alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned, Charles C. Mottley, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies,
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company, as of, and for the periods presented in the
    Report.




Date:
      December 29, 2009
            
            /s/ Charles C. MottleyCharles
      C. Mottley
              Chief
      Executive Officer





A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Capitan
Precious Metals, Inc. and subsidiaries and will be retained by El Capitan
Precious Metals, Inc. and subsidiaries and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Table of Contents


EXHIBIT
32.02





Certification
of Principal Financial Officer


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 Silicon Image, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Harold Covert, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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) 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 result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented therein.





Date:
      April 24, 2009
            /s/
      Harold Covert


Harold
      Covert


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 90-6310.

#### Young *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Application of Full Power Blackout for C. N. Almaraz with RELAP5/MOD2 (NUREG/IA-0123, ICSP–AL–BOUT–R)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0123 (PDF 2.48 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** June 1993

**Prepared by:** A. L. Lechas

C. N. Almaraz I y II c/Claudio Coello, 123 28006 - Madrid, Spain

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

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The analysis group of Almaraz Nuclear Power Plant has developed a model of the plant with RELAP 5 / MOD. 2 / 36:04. This model is the result of the work-experience on the code RELAP 5 / MOD. 1 / that was the standar code during the period 1.984/1.989. Different solutions were adopted in the network to adecuate the model to RELAP 5 MOD. 2 Computer Code.

This transient was selected for ICAP because it presents an experience with the same transient calculated with RELAP 5 / MOD. 1 / CY 29 computer code. The comparison between both analysis will be interesting.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
July 12, 1968 

Wade Opinion NO. M-256 

District Attorney of Dallas County 

Dallas County Government Center Re: 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Authority of Dallas County 

Hospital District, pursuant to Article 4494n, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes, 

to expend funds for building and operating a "Crime 

Dear Mr. Wade: Lab." 

You have requested an opinion as to whether the Board 

of Managers of the Dallas County Hospital District has the authority to expend funds of the district for the purpose of building , equipping and operating a crime laboratory. You state in 

your request that its primary purpose would be to aid in crime 

detection and to present evidence in connection with the prosecution of criminal cases: its better known and more common 

functions relate to the determination of alcohol and drug content of blood samples, ballistic and firearms identification, 

analysis and identification of narcotics, marijuana and dangerous 

drugs, analysis and comparison of hair, skin, poisons and other 

substances obtained in criminal investigations, and the use of 

various chemicals and apparatus in connection with crime detection. 

Section 4 of Article IX of the Constitution of Texas, 

and Article 4494n, Vernon's Civil Statutes, direct that hospital 

districts created thereunder shall assume full responsibility for 

providing medical and hospital care to the needy inhabitants of 

the county. In Bexar County Hospital District v. Crosby, 160 

Tex. 116, 327 S.W.2d 445 (1959), it was held that the provisions 

of Section 4 of Article IX limited the expenditure of taxes levied 

for hospital purposes to the limited use provided for in the 

Constitution. 

The purpose of building, equipping and operating a 

crime laboratory to perform the functions outlined in your request is for a purpose other than to provide medical aid and 

hospital care to needy persons residing in the district. We can 

find no constitutional or statutory authority authorizing the 

hospital district to perform such purpose. Therefore , we agree 

with you that the Dallas County Hospital District has no authority 

to expend its funds for such purposes, laudable as such aims and 

purposes may be. 

-1241- 
Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (M-256) 

SUMMARY - 

The Dallas County Hospital District has no' 

authority to build, maintain and operate a crime 

laboratory since such expenditure is not for the 

purpose of furnishing medical aid and hospital 

care to needy individuals residing in the district. Article IX, Section 4, Tex.Const.; Bexar 

County Hospital District v. Crosby, 160 Tex. 116, 

327 S.W.Zd 445 (1959). 

/P 

?iEkq;g@*< 

Attorn y General of Texas 

Prepared by John Reeves 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman 

Kerns Taylor, Co-Chairman 

John Fainter 

Brock Jones 

Thomas Mack 

Jo Betsy Lewallen 

A. J. CARUBBI, JR. 

Executive Assistant 

lj 

-1242-
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of the Chief Financial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,****As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Accenture Ltd (the“Company”) onForm 10-K for theyear ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Michael G. McGrath, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.     /s/ Michael G. McGrath       Michael G. McGrath *Chief Financial Officer of Accenture Ltd* *(principal financial officer)*Dated: October 18, 2006     *A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
EXHIBIT 11



PACIFICA BANCORP, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE



|                                                                                 |  | Years Ended December 31, |          
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ | ---------
|                                                                                 |  | 2002                     |          
|Net income (loss)                                                                |  | $                        | 108,000  
|Less accrued perpetual preferred stock dividends                                 |  |                          | (14,000  
|                                                                                 |  |                          |          
|Net income (loss) available to common shareholders                               |  | $                        | 94,000   
|                                                                                 |  |                          |          
|Computation of average shares outstanding                                        |  |                          |          
|Shares outstanding at beginning of the period                                    |  |                          | 3,260,368
|Additional shares deemed outstanding because of stock dividends                  |  |                          |         
|Additional shares deemed outstanding because of stock splits                     |  |                          |         
|Common stock repurchased                                                         |  |                          |         
|Shares issued during the period times average time outstanding during the
period |  |                          |         
|                                                                                 |  |                          |          
|Average basic shares outstanding                                                 |  |                          | 3,260,368
|Dilutive shares                                                                  |  |                          | 58,907   
|                                                                                 |  |                          |          
|Average diluted shares outstanding                                               |  |                          | 3,319,275
|                                                                                 |  |                          |          
|Net income (loss) per share of common stock:                                     |  |                          |          
|Basic                                                                            |  | $                        | 0.03     
|                                                                                 |  |                          |          
|Diluted                                                                          |  | $                        | 0.03     
|                                                                                 |  |                          |
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 01-2415

	JOSEPH MCMANUS,

	Plaintiff, Appellant,

	v.

	ASHBEL T. WALL, ET AL.,

	Defendants, Appellees.

	APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

	FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

	[Hon. Ronald R. Lagueux, U.S. District Judge]

	Before

	 Selya, Circuit Judge,

Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

	Joseph McManus on brief pro se.

	Michael B. Grant, Deputy Chief Legal Counsel, on Motion for Summary Disposition for appellees.

March 8, 2002

	Per Curiam.  Rhode Island state prisoner Joseph McManus appeals from the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) of his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The appellees have moved for summary disposition of McManus’s appeal pursuant to Local Rule 27(c). 

	Under the version of the Rhode Island statute applicable at the time he filed his section 1983 complaint, McManus appears to have been exempted from the normal three- year limitations period applicable to personal injury actions because he was imprisoned at the time this cause of action accrued.  See R. I. Gen. Laws §§ 9-1-14 and 9-1-19 (version prior to July 13, 2001).  Consequently, we do not rely on the district court’s statute-of-limitations rationale with respect to McManus’s complaints about confiscation of legal materials and personal property.  However, as McManus has not contended that he was unrepresented by counsel and has not explained how the confiscation interfered with his access to the courts, McManus’s complaint fails to state a valid cause of action for denial of access to the courts.  See Cepulonis v. Fair, 732 F.2d 1, 6 (1st. Cir. 1984).  Nor does his assertion state a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation since he has not shown that remedies are unavailable to him, either administratively or in the state court.  See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 522-30 (1984).  The district court’s judgment as to these claims is AFFIRMED on these alternate grounds.  See Olsen v. Correiro, 189 F.3d 52, 57-58 (1st Cir. 1999).

	McManus’s remaining challenges on appeal also are without merit.  Rhode Island has not created a protected liberty interest in its prison classification system.  See Carillo v. DuBois, 23 F.Supp.2d 103, 107 (D.Mass. 1998), vacated in part on other grounds, 32 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.Mass. 1999).  McManus’s challenge to his prison classification thus does not rise to a  constitutional level.  See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983).  Nor has McManus shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions to compel discovery of his medical records and his motion to file an amended complaint to extend the time during which he alleged he was subjected to an improper prison classification.  See Walton v. Nalco Chemical Co., 272 F.3d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 2001); Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., 95 F.3d 86, 91 (1st Cir. 1996).

	AFFIRMED.

	3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              438,699
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        34,381
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                          22,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    504,393
<PP&E>                                            3,762,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                      351,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4,477,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,737,084
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              7,294
<OTHER-SE>                                       (1,457,082)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      4,477,348
<SALES>                                              37,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     37,172
<CGS>                                               688,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9,063,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2,439,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   45,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (12,370,608)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (11,489,103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     (881,505)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (12,370,608)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (1.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (1.85)
        

</TABLE>
No. 75-6871.

#### Sepulveda *v.*Immigration and Naturalization Service.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,393
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,470
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,923
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,393
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (20)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (20)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.0)


</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffConsolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)

# Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses: Applications for Sealed Source and Device Evaluation and Registration — Final Report (NUREG-1556, Volume 3, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1556, Volume 3, Revision 2 (PDF - 2.85 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 2015**Date Published:**September 2015

**Prepared by:**J. JankovichM. LaFranzoR. RogusL. SepulvedaK. Von Ahn

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This technical report contains information intended to provide guidance to applicants for requests for sealed source or device safety evaluations and registrations. It also provides the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewers of such requests with the information and materials necessary to determine that the products are acceptable for licensing purposes. It provides the applicants and reviewers with information on applicable regulations and industry standards, general policies and procedures affecting evaluation and registration, how and where to file a request, the application review process, and how to draft and modify a registration certificate.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60766

Summary Calendar

__________________

WENDELL DUNCAN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ESTELL PRYOR; J. BROWN,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 95-CV-331-SA

- - - - - - - - - -

 April 17, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wendell Duncan appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The

district district court determined that Duncan's complaint failed

to satisfy Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994), i.e.

because a judgment in his favor would imply the invalidity of his

conviction and he failed to show that "his complaint has not been

`reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a

writ of habeas corpus.'" R. 28. The district court denied
No. 95-60766

-2-

Duncan's complaint as frivolous under § 1915(d). We have

reviewed the record, the district court's order, and the

appellant's brief. We affirm essentially on the reasoning of the

district court. 

AFFIRMED.
exv10w6






Exhibit 10.6




December 22, 2010





December 22, 2010



Edward R. Tetreault




Dear Ed:




     This letter confirms the terms of the obligation of Exide Technologies, as set forth in your
offer letter drafted September 16, 2011, to reimburse you fifty per cent (50%) of the documented
loss on sale of your existing home up to a maximum reimbursement of $300,000, subject to gross up
to address any tax liability. The Company’s obligation to reimburse you for such amount is
contingent on your remaining as an employee of the Company through the date of the sale of your
existing home and such reimbursement will be made within sixty (60) days following such sale. In
addition, any gross up payment shall be made by the end of your tax year following the year in
which you remit the related taxes.


Sincerely,




James R. Bolch

Chief Executive Officer




If the above-stated terms are agreeable, please sign below and return this letter.




	 	 	 	 	 

	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/  Edward R. Tetreault
 

	 
	 
	 	Edward R. Tetreault
 
	Signature

	 	Date
	 	Print Name
**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 yearly report of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. (“PPD”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel G. Darazsdi, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PPD as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report. 

Date:November 3, 2009