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



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.
 November 13, 2007By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. Tietz

Dennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John Kallas

John Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the
Partnership
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# IJS Animation Model for Krško NPP (NUREG/IA-0227)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0227 (PDF - 7.60 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**October 2009**Date Published:**May 2010

**Prepared by:** Andrej Prošek, Borut Mavko

Jožef Stefan Institute Jamova cesta 39 SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

**Published by:** Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report presents the developed animation model for Krško nuclear power plant (NPP). For animations the Symbolic Nuclear Analysis Package (SNAP) was used. Krško NPP, which is a two-loop pressurized water reactor, Westinghouse type, before modernization in 2000 obtained plant specific full scope simulator. In the present study reference design basis calculations for Krško full scope simulator validation were analyzed with the latest RELAP5/MOD3.3 Patch 03 code to get the source data needed for development of animation model. In total six scenarios were analyzed: two scenarios of the Small Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA), two scenarios of the Loss of Main Feedwater (LOFW), scenario of the Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS), and scenario of the Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR). Animation masks were created for the primary and the secondary system, important plant systems, the plant signals and the control systems. The use of SNAP for animation of Krško nuclear power plant analyses showed several benefits, especially better understanding of the calculated physical phenomena and processes. It can also be concluded that the use of such support tools to system codes significantly contributes to better quality of safety analysis.

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 Quarterly Report of First American Scientific Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009, 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 16th day of February, 2010.








BRIAN NICHOLSJ. Brian NicholsChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Shou-Kang Chen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ChipMOS TECHNOLOGIES (Bermuda) LTD.;

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The companys other certifying officer(s)
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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the audit committee of company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 company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 companys internal control over financial reporting.

Date: April 25, 2014



/s/ Shou-Kang ChenName:

Shou-Kang ChenTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
Area-l, Incorporated 1590 N. Roberts Rd., Suite 102 Kennesaw, GA 30144 Tel: (678) 594-5227 Fax: (678) 594-5228
09/2112015 U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations Federal Aviation Administration West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590

ENCLOSURES • Publishable summary • Petition for exemption • PTERA UAS manual • PTERA UAS Emergency Procedures • 2014-ESA-51-COA • Primary flight crew qualifications • Area-l, Inc. AVSSMS • Letter ofapproval from Cochran Airport • Letter ofsupport from the Center ofInnovation for AerospaceArea-l, Incorporated 1590 N. Roberts Rd., Suite 102 Kennesaw, GA 30144 Tel: (678) 594-5227 Fax: (678) 594-5228
09/2112015 U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations Federal Aviation Administration West Building GroundFloor, Room wl2-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Petition for exemption from Title 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) §21, §45.11, §91.203(a)(l), §91.203(b), and §91.9 for the operation ofthe Area-l, Incorporated (Area-l, Inc.) SMB Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). SUMMARY Area-l, Inc. petitions for exemption from specific parts ofTitle 14 ofthe Code ofFederalRegulations. These exemptions are pursuant to Section 333 oftheFAAModernization and Reform Act of2012 (Report 112-381). In observance ofSection 333, the FAA has authorized limited use ofUAS for public interest, which includes testing and evaluating UAS. Area-l is a Georgia-based company offering a unique combination ofanalytical and practical experience with an emphasis in Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). Area-l develops low-cost flight test platforms, UAS Guidance and Control (GNC) systems, andhighly capable flight computing and data acquisition systems. The company maintains a shop and laboratory space that is used for electronics development, hardware-inloop simulation andtesting, andhas composite fabrication and machining capabilities. With the permission ofthe FAA, Area-l, Inc. requests the opportunity to operate its UAS withoutthe burden ofreliance on third-partypublic entity COAs or cost-prohibitive restricted airspace. Area-l, Inc. has developed a comprehensive Aviation Safety, Safety Management System (AVSSMS) and Alternative Methods ofCompliance (AMOC) for any exemptregulations. All PTERA operations underthis exemption will be conducted at an airport facility with permission from the airport authority in the same fashion as the active COA attached.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

William Holmes, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001018

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Charleston County

R. Markley Dennis Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 2023-MO-006

Heard December 13, 2022 – Filed March 1, 2023

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED

Jason Thomas Yonge, of Williams, Stitely & Brink, PC, 

of Lexington, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert 

Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior 

Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both 
of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of 

Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' 

decision in State v. Holmes, Op. No. 2021-UP-249 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 30, 

2021). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.1

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.

 

1 Counsel for Petitioner handled this appeal as part of the Appellate Practice Project. 

We applaud the professional ability of counsel and admire his willingness to 

volunteer his time and efforts in representing Petitioner.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          27,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,690<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                       2,563,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                 285,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,844,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                      2,141,302
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     99,923
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,575
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,844,215
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               301,383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,015
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,192
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              85,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 47,282
<INCOME-TAX>                                    47,282
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (24,714)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are stated net of allowances and also include accrued revenues.
<F2>The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before March 27, 2015.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
                        ( print page 3979)
                        Administration, Attention: DEA 
                        **Federal Register**
                         Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR pt. 0, subpt. R, App. In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 29, 2014, Euticals, Inc., 2460 W. Bennett Street, Springfield, Missouri 65807-1229, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Controlled substance
ScheduleGamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IILisdexamfetamine (1205)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPhenylacetone (8501)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone intermediate (9254)
IIOripavine (9330)
IITapentadol (9780)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution and sale to its customers. In reference to Amphetamine (1100), the company plans to acquire the listed controlled substance in bulk from a domestic source in order to manufacture other controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Dated: January 9, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2015-01312 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6588

STACY W. HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GEORGETOWN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MIKE SWARTZ, Chief Administrator; CHUCK KOCIS, Major; KENNETH OWENS, Captain; BARRY MARSH, Captain, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-1180-6-13AK) Submitted: November 17, 2005 Decided: November 23, 2005 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stacy W. Howard, Appellant Pro Se. William Walter Doar, Jr., Leigh Taylor Powers, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Georgetown, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Stacy W. Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in Howard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on March 11, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on April 15, 2005. * Because Howard failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We grant Howard’s motion to supplement the record. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions- 3 - are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLEN SUYAPA SANTOS

- CABRERA, AKA Maria Gonzalez

- Pacheco,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 16

- 71117 Agency No. A098

- 589

- 470

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
S ubmitted March 13, 2018 **
Before: LEAVY , M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Marlen Suyapa Santos

- Cabrera, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdict ion is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 7111 7

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review

. The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos

- Cabrera’s motion to reopen as untimely , where she filed the motion nearly nine years after her in absentia removal order, and has not demonstrated that any exception to the filing deadlines are applicable

. See 8 U.S .C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (c)(7)(C)(i)

. We reject Santos

- Cabrera ’s contentions that the agency failed to sufficiently consider evidence and arguments, properly consider all factors, or insufficiently explained its decision. See Najmabadi v. Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fer nandez v. Gonzale s , 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record).
Santos

- Cabrera’s contention that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigr ant Responsibility Act of 1996 is unconstituti onal lacks merit. See Jimenez

Angeles v. Ashcroft , 291 F.3d 594, 602

- 03 (9th Cir. 2002) (limitations by country of origin on the availability of special rule cancellation of removal do not violate equal protection)

. To the extent Santos

- Cabrera challenges the agency’s discretionary decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we lack jurisdiction to review this3 16

- 7111 7

determination absent a claim of legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch , 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his court has jurisdi ction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or constitutional error.”).
Because the untimeliness determination is dispositive, we do not reach
Santos

- Cabrera ’s remaining contentions regarding eligibility for relief

. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

.
No. 82-1096.

#### Zinger Construction Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 24.3

POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Mike
Kinney and Robert E. Brummels, or either of them, as my attorney-in-fact with full power of substitution, to execute in their respective names, individually and in my capacity as director, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2006 (the 2006 Annual Report) of Husker Ag, LLC and any and all amendments thereto, and to file the 2006 Annual Report, any and all such amendments, and exhibits and documents thereto required in connection therewith
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto each attorney-in-fact and any substitute, full power and authority to do and to perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in connection therewith, as fully as I
might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20thday of March, 2007.



/s/ David StearnsDavid Stearns




|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|STATE OF NEBRASKA |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  | ) |  | ss.
|COUNTY OF PIERCE  |  | ) |  |    

On this 20thday of March, 2007, before me, a Notary public qualified for said County, personally came David Stearns, known to me to be the
identical person who signed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.



/s/ Kristine C. WackerNotary PublicMy commission expires: 2-28-2010