alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. PF15-1-000]

                    On January 13, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued a                     *Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned PennEast Pipeline Project, Requests for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings.*                     The notice solicited comments on the potential environmental impacts of the planned project and announced the time and location of five public scoping meetings being held for the environmental proceedings.                

Due to unforeseen circumstances, Commission staff is postponing the scoping meeting planned for Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at the Kendall Hall, Performance Theater, College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, Ewing, NJ 08628. Once a new venue is established and scheduled, the Commission will issue another notice advising of the new location and time.

Dated: January 23, 2015.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2015-01733 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 on Form 10-Q of Open Text Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 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
HOVERDAlan HoverdChief Financial Officer




Dated: May 17, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 4, 2015

h0128

Order 

Clerk

February 4, 2015

149264 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149264

COA: 320306

Oakland CC: 2013-246422-FC

CHRISTOPHER LEE BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________/

By order of October 22, 2014, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, 

we VACATE the sentence of the Oakland Circuit Court and REMAND this case to the 

trial court for resentencing. As the prosecuting attorney concedes, the defendant should 

not have been assessed 25 points for offense variable (OV) 13. The conspiracy offense 

for which he was convicted is not a “crime[] against a person” under MCL 777.43(1)(c), 

as it is a “crime[] against public safety.” MCL 777.18; People v Bonilla-Machado, 489 

Mich 412 (2011). On remand, the trial court shall sentence the defendant within the 

appropriate sentencing guidelines range or, if it cannot follow its preliminary sentence 

evaluation under People v Cobbs, 443 Mich 276 (1993), permit him to withdraw his plea. 

In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Risk-Based Performance Indicators: Results of Phase 1 Development (NUREG-1753)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1753            - Cover - Appendix C (PDF - 12.69 MB)
          - Appendix D - End (PDF - 10.02 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**November 2001 **Date Published:**April 2002 

H. G. Hamzehee,1 Principal Author

Contributing Authors:  R. W. Youngblood2, S. A. Eide3, R. F. Buell3,  H. Dezfuli2, C. Atwood3, C. Smith2, R. Bertucio4,  L. Wolfram3, J. F. Meyer2, F. Zikria2, K. Green2

1Division of Risk Analysis and Applications  Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  Washington, DC 20555-0001

2ISL, Inc. 11140 Rockville Pike  Rockville, MD 20852

3Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory  2525 N. Fremont Avenue  Idaho Falls, ID 83415

4SCIENTECH, Inc.  400 West Gowe Street  Kent, WA 98032

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents the results of the Phase 1 development of risk-based performance indicators (RBPIs) to potentially enhance the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). SECY-99-007 recognized that improved performance indicators may be developed as part of the evolution of the ROP. RBPIs reflect changes in licensee performance that are logically related to risk and associated models. To the extent practical, the RBPIs identify declining performance before performance becomes unacceptable, without incorrectly identifying normal variations as degradations (i.e., avoid false-positive indications and false-negative indications). Phase 1 of the RBPI development includes performance indicators that are related to the initiating events cornerstone, mitigating systems cornerstone, and the containment portion of the barrier integrity cornerstone. The potential integration of RBPIs into the ROP would follow the change process described in IMC-0608, "Performance Indicator Program."

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Assessment of RELAP5/MOD2, Cycle 36.04 Against FIX-II Split Break Experiment No. 3051 (NUREG/IA-0029)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0029 (PDF 2.39 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** October 1989

**Prepared by:** J. Eriksson

Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate S-61182 Nykoping, Sweden

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

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The FIX-II split break experiment No. 3051 has been analyzed using the RELAP5/MOD2 code. The code version used, Cycle 36.04, is the frozen version of the code.

Three calculations were carried out to study the sensitivity of various parameters to the change of break discharge and passive heat structures. The differences between the calculations and the experiment have been quantified over intervals in real time for a number of variables available from the measurements during the experiment.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
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 Prevention Insurance.com  (the
"Company") on  Form 10-KSB  for  the period ending April 30, 2007 as filed with
the United States  Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Scott Goldsmith, President  and  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:

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

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

      The foregoing certification is made solely for  the  purpose of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein,  and not for
any other purpose.


Dated: September 14, 2007               Name: /s/ Scott Goldsmith
-------------------------               -------------------------
                                        Scott Goldsmith
                                        President and
					Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements and in their related prospectuses of Apple Hospitality Two, Inc., as listed below, of our
report dated February 27, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Apple Hospitality Two, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.



|                          |  |                                                                                    
|------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|RegistrationStatement No. |  | Description                                                                        
|                         
|333-112981                |  | Form S-3, pertaining to the Companys Dividend Reinvestment and Share Purchase Plan



/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Richmond, Virginia

March 11, 2004



56
No. 86-945.

#### WKRG-TV, Inc. *v.*Wiley.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2




McGladrey &
Pullen









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, 2007 (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 the 14th
day of March, 2008.






/s/
      John P. NelsonJohn
      P. Nelson, Vice President(Principal
      Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 32**
**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of LCA-Vision Inc.(the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
This quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 of the Company fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andinformation contained in this Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: May 9, 2005 /s/ Stephen N. Joffe       Stephen N. Joffe   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer       Date: May 9, 2005 /s/ Alan Buckey       Alan Buckey   Chief Financial Officer  
16
EXHIBIT 99.2





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 Quarterly Report of Velocity Express Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 28, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark E. Ties, Chief Financial 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:





| | 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/    MARK E. TIES Mark E. Ties Chief Financial Officer November 12,
2002
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Information Technology/Information Management Strategic Plan (NUREG-1908)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, November 10, 2022
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) Niking Corporation ) ) Under Contract No. W9128A-12-C-0003 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:
APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60731, 61394

Brian A Darst, Esq.

Reston, VA Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Robyn U. Au, Esq. Nathan K. Sadowski, Esq.

EngineerTrial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu Fort Shafter, HI ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute that is the subject ofthese appeals has been settled, and the appeals are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Dated: December 4, 2018 

# '::-/E-: j I 

# j IA ' Liftfr. O'SULL~-- Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60731, 61394, Appeals ofNiking Corporation, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:
JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Licensee Contractor and Vendor Inspection Status Report – Quarterly Report (NUREG-0040)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, July 20, 2021
(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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    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(d)
    
    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
  (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.
  /s/ Gary W. Bogatay, Jr.Name: Gary W. Bogatay, Jr.Title: Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
fs12011ex10viii_aivtech.htm


Exhibit 10.8


 




Purchase Order


 







 


Seller: Dongguan AIVtech Co., Ltd.


 


Address: 78 WenQuan South Road, Shilong Town, Dongguan, China


 


Buyer: Guangdong Guanghong Export & Import Co., Ltd.


 


Address: Floor 1-2, DaYuan XinHua Building, 33 TianHe Road, Guangzhou, China


 







Pursuant to the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China, the seller and the buyer mutually agree as follows:


 







Contract date:  December 11, 2010


 


Product:


 



	
13.3” LED TV


	
18.5” LED TV












 


Quantity:


 



	
15,000


	
5,000












 


Unit Price:


 



	
CNY 500


	
CNY 860












 


Delivery time: Subject to the agreed date


 


Other terms:


 


      a.   The seller shall be responsible for the quality of products.


 


      b. Should the seller fail to deliver products on time, the sell shall take all the responsibilities.


 


 






	 Seller  	 Buyer
	 	 
	 Dongguan AIVtech Co., Ltd.	 Guangdong Guanghong Export & Import Co., Ltd.
	 	 
	 	 
	 Date:  December 11, 2010          	 Date:  December 11, 2010
No. 90-6264.

#### Bennett et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsConference Proceedings Prepared by NRC Staff or Contractors

# Workshop on Program for Elimination of Requirements, Marginal to Safety (NUREG/CP-0129)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Introduction

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CP-0129 (PDF - 13.9 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** September 1993**Date Published:** September 1993

**Prepared by:** M. Dey, NRC F. Arsenault, M. Patterson, M. Gaal, Scientech, Inc.

**Sponsored by:** Division of Safety Issue Resolution Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

**Proceedings prepared by:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

and

Scientech, Inc. 11821 Parklawn Drive Rockville, MD 20852

Availability Notice

## ABSTRACT

These are the proceedings of the Public Workshop on the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Program for Elimination of Requirements Marginal to Safety. The workshop was held at the Holiday Inn, Bethesda, on April 27 and 28, 1993. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity for public and industry input to the program.

The workshop addressed the institutionalization of the program to review regulations with the purpose of eliminating those that are marginal. The objective is to avoid the dilution of safety efforts. One session was devoted to discussion of the framework for a performance-based regulatory approach. In addition, panelists and attendees discussed scope, schedules and status of specific regulatory items: containment leakage testing requirements, fire protection requirements, requirements for environmental qualification of electrical equipment, requests for information under IOCFR50.54(f), requirements for combustible gas control systems, and quality assurance requirements.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
#### Brown Deer Lumber Company, Appellant, vs. Campbell-Shirk Company and others, Respondents.

*March 4*

April *1, 1930.*

*334For the appellant there was a brief by *Leuch, Fichaux & Fellens*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Peter F. Leiich.*

*Louis R. Potter*of Milwaukee, for the respondents Lett.

Stevens, J.

The notes were transferred to the plaintiff before due and for value. The single question presented is whether the plaintiff was chargeable with knowledge of either the conditions under which these notes were transferred to the defendant Meyers, or of the false representations made by the defendant Meyers when he secured the notes.

(1) “The title of a person who negotiates an instrument is defective . . . when he obtains the instrument ... by fraud, ... or when he negotiates it in breach of faith.” Sec. 116.60, Stats. The plaintiff is deemed *prima facie*to be a holder in due course because it acquired the notes before maturity and for value, “but when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course.” Sec. 116.64, Stats.

The title of the defendant Meyers to the notes was defective. , The plaintiff therefore had the burden of establishing that it acquired title as a holder in due course, which means in this case that the plaintiff had the burden of establishing that it had no notice of the fact that the defendant Meyers had secured the notes by fraud or that he was guilty of a breach of faith in negotiating them. The evidence presented *335a clear-cut jury issue upon that question. The verdict determined that the plaintiff did not meet the burden imposed upon it and that it therefore had no right to recover on these notes.

(2) Appellant complains because, as it contends, it is not possible to determine the ground upon which the jury found for the defendants, or whether all of the jurors agreed upon the same ground of defense. The court submitted the case to the jury on a general verdict under instructions which directed the jurors to find for the defendants if they found that the-plaintiff took the notes with knowledge of the false representations made by defendant Meyers, or of the fact that the defendants Lett received no consideration for the transfer of these notes, or that the notes were not to be used until the house was up and the title to the lot cleared. The court, by full and correct instructions, directed the jury to consider and pass upon each of these questions separately, finally determining each question before it gave consideration to the next. This is the only manner in which a case involving several different grounds of liability or defense can be submitted on a general verdict. If the plaintiff desired a separate finding on each issue presented by the proof, it should have requested a special verdict.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Fritz, J., took no part.