alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,805,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               67,928,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (2,849,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,045,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            80,044,000
<PP&E>                                      18,600,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,538,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           (183,314,000)
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       86,959,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 36,526,000
<COMMON>                                        66,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,904,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               183,314,000
<SALES>                                    133,091,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           133,091,000
<CGS>                                      108,820,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              108,820,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,806,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,617,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,185,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,185,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,185,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)




</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment Study of RELAP5/MOD2 Cycle 36.05 Based on the DOEL 4 Reactor Trip of November 22, 1985 (NUREG/IA–0051)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA–0051 (PDF 1.84 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** March 1992

**Prepared by:** M. De Vlaminck, P. Deschutter, L. Vanhoenacker

TRACTEBEL Avenue Ariane 7 B-1200 Brussels Belgium

**Prepared as part of:** The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange under the International Thermal-Hydraulic Code Assessment and Application Program (ICAP)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents a code assessment study for RELAP-5 MOD-2/CYCLE 36.05 based on a plant transient that occured at the Belgian DOEL-4 nuclear power plant.

High level in steam generator G led to a turbine trip followed by reactor trip. This test was performed as part of the first cycle testingprogram on November 22th, 1985, and most important plant parameters were recorded on a Data Acquisition System (DAS).

The analysis by means of the frozen version of the RELAP-5 MOD-2/CYCLE 36.05 code was performed to qualify the plant input data deck for this plant and assess the code potential for simulating such transient. This work is performed by TRACTEBEL, which is the Architect-engineer for all Belgian nuclear power plants and a member of ICAP.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
**NRC INSPECTION MANUAL**IOLB

INSPECTION PROCEDURE 83502

EVALUATION OF PUBLIC RADIATION SAFETY

PROGRAM APPLICABILITY:2515

83502-01INSPECTION OBJECTIVE

To determine the root causes and the extent of significant performance findings identified during the baseline inspection program, by the public radiation safety performance indicator, or from Licensee Event Reports (LERs).  The procedure provides a thorough and broad evaluation of the inspection areas to determine the impact of significant findings to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety from exposure to radioactive material released into the public domain as a result of routine civilian nuclear reactor operations.

83502-02INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS

02.01Inspection requirements are specified in the attachments to this procedure for each of the following inspection areas :

a. Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluent Treatment and Monitoring  Systems (Attachment 01)

b. Radioactive Material Processing and Transportation (Attachment 02)

c. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program and Radioactive Material Control Program (Attachment 03)

83502-03INSPECTION GUIDANCE

03.01This procedure should be implemented to assess licensee conclusions regarding the root cause and the scope of the issues for the degraded performance.  This procedure is used in conjunction with IP 95002, (Supplemental Inspection For One Degraded Cornerstone or Any Three White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area.(

03.02Inspection guidance has been provided in the attachments for discrete subject areas within each of the major inspection areas.  Based on the results of the baseline inspection program and the performance indicator, the inspector should use only the applicable areas of this inspection guidance.  The inspector may not necessarily perform the entire procedure in each attachment.

03.03The Performance Indicator (PI) in this cornerstone monitors the performance of the radiological effluent treatment and monitoring program.  The PI is based on radiation dose and does not evaluate the performance of the radiological environmental monitoring, radioactive material control, or the radioactive material processing and transportation programs.

83502-04INSPECTION RESOURCES

Inspection resources will be dependent on the nature of the performance findings, on the number of program areas affected by the findings, and on the level of review necessary to evaluate the findings.  Resource estimates are included in each attachment.

END

83502- 2 -Issue Date: 04/17/00

Issue Date: 04/17/00183502
No. 82-1002.

#### Carnation Co. *v.*New York State Division of Human Rights.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit
32.2








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 of First American Scientific Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,
Calvin L. Kantonen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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;
and





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





Dated
this 13th day
of November, 2009








CALVIN L.
      KANTONENCalvin
      L. KantonenChief
      Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2350

MONICA B. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HALIFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-95-4-H) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monica B. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffery L. Jenkins, Halifax, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Monica B. Young appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on her motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying her motion for default judgment and dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Young v. Halifax County Dep’t of Soc. Servs. , No. CA-01-95-4-H (E.D.N.C. Oct. 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER TO SEPTEMBER
30, 1997 AS PRESENTED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR SUCH PERIOD AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                             <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              646,175
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,935,599
<ALLOWANCES>                                         40,989
<INVENTORY>                                       2,829,710
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5,504,586
<PP&E>                                            1,203,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                      576,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6,225,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             2,350,515
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                              24
<COMMON>                                                847
<OTHER-SE>                                        3,874,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6,225,890
<SALES>                                           2,660,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  2,660,539
<CGS>                                             1,716,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,690,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     69,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (100,249)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (100,249)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (100,249)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        


</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 Annual Report of Mykrolis Corporation (the Company) on Form 10K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), We, Gideon Argov, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Bertrand Loy, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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/ Gideon Argov                                   
|Gideon Argov Chief Executive Officer April 13,
2005



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bertrand Loy                                                      
|Bertrand Loy Vice President and Chief Financial Officer April 13, 2005
No. 91-6391.

No. 91-6423.

#### In re Estes; and In re Reardon.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,559
<SECURITIES>                                     3,661
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,936
<ALLOWANCES>                                       353
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,796
<PP&E>                                           1,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,929
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,918
<CGS>                                            4,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    215
<INCOME-TAX>                                        45
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       170
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
Summary of Compensation Program for
Non-Employee Chairman of the Board of Directors
Adopted March 23, 2010
  
    
    An annual retainer of $200,000, payable in cash;
    
    A one-time grant of 50,000 shares of restricted stock under Companys 2006 Long-Term
Incentive Compensation Plan (the 2006 Plan), subject to a one-year period of
restriction; and
    
    A one-time grant of 250,000 stock appreciation rights having a grant price equal to
the fair market value of a share of the Companys common stock on the date of grant, to
become vested upon the satisfaction of criteria established by the Board.
45 F (2d) 283

#### In re Heney August Schierholtz

(No. 2562)

United States Court of Customs and Patent. Appeals,

December 1, 1930

*Anüreio 11. Neureiriher*for appellant.

*T. A. Hostetler*for the Commissioner of Patents.

[Oral argument November 21, 1930, by Mr. Neureuther and Mr. Hostetler]

Before Graham, Presiding Judge, and Bland, Hatfield, Garrett, and Lenroot, Associate Judges

Leneoot, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office affirming the decision of the examiner in rejecting the claim for a design for a clock case. The claim reads as follows:

> The ornamental design for a clock case as shown.

The claim was rejected for lack of design invention. The refer- • enees cited are:

> McGraw, Design. 37587, October 24, 1905.

> Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1925, page 432, item 5V8568.

> Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1920, page 729, item 5D8513.

In the examiner’s statement in the record is found the following:

> It is believed that the references closely anticipate applicant’s design, which appears to consist of nothing more than a conventional type of alarm clock mounted on a conventionalized base. The design contains no surface ornamentation therefore contour alone can be considered when compared with the references. The McGraw design and both of the catalogue references show clocks of the drum-effect type. The McGraw design and the last of the cata-logue references also show mounting bases very similar to that of the present design, the differences such as the substituting of an extra strip of molding for the ball-shaped feet of the McGraw design being merely details and no) of a substantial nature that would amount to invention. Furthermore, both catalogue references show dials almost identical to the one shown in the present case.

We bave carefully examined appellant’s design and the designs shown in the references, and we agree with the tribunals of the *766Patent Office that no exercise of the inventive faculty was required to modify the designs there shown to produce the design claimed by appellant.

For a design to be patentable it is not enough that it be new, original, and ornamental, but it must also be the result of the exercise of the inventive faculty. *In re Walter, 17*C. C. P. A. (Patents) 982, 39 F (2d) 724.

In the case at bar the design is so nearly like that of the reference Sears, Eoebuck & Co. catalogue, 1920, page 729, item 5D8513 as to preclude holding that appellant’s design constitutes invention.

There is found in the record an affidavit of one Win. H. Darling-ton, disclosing commercial success of appellant’s design, and appellant urges that this is evidence of patentability. The rule is well established that commercial success is persuasive of invention in doubtful cases, but apparently the tribunals of the Patent Office do not consider this to be a doubtful case, nor do we.

The decision of the Board of Appeals is *affirmed.*
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the annual Report of A M Marketing,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kevin Ericksteen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: March 15, 2004                                  Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Financial Officer

I, Calvin L. Kantonen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of First American Scientific Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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 10, 2004 | /s/ Calvin L. Kantonen                   
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                        | Calvin L. Kantonen                       
|                        | Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer