LTA E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 142 - Operating experience (OE) review LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 145 - Causal development LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 146 - Evaluation LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 146 - Evaluation LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 150 - Programmatic deficiency M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

739

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements E - Electrical M - Maintenance / Repair 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 187 - Action implementation LTA S - Specialized task force W - Assessment 

528

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2010Page 2 of 211/19/2014 09:10:08

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Hatch 2 Docket (050- 00366)

Work Planning & Practices / LER186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements O - Operations O - Control Room Ops 

16

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 18
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Jamison, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 353]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court improperly sentenced him as a second felony offender. Because, at the time of sentencing, defendant failed to controvert the allegations in the second felony offender statement and admitted that he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance as a felony in California in 1993, that contention has not been preserved for our review *(see, People v Gessner,*188 AD2d 1079, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1073; *see also, People v Smith,*73 NY2d 961, 962-963; *People v Shine,*186 AD2d 1041, *lv denied*80 NY2d 1030). There is no merit to the contention of defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe.

The suppression court’s determination that the statements of defendant were voluntarily made after he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his *Miranda*rights is supported by the record *(see, People v McPherson,*213 AD2d 1074, *lv denied*85 NY2d 977). The contention of defendant that the statement should have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal warrantless arrest at his home *(see, Payton v New York,*445 US 573) was not raised either in defendant’s motion papers or at the suppression hearing. Therefore, that issue has not been preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Swimley,*190 AD2d 1070, 1071, *lv denied*81 NY2d 977). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J.— Robbery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-1929

___________ Don’e J. White, *
* Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. State of Missouri; Bob Holden, Gov.; * Joe Maxwell, Lt. Gov.; Jeremiah W. * [UNPUBLISHED] Nixon, Att. Gen.; Claire McCaskill, * St. Aud.; Nancy Farmer, St. Treasurer; * Jacquelyn D. White, Comm. of Admin.; * Missouri Department of Corrections; * Gary B. Kempker, Dir.; James A. * Gammon, Supt.; Donna Y. Cayer, * Supt.; Teresa Thornburg, Asst. Supt.; * John Doe, C.C.A.; Kevin O’Brian, * Capt.; Correctional Medical Services, * Inc.; Richard F. Graham, Dr., Oral * Surgeon; Robert M. Hampton, Doctor; * G. Jorgenson, Regional Admin.; * Theresa Vanlandingham, Nurse; E. * Conley, D.O., Reg. Med. Dir.; Phyliss * Stanley, Medical Admin.; Glen Babich, * M.D. Dir. of Med.; Gregory J. * Pernoud, Oral Surgeon; Corrections * Security Staff Officers; John Doe, #1, * Sgt. Allen; John Doe, #2, Sgt.; John * Doe, #3, CO-1; John Doe, #4, CO-1; * John Doe, #5, CO-1; John Doe, #6, * CO-1; John Doe, #7, CO-1; Board of * Fund Commissioners; Unknown * Johnson; Unknown Adams; Ernest *1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2- Jackson; Gail Bailey, *
* Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 22, 2008 Filed: November 6, 2008

___________ Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Don’e J. White appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment to certain de fendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no merit to White’s assertions of fraud. We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of White’s motions for default judgment, and no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of certain defendants under Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), although we amend the dismissal of the John Doe co rrectional officers to be without prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny White’s pending motions.

______________________________
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection Manual

# Technical Guidance

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, February 07, 2024