alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.3

INTERNAL CONTROLS CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, David M. McCarthy, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Zanett, Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have;

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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
            annual report is being prepared;
      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
            controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
            filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
      c)    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
            our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of
            internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
            ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
            and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
            weaknesses in internal controls; and
      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls; and

6.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  April 15, 2003

/s/ David M. McCarthy
David M. McCarthy
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
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 First American Scientific Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, J. 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 13th day of December, 2010.








J. BRIAN NICHOLSJ. Brian NicholsChief Executive Officer
Amendment to Employment Agreement - Martin B. Anstice



 Exhibit 10.152 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective this 7th day of December, 2010 (the
“Effective Date”), by and between Lam Research Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Martin B. Anstice (the “Executive”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and
the Company (the “Parties”) previously entered into an employment agreement effective July 1, 2009 (the “Employment Agreement” and, as amended hereby, the “Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, in order to address the appointment of the Executive as President of the Company, the Parties desire to
amend the Employment Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and
mutual covenants herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 
 AGREEMENT 
 Section 1(a) of the Employment Agreement is amended and
restated to read, in its entirety, as follows: 
 “Position. During the Employment Period (as defined in
Section 2(a) below), the Executive shall serve as President and Chief Operating Officer and in such capacity the Executive shall perform the duties and responsibilities as the Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO”) may, from time to
time, reasonably assign to the Executive, in all cases to be consistent with Executive’s offices and positions.” 

[Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have duly executed this Agreement effective as of the day
and year first written above. 
  

			
	LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Stephen G. Newberry
	Name:	 	Stephen G. Newberry
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer
	Dated:	 	December 7, 2010


  

			
		
		 	/s/ Martin B. Anstice
		 	Martin B. Anstice


			
		
	Dated:	 	December 7, 2010


  
 Page 2
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 15





August 10, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:      Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries

         1). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-4290) 1995 Long-Term Incentive
Compensation Plan and Individual Stock Options Granted to Certain Directors and
Employees Prior to the Adoption of the Plan
         2). Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-52907) 1998 Employee Incentive
Compensation Plan.

Ladies and gentlemen:

We are aware that our report dated July 14, 1998, on our review of interim
financial information of Tollgrade Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries for the
three months and six months ended June 27, 1998, and included within the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is
incorporated by reference in the registration statements referred to above.
Pursuant to Rule 436(c)under the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not
be considered a part of the registration statements prepared or certified by us
within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

Very truly yours,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP






                                       20
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Requirements for Establishing Detector Siting Criteria in Fires Involving Electrical Materials (NUREG/CR-2409, SAND81-7168)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-2409 (PDF - 1.91 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 1982**Date Published:**August 1982

**Prepared by:** John L. Boccio Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973 Under Sandia Contract No. 74-5093

for Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 Operated by Sandia Corporation for the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC04-76DP00789

L.J. Klamerus, Sandia Project Officer 

**Prepared for:** Division of Engineering Technology  Office of Nuclear Reactor Research US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE 40-550-75  NRC FIN A-1010

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Due to increased public awareness and regulatory actions, significant strides have been made in the capabilities of fire technology as it applies to fire detection systems. However, these advances in detector selection, siting, reliability and approvals tests have not substantially addressed the overall fire protection requirements within nuclear reactors.

 This report emphasizes some of the basic requirements and considerations needed for establishing siting criteria for early-warning detection of electrical cable fires. Recent research in electrical cable flammability and damageability characteristics are discussed. Also current work in systemizing detector siting criteria is also described.

 Confirmatory tests linking assessment of electrical-cable damageability with electrical cable fire detection is stressed.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 13.2

ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned, Shou-Kang Chen, Chief Financial Officer of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD. (the
Company), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 4, 2010



/s/ Shou-Kang ChenName:

Shou-Kang ChenTitle:

Chief Financial Officer


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Industry Performance of Relief Valves at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants through 2007 (NUREG/CR-7037, INL/EXT-10-17932)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7037 (PDF - 10.82 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2010**Date Published:** March 2011

**Prepared by:** T.E. Wierman, C.D. Gentillon, INL B.M. Brady, NRC

Idaho National Laboratory Idaho Falls, ID 83415

J. Lane, NRC Project Manager

 NRC Job Code Numbers Y6546 and N6890

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report characterizes current industry average performance for relief valves at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants using data through 2007. It uses data obtained from the Institute for Nuclear Power Operation‘s Equipment Performance and Information Exchange (EPIX) database and Licensee Event Reports (LERs). It describes the parameter estimation process used to derive the failure probabilities on demand (using beta distributions), failure rates (using gamma distributions), maintenance unavailabilities, and initiating event frequencies for use in Level 1 Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) models of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. The methods employed in this report are conventional estimation methods as documented in NUREG/CR-6823, "Handbook for Parameter Estimation for Probabilistic Risk Assessment."

The characterization of current industry average performance is an important step in maintaining up-to-date risk models. Studies have indicated that industry performance of most components has improved since the 1980s and early 1990s. For most relief valve component performance estimates, data for 1997–2007 are used to characterize current industry average performance. However, data from 1987 to 2007 are used to characterize relief valve response to unplanned shutdown events.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Rod Bundle Heat Transfer Facility Two-Phase Mixture Level Swell and Uncovery Test Experiments Data Report (NUREG/CR-7218)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
               ---------------------------------------------------



We have issued our report dated March 20, 2003 accompanying the financial
statements of MR3 Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the years
ended December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, which is included in this Registration
Statement. We consent to the inclusion of our report in this Registration
Statement.



/s/ POHL, MCNABOLA, BERG & CO.
-------------------------------
Pohl, McNabola, Berg & Co., LLP


San Francisco, California
August 14, 2003
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Donna M. Klampfer, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 540 C.D. 2017

: Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : Respondent :

PER CURIAM

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17 th day of April

, 2018 , it is ordered that the above

captio ned opinion filed on February 1 , 2018 , shall be designated OPINION, rather

than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and it shall be reported.
#### In re Kenneth G. HELLER and Nancy L. Heller, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 82-05943 T.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 10, 1984.

*279Michael Mayro, Reading, Pa., for debtors.

Mark G. Yoder, Reading, Pa., for American Bank.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

In this Chapter 7 case, the husband and wife debtors have filed, pursuant to § 522(f)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1), an application to avoid the judicial lien of the American Bank and Trust Co. of Pa. (“American Bank”). American Bank opposes the application. For the reasons hereinafter given, we shall deny the application.1

The judicial lien in question stems from a judgment entered by American Bank against the debtors on February 13,1980 in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The recording of said judgment created a lien on all real property of the debtors located in Schuylkill County. 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 4303 (Purdon 1983). The debtors’ resident real property in question is located in Schuylkill County. As of the date of the hearing, the amount due on the judicial lien was $3,159.56. American Bank also holds a mortgage against the real property, upon which the debtors owed $22,032.88 as of the hearing date. There are no other liens against the property.

The debtors claim an exemption of $4,000.00 in the real property.

The debtors’ appraiser valued the real property at $36,000.00. American Bank’s appraiser valued the real property at $41,-900.00.

Based upon the foregoing evidence, the debtors’ lien avoidance application must be denied, even assuming *arguendo*that we accept the $36,000.00 valuation of the debtors’ appraiser. The mortgage and judicial lien constitute a combined encumbrance of only $25,192.94. Under these facts, the debtors’ claimed exemption of $4,000.00 is simply not impaired by the judicial lien, and the lien avoidance application must, therefore, be denied.

1

. This Memorandum Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 7052 of the Bankruptcy Rules.
#### In re AT OF MAINE, INC., American Trawler Corporation, Debtors. AMERICAN TRAWLER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. M. SLAVIN AND SONS, Defendant.

Bankruptcy Nos. 281-00389, 281-00390.

Adv. No. 282-0054.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine.

March 24, 1982.

*623P. Benjamin Zuckerman, David C. Hill-man, Robert J. Reach, Verrill & Dana, Portland, Me., for plaintiff.

Richard E. Poulos, Portland, Me., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

JAMES A. GOODMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Debtor in possession, American Trawler Corporation, seeks in its complaint to recover damages for breach of contract for goods sold and delivered. Defendant has not answered the complaint, but moves for a change of venue to the Eastern District of New York.

The parties do not dispute that venue properly lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1473(a), but defendant argues that justice and convenience of parties warrant removal of the proceeding to New York. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1475; Bankruptcy Rule 782.

The party requesting change of venue has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. *In re Whippany Paper Board Co., Inc.,*4 C.B.C.2d 370, 376 (Bkrtcy.D.N.J.1981).

There is little evidence before the Court with respect to the relative difficulty and expense of the parties in the prosecution of their cases. To determine which forum is appropriate for the convenience of the parties and interests of justice, it is necessary to pinpoint the issues of the case and the evidence to be submitted by the parties in support thereof. *In re North Star Packers, Inc.,*3 BCD 457, 458 (Bkrtcy.D.Me.1977). A bare allegation of hardship in securing attendance of distant witnesses, on issues as yet undetermined, does not persuade this Court to transfer venue. Defendant shall be given 10 days within which to file its answer, setting forth in good faith the major issues in dispute. Thereafter, each party shall have 15 days to provide *624an offer of proof naming: (1) its witnesses; (2) the *precise*nature of each witness’s testimony *necessary*to *relevant*issues of the case; (3) its unwilling witnesses who are not subject to compulsory process; and (4) any other *necessary, relevant*evidence which would justify change of venue.

So ordered.
Argued and submitted June 7,

reversed and remanded with instructions July 7,

reconsideration denied September 15, 1993, petition for review pending 1994

#### STATE ex rel COMPASS CORPORATION, *Respondent, v.*CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, *Appellant.*

(92-1-134; CA A76227)

856 P2d 319

Cynthia L. Phillips, Deputy City Attorney, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.

Gregory S. Hathaway, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Richard M. Layne, Virginia L. Gustafson and Garvey, Schubert & Barer, Portland.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Landau, Judges.

*487DEITS, P. J.

*488DEITS, P. J.

Defendant City of Lake Oswego appeals from a judgment directing it to grant plaintiffs partition application in this mandamus action under ORS 227.178(7).1 We reverse.

The city took final action to deny the application after plaintiff brought the mandamus action, but before the action was finally adjudicated. In *Edney v. Columbia County Board of Commissioners,*119 Or App 6, 849 P2d 1125, *rev allowed*317 Or 162 (1993), decided after the parties filed their briefs here, we construed ORS 215.428(7), the provision that is applicable to counties and that parallels ORS 227.178(7), and held that mandamus jurisdiction is lost and the LUBA appeal process becomes exclusive if “a county’s belated land use decision is made after a mandamus action has been brought but before it has been finally adjudicated.” 119 Or App at 12.

At oral argument, plaintiff acknowledged that *Edney*is controlling, but contended that it was wrongly decided. We recognized in *Edney*that there was an inherent conflict between the mandamus statutes and the LUBA review statutes, and that full literal effect cannot be given to both. We acknowledged in that decision that there are persuasive arguments on both sides of this issue. However, it was our conclusion that the legislature intended that the LUBA process, in which land use issues can be reviewed on their merits by the body to whom the legislature has assigned that task, is preferred over compulsory circuit court relief. We adhere to that view and to our decision in *Edney.*

Reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss action.

1

 ORS 227.178(7) provides:

> “If the governing body of the city or its designate does not take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change within 120 days after the application is deemed complete, the applicant may apply in the circuit court of the county where *the application was*filed for a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body or its designate to issue the approval. The writ shall be issued unless the governing body shows that the approval would violate a substantive provision of the city comprehensive plan or land use regulations as defined in ORS 197.015.”
### Ken$Carlson$ October$29,$2014$ 

# Applying(Cost-Effective(Technology( and(Strategies(For(Reusing(High( TDS(Water(for(Hydraulic(Fracturing(

## Treatment(Objectives(

5 Solids$removal$

5 Divalent$cation$removal$

5 Organic$compound$removal$

5 TDS$reduction$ Produced/Flowback( Water(Quality(

5 Al,$Fe$

5 Ca,$Mg,$Ba,$Sr$

5 Na,$K$

5 Cl,$HCO3,$SO4$

5 TOC$

5 BTEX$

5 Bacteria$ Water(Quality(( Requirements(

5 Frac$water$use$

5 Agricultural$use$

5 Natural$water$ discharge$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Processes$
• Coagulation/settling/filtration$
• Softening/precipitation$
• Aerobic$degradation$ • Reverse$osmosis/distillation$ 

# Treatment Process Objectives

Usually choose beneficial use with lowest treatment $$ ?

# Generic Flow Schematic Water Management Logistics Minimum$$$$to$achieve$beneficial$reuse$of$water$ 

# Pipelines$ 

# Injection$ 

# Storage$ Mobile$vs.$Fixed$

# Flowback$Water$Reuse$Limitations$ QUANTITY$ Water$Demand$>$Water$Produced$ 

### QUALITY$ Fresh/Recycle$Blend$WQ$<$ Frac $Fluid$Requirement$ 

# Water Systems Optimization Noble Energy/Colorado State University Modeling0 50 100 150 200 250

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000

0:00:00 0:05:00 0:10:00 0:15:00 0:20:00 0:25:00 0:30:00 0:35:00 0:40:00 0:45:00Temperature, °FViscosity. cP @ 40/sec

Elapsed Time, hr:min 

# Water Quality Limits of Frac Fluids Noble Energy/Halliburton/CSU Testing Sulfate$

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000

0:00:00 0:05:00 0:10:00 0:15:00 0:20:00 0:25:00 0:30:00 0:35:00 0:40:00 0:45:00Temperature, °FViscosity. cP @ 40/sec

Elapsed Time, hr:min TDS$

# Generic Flow Schematic Water Management Logistics

# Summary
WQ Frac 

### Fresh Source Water Flowback$volume$(V FB )$
Flowback$water$quality$$ (WQ FB )$ V FB WQ FB 

### Drilling/ Fracturing Injection Disposal well Flowback Water Treatment V Frac WQ Frac Frac$Volume$( V Frac )$ Adjust frac fluid and treatment for minimum $$$

# • TDS$reduction$is$most$costly$treatment$objective$ • Strategies$exist$to$manage$TDS$during$reuse$in$DJ$

5 Dilution$

5 Frac$fluid$characterization$/$optimization$ • When$TDS$reduction$is$required,$RO$is$most$cost$ effective$for$DJ$(<35,000$mg/L)$ Summary
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Results of Open Testing for the Program to Assess the Reliability of Emerging Nondestructive Techniques (NUREG/CR-7236)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
#### In the Matter of Mark B. Pangburn, Appellant, v Thomas E. Moran, as District Attorney of Livingston County, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 991]

Motion to amend complaint denied. Memorandum: A motion to amend pleadings should be addressed to the trial court. Present — Pine, J. P., Fallon, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.