alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31(i).1

Certification required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

I, Fredrick J. Knievel, President, Chairman of the Board and
Principal Executive Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Husker Ag, LLC;

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 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: May 2, 2006.



|    |  |                                            
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Fredrick J. Knievel                    
|    |  | Fredrick J. Knievel, Chairman of the Board,
|    |  | President and Director                     
|    |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Electrical Insulators in a Reactor Accident Environment (NUREG/CR-1682, SAND80-1957)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-1682 (PDF - 2.81 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**January 1981

**Prepared by:** Otmar M. Stuetzer Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, NM 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy

**Prepared for:** Plant Instrumentation, Control, and Power Systems Branch  Office of Water Reactor Safety Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Under Interagency Agreement DOE 40-550-75

NRC FIN A-1051-0

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Wire connections in a reactor containment generally are made by means of many hundreds of insulating blocks ("terminal blocks") which are protected by metal boxes. A broad investigation was conducted to determine what effect the heat, steam, and contamination resulting from a nuclear reactor accident would have on-these terminal blocks. A comprehensive experimental program was performed at temperatures, pressures, and time constants characteristic of the Three Mile Island accident. A model was developed which predicts, within an error factor of 2, the probability of an electrical breakdown for a wide range of temperatures, contamination, and protective measures. "Normally dirty" terminals in a tightly closed protective box with a 6 mm "weephole" in a 480 V circuit had about one chance in 100 of suffering complete breakdown at Three Mile Island. If flow retarders or "breathers" narrowed the effective size of the weephole, breakdown was less likely by about a factor of 3. For a large scale steam breakout with a temperature of 170 ° C, however, the breakdown probability for an unprotected terminal would be about 30% at the same voltage.

Terminal blocks are probably the weakest links in a reactor's electrical system, and concern about their presence in safety-related circuits is fully justified. Some remedial measures and some improvements for future installations are proposed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# U.S.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission's  Decommissioning Program (NUREG/BR-0325)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/BR-0325 (PDF - 18.02 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**September 2005

**Prepared for:** Decommissioning Directorate Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Introduction

Decommissioning is the process of removing a facility or safely removing from service and reducing the residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property.

Throughout the process, steps are taken to ensure the protection of public health and safety, and the environment. This brochure addresses what types of facilities are regulated, what criteria the NRC uses to regulate decommissioning, who regulates decommissioning activities, how the public can participate in the decommissioning process, and where the public can get more information about the decommissioning program.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Extended Stay America, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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


Dated: August 11, 2003

                                                 /s/ GEORGE D. JOHNSON, JR.
                                                 --------------------------
                                                  George D. Johnson, Jr.
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: Customs broker's license revocation.
 SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the revocation of a customs broker's license.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice that, pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (codified at 19 U.S. Code 1641), and section 111.30(d) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.30(d)), the following customs broker's license is revoked by operation of law without prejudice for failure to file a triennial status report. Company name
License No.
Port of issuanceBrian D. Stacy
21354
Seattle
 Dated: January 22, 2015. Brenda Smith, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.


[FR Doc. 2015-01439 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
No. 86-943.

#### Amerada Hess Corp. et al. *v.*Corporation Commission of the State of Oklahoma.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Okla. dismissed for want of properly presented federal question.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

March 16, 2007

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lorrie T. Olivier, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Transmeridian Exploration Incorporated (the Company), hereby 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/ Lorrie T. Olivier                
|Lorrie T. Olivier                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Jeanne Prayther, the Chief Financial Officer of Daleen Technologies, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:  (1)
    
    the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2004
(the Form 10-Q) fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. Date: May 17, 2004 /s/ JEANNE PRAYTHER  
 This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q and shall not be treated as having
been filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
#### Melody Palmer, Respondent, v George W. Long, Inc., Doing Business as Sea Breeze Park, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1008]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in placing this case on the pre-note calendar for Supreme Court, Monroe County. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this case because by its very terms it applies only where a case is "marked 'off or struck from the calendar or unanswered on a clerk’s calendar call, and not restored within one year thereafter”. There is no evidence in the record to support defendant’s assertion that the case was stricken from Justice Cornelius’ pre-note calendar. In any event, plaintiff established that she never intended to abandon the action *(see, Beaugene v Duo-Fast Corp.,*206 AD2d 971). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Cornelius, J. — Restore to Calendar.) Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2646
JO ANN REHFUSS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2825-3-17BC) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jo Ann Rehfuss, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Rehfuss v. South Carolina Dep't of Social Servs. , No. CA-96-2825-3-17BC (D.S.C. Oct. 8, 1996). 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL JUAREZ-ROMERO, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-73552 Agency No. A093-469-440
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 5, 2009 Seattle, Washington Before: ALARCÓN, KLEINFELD and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Miguel Juarez-Romero petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals of his appeal from th e Immigration Judge’s order of removal based on his November 2006 conviction for id entity theft in the first degree. See W ASH . R EV . C ODE . § 9.35.020 (1) and (2) (2006). We deny his petition for review. 

# FILED
DEC 02 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Juarez asserts that the BIA erred by concluding that his statute of conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. We conclude that Juarez’s statute of conviction categorically describes a crim e involving moral turpitude and therefore deny his petition for review.A crime involving fraud is a crime involving moral turpitude. NavarroLopez v. Gonzales , 503 F.3d 1063, 1074 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Washington’s identity theft statute describes a form of fraud, specifically the knowing use of another person’s identification to obtain something of value (in excess of $1,500 of value) with the intent to commit (or to aid and abet) any crime. Although the intent required by the statute is “the intent to commit a crime” rather than the intent to defraud, petitioner has failed to identify any application of the statute that would not constitute fraud. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez , 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2002). We have not found any. See e.g. State v. Leyda , 157 Wash. 2d 335, 138 P.3d 610 (Wash. 2006); State v. Acrey , 135 Wash. App 938, 146 P.3d 1215 (Wash. App. Div. 1, 2006). Thus, the BIA did not err wh en it determined that Juarez’s statute of conviction was categorically a crime invol ving moral turpitude and dismissed his appeal. PETITION DENIED.
#### JOHN P. HOUSTON *vs.*CHARLES STARNES.

In an action for a breach of covenant in a warranty of the soundness of a slave the plaintiff may shew what the slave afterwards sold for, to aid the jury in estimating the damages.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Union County, Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.

, The action is in covenant for the breach of a warranty of soundness in a bill of sale of a negro woman. The defendant sold the negro to the plaintiff and warranted her soundness. It was in evidence, that, at and before the sale,. *314the purchaser was apprised, that she had symptoms of disease upon her; and it was proved, she died of consumption, and that she had at the time of the sale the disease upon her.— The defendant contended, that the covenant did not extend to that disease, upon the alleged principle, that a general warranty does not extend to visible defects. The Judge held, that no defect, except such as was apparent to the senses, could be excluded from the operation of the covenant; and so charged. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

*Thompson*and *Wilson,*for the plaintiff.

*Osborne*and *Hutchinson,*for the defendant.

Nash, J.

The defendant has no reason to complain of the opinion upon this point- It was as favorable to him as it could be.

f: In the course of the trial the plaintiff offered evidence to show, that he had by his agent sold the negro in Mississippi for $175. This was objected to by the defendant's counsel, as incompetent on the question of damages. The objection was over-ruled and the testimony admitted. The witness then, in answer to a question, stated, that in her diseased state the negro was not worth more than 75 or $100.

There was no error in the admission of the evidence. The plaintiff was at liberty to show he had sold the slave, and, as a fact, to prove what he got for her. It did not establish her value, but was a fact, proper to be laid before the jury in the assessment of damages. The enquiry was, what was the extent oí the injury the plaintiff had sustained ? and the measure was the difference of the value of the negro, as sound, and diseased as she was — to be estimated by what she would bring in market. If the purchaser has sold, what he got for her may, or may not, assist the jury in estimating the damages. .It is a fact he may prove. But, if the evidence ought not to have been received, still the *315judgment should not be disturbed. It has done the defeii-■dant no injury, as it is evident the jury were not influenced in their verdict by the price given, but by the value fixed by the witness.

*Fffa*Cum am. Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00984]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Termination of Missile Defense Advisory Committee

AGENCY: DoD.

ACTION: Termination of Federal Advisory Committee.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to 
announce that it is terminating the Missile Defense Advisory Committee, 
effective January 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee 
Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This committee is being terminated under the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. 
Appendix), 41 CFR 102-3.55, and the Government in the Sunshine Act of 
1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), effective January 16, 2015.

    Dated: January 16, 2015.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2015-00984 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
No. 91-6202.

#### Bernal *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Acting Deputy Administrator 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Washington, D.C. 20537 

Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative [Docket No. DEA-393] 

Contains Confidential and Proprietary Information 
Contains Confidential and Proprietary Information
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          31,004
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,262
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,189
<PP&E>                                           9,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,087
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,201
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,005
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (257)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,731)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 98-10915

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

GARY L. POTTS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

THE COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-1124-H)

______________________________________________________

January 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed essentially for

the reasons stated in the district court's careful memorandum

opinion and order of June 24, 1998.

AFFIRMED.