alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) by Ames National Corporation (the “Company”), the undersigned officer of the Company hereby certifies 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the10th day of March, 2011.




/s/ John P. NelsonJohn P. Nelson, Vice President(Principal Financial Officer)
No: 19-034 July 24, 2019

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC to Hold Mandatory Hearing on Clinch River Early Site Permit Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a mandatory hearing Aug. 14, regarding

an application for an Early Site Permit for one or more small modular reactors at the Clinch River 

site in Tennessee, the final step in the agency’s review of the application.

The Commission hearing will include testimony and exhibits from the applicant, the 

Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as from the NRC staff, regarding the question of whether the 

staff’s review adequately supports the findings necessary to issue the permit. The hearing will begin 

at 9 a.m. in the Commission Hearing Room at NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 

Md. The hearing will be open to public observation and webcast. A detailed agenda and 

presentation slides will be available in advance on the Commission’s meeting page.

TVA submitted its Early Site Permit application for the Clinch River Nuclear Site on 

May 12, 2016. TVA used the Plant Parameter Envelope approach (which does not specify a reactor 

design) in its application for the site. The NRC would need to review and approve an additional 

application from TVA, including a specific reactor design, before any construction or operating 

license could be issued. The NRC issued its final environmental impact statement for the Early Site 

Permit application in April 2019, and the final safety evaluation report for this application in 

June 2019.

Media Notes: Media are asked to call the NRC Office of Public Affairs (301-415-8200) in advance 

to provide the names of those attending the meeting to assure sufficient seating. Seats on one side of 

the Commission hearing room will be reserved for accredited members of the news media. 

Photographers will have limited space at the meeting in which to take photos. Movement must be 

kept to a minimum to limit distractions, and entry into the inner well closest to the Commission 

briefing table will be prohibited. Plan to arrive in advance of the meeting at the NRC’s One White 

Flint North entrance, at the corner of Rockville Pike and Marinelli Road, with proper media 

credentials. The NRC is located across the street from the White Flint Metro station. Parking is 

available at the White Flint Metro parking garage on Marinelli Road.
EPA Reg. No. 73079-6

Vol. 2 part 2
No. 90-6299.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1515 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals 

from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual orientation or 

gender identity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2017 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. POCAN, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. NORCROSS, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SPEIER, 

Mr. HIGGINS of New York, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. DELANEY, Ms. MENG, 

Mr. QUIGLEY, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mr. DONOVAN, and Mr. TED LIEU of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals from service on a Federal jury on 

account of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Juror Non-Discrimina5 tion Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1515 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT 

2 OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDEN3 TITY PROHIBITED. 

4 Section 1862 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘sexual orientation, gender iden6 tity,’’ after ‘‘sex’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 90-6069.

#### Cooksey *v.*Missouri.

Ct. App. Mo., Eastern Dist. Certiorari denied.
No. 86-5374.

#### Ford *v.*Louisiana.

Sup. Ct. La. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Griffith*v. *Kentucky, ante,*p. 314.
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 March 31, 2007 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)
|            |  |                                   
|May 9, 2007 |  | By:                                |  | /s/ JOSEPH P. CAVANAUGH 
|            |  |                                    |  | Joseph P. Cavanaugh     
|            |  |                                    |  | Chief Executive Officer 
|            |  |                                    |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P. 
|            |  |                                    |  | Star Gas Finance Company
From: Withey, Charlotte 

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 1:20 PM

To: 'Giff, Jennifer'; Tsiolis. George (gtsiolis@nj.rr.com)

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; McKaughan, Colleen

Subject: Followup to November 14 Call Between SRPMIC, Phoenix Cement and EPA

Jennifer and George, 

Thank you again for helping to facilitate consultation between EPA and Salt River Pima 

Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) regarding EPA’s upcoming Arizona Regional Haze 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) proposal. During the call between SRPMIC and EPA on 

November 14, 2013, your clients indicated that SRPMIC needed additional information 

regarding potential requirements for Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) in order to adequately 

consider and provide input on the potential impacts of the proposed FIP. 

As we discussed on the call, EPA cannot commit to propose a particular approach in advance 

of the actual proposal. However, consistent with EPA’s 2011 Tribal Consultation Policy, we 

wish to share as much information as possible with SPRMIC to allow for informed input prior 

to proposal. To that end, we are providing the attached draft of regulatory requirements that 

may be proposed for PCC as part of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. We hope that this will 

provide SRPMIC with the information it needs to evaluate and provide input on the potential 

impacts of the FIP on SRPMIC. 

We would greatly appreciate receiving any additional input from SRPMIC as soon as 

practicable, in order to allow us to fully consider this input as we develop the proposed FIP.

Charlotte Withey

Office of Regional Counsel

U.S. EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Tel: (415) 972-3915

Fax: (415) 947-3570

withey.charlotte@epa.gov

________________________________________

The information contained in this message, including any attachments hereto, may be 

privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended for 

the recipient only. If you are an agency employee or consultant, please consult with the 

sender prior to disclosing the contents of this message to third parties. If you have received 

this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and 

any attachments.
No. A-518.

#### Schwander et al. *v.*Cordova.

C. A. 9th Cir. Application for stay, addressed to Justice Blackmun and referred to the Court, denied.
No. 90-5789.

#### Jones *v.*Office of Personnel Management.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofFirst American Scientific Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, John Brian Nichols, Chief Executive 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 9thday of May, 2007.

BRIAN NICHOLSJohn Brian NicholsChief Executive Officer






































---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                  0
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,567,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,567,430
<PP&E>                                             11,785
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  1,579,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,579,215
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    1,579,215
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                            0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
                                               


</TABLE>
ex10_3.htm


Exhibit 10.3







ASSIGNMENT OF OIL AND GAS LEASES







STATE OF OKLAHOMA             )


COUNTY OF LOGAN                  )







THIS ASSIGNMENT OF OIL AND GAS LEASES is made and given on the  day of January, 2011.







NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Osage Exploration and Development, Inc., 100 Park Avenue, Suite 1040, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma  73102, hereinafter called "Assignor", does hereby bargain, sell, assign, transfer and convey unto the Blackrock Management, Inc.   San Diego, CA 92101, hereinafter called "Assignee", all of Assignor's right, title and interest in and to the oil and gas leases described more fully on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.







The interests assigned hereby are subject to and shall bear a proportionate share of all existing burdens of record against such assigned interest and are subject to all of the terms, provisions and conditions of those certain oil and gas leases mentioned in Exhibit "A".







The oil and gas leases are hereafter sometimes referred to as "Subject Leases" and the interest herein assigned, whether to one, or more than one Assignee is referred to as "Interest" in the singular form.  The assignment of interest hereunder includes a proportionate share of all rights incident thereto, including the personal property thereon, appurtenant thereto, or used or obtained in connection with the Subject Lease and all wells located thereon; subject, however, to all limitations, reservations and exceptions of record and noted herein.







The terms, covenants and conditions hereof shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns, and such terms, covenants and conditions shall be covenants running with the oil and gas leases described above and with each transfer or assignment thereof.







This assignment is made without warranty of title, either expressed or implied, except by, through and under Assignor.







ASSIGNOR                                                                           Osage Exploration and Development, Inc.,


 


    By:__________________________________


                      Kim Bradford, President






  





1











  








STATE OF                                                )


                       )           SS:


COUNTY OF                                           )







The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of  January, 2011, by Kim Bradford, as President of Osage Exploration and Development, Inc., a Delaware corporation.


 


Notary Public


My commission expires:


__________________________


{SEAL}






  





2











  








EXHIBIT "A"


 


Attached and made a part of that certain Assignment of Oil and Gas Leases dated the ___ day of January, 2011, between Osage Exploration and Development, Inc., Assignor, and Blackrock Management, Inc., Assignee.






  





3
No. 86-960.

#### High Tide Seafoods et al. *v.*Washington et al.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. Wash, dismissed for want of substantial federal question.

Justice Stevens would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 3213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00950]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 14 / Thursday, January 22, 2015 / 
Notices

[[Page 3213]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln of Lincoln, Nebraska, an exclusive 
license to the smooth bromegrass variety named ``NEWELL''.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mojdeh Bahar of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's rights in this 
plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. The prospective exclusive 
license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and 
conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive 
license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of 
this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives 
written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the 
license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7.

Mojdeh Bahar,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-00950 Filed 1-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNews Releases1998

# NRC to Review Findings of Indian Point 2 Special Inspection

----

----

No. I-98-14

**NRC TO REVIEW FINDINGS OF INDIAN POINT 2 SPECIAL INSPECTION**

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Consolidated Edison Company of New York on Thursday, February 12, to review the results of a special inspection conducted at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant. ConEd owns and operates the plant, located in Buchanan, N.Y.

The architect and engineering inspection involves reviews of the plant's design and configuration, as well as its conformance with the utility's safety analysis report. The inspection team was made up of engineers from the NRC and design specialists from Stone & Webster, an architect/engineering firm contracted by the agency to assist with the work.

The Indian Point 2 inspection was conducted from January 5 through February 6.

The NRC has been conducting the special inspections at nuclear plants across the country because of findings that some facilities were being operated in a manner that was inconsistent with their current design and licensing bases. Conformance to those bases is important to assure that plant systems, structures and components can perform their safety functions reliably and in a manner consistent with operating licenses issued by the NRC.

The inspection exit meeting is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. in the Energy Information Center at the plant, at Broadway and Bleakley avenues in Buchanan. It will be open to the public for observation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Augustine Serrano, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 340]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered August 11, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the police should have conducted a lineup rather than show him to the identifying witness while he was handcuffed is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the challenged showup, which took place some 45 minutes after the crime and some 120 blocks distant from the crime scene where defendant was apprehended after a car chase, was part of a single unbroken chain of exigent events *(People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541, 544-545). The exigency of the showup was not disproved by the fact that the codefendant was identified in a later lineup by another witness, since defendant’s showup identification as the shooter by an eyewitness to the shooting itself was the first identification Jinking any of the three occupants of the fleeing car to the shooting. Nor was the *509showup procedure unduly suggestive *(see, People v Ford,*195 AD2d 298, *lv denied*82 NY2d 805; *People v Stafford,*215 AD2d 212).

The trial court properly denied defendant’s request for a *Frye*hearing *(Frye v United States,*293 F 1013) to determine the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the use of a scanning electron microscope to analyze the chemical composition of particles recovered from defendant’s skin for the presence of lead indicative of gunshot residue. As defendant conceded at trial, scientists have been using the device for many years to identify the chemical composition of substances. The concerns defendant raised, including that the New York City police have only recently begun using the device, and that no samples were taken from the arresting officers, went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the expert testimony *(see, People v Wesley,*83 NY2d 417, 429). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.