alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         The  undersigned,  who is the  chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial  officer of Regional  Bankshares,  Inc. hereby  certifies that, to the
best of his knowledge,  the accompanying Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2005,  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in the report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the issuer.

March 23, 2006

                                 s/Curtis A. Tyner, Sr.
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Curtis A. Tyner, Sr.
                                 Chief Executive Officer  and Chief Financial
                                 Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2013

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, April 5, 2022
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




I, J. Earl  Terris,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of Foothills  Resources,  Inc.,  for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the
Annual  Report on Form 10-KSB  fairly  presents  in all  material  respects  the
financial condition and results of operations of Foothills Resources, Inc.

Date: March 31, 2005             /s/ J. Earl Terris
                                 ------------------------------
                                 J. Earl Terris
                                 Secretary, Treasurer and C.F.O.
                                 (Principal Financial Officer and
                                  Principal Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1998 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1998

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Committees on 
 Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives and 
 certain Members of Congress before the expiration or termination of a 
               HUD-VASH contract, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

   Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. Takano) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to notify the Committees on 
 Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives and 
 certain Members of Congress before the expiration or termination of a 
               HUD-VASH contract, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION OF TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION OF A HUD-VASH 
              CONTRACT.

    (a) Notification.--Not later than 90 days before the date on which 
a HUD-VASH contract terminates or expires, the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs shall notify the relevant committees and Members of Congress of 
such termination or expiration.
    (b) Plan.--Not later than 60 days after the date of a notification 
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall notify the relevant 
committees and Members of Congress of the plan of the Secretary to 
provide assistance to veterans served under such contract.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``HUD-VASH contract'' means a contract for 
        assistance under section 8(o)(19) of the United States Housing 
        Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(19)).
            (2) The term ``Member of Congress'' has the meaning given 
        such term in section 7297(a)(7) of title 38, United States 
        Code.
            (3) The term ``relevant committees and Members of 
        Congress'' includes the following:
                    (A) The Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the 
                Senate.
                    (B) The Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House 
                of Representatives.
                    (C) Each Member of Congress from the jurisdiction 
                covered by a HUD-VASH contract for which the Secretary 
                must issue a notification under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 27, 2022

NO. 03-19-00526-CR

Robert John Markwell, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 391ST DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court on June 19, 2019. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The 

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
**Summary of EPA Meeting with Textile Rental Services Association of America (TRSA)**  October 5 , 2011
On Wednesday , October 5, 2011, members from EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) met w ith members of TRSA to answer their questions on the Solvent

- Contaminated Industrial Wipes rulemaking. TRSA asked whether EPA was on track to finish the rulemaking. EPA confirmed that the rule is on schedule and is anticipated to be completed June 2012. TRSA also asked whether the 2011 Definition of Sol id Waste proposed rule (published July 22, 2011) would impact the wipes final rulemaking. EPA stated that the two rulemakings are separate and that the DSW final rulemaking was not expected to impact the schedule for the wipes final rule. TRSA asked whethe r they could include comments on potential impacts of the DSW proposed rule on the wipes rulemaking. EPA confirmed that TR SA could include any comments they would like. TRSA also discussed their LaundryESP program. Attendees :
Amanda Geldard, EPA/ORCR Ri chard Huggins , EPA/ORCR Jo seph Ricci, TRSA Kevin Schwalb, TRSA Jessica Skerritt, TRSA Jo hn Wittenborn, Kelley Drye, LLP
#### In re David A. & Nina ENTREKIN, Debtor(s). AMERICAN MACHINERY & ENGINEERING CORP., Plaintiff, v. David A. & Nina ENTREKIN, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 83-02348-BKC-TCB.

Adv. No. 84-0168-BKC-TCB-A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.

May 25, 1984.

Angus Campbell, West Palm Beach, Fla., for plaintiff.

Robert C. Furr, Boca Raton, Fla., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

THOMAS C. BRITTON, Bankruptcy Judge.

Plaintiff seeks exception from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) of two claims against the debtors in the aggregate amount of $62,051. A third count was abandoned at trial. The debtors have answered. The matter was tried on May 1.

The debtors are computer programmers who were employed in California by the plaintiff in connection with plaintiff’s performance of a contract to provide an automated warehouse for a third party. During the course of employment, the debt- or/husband stole $25,350 from the plaintiff through a false invoice. The debtor/wife is jointly responsible with her husband for this obligation.

Also during the employment, the debtors defrauded the plaintiff by obtaining reim*436bursement on false expense statements. Although plaintiff claims that the measure of damages on this count is $36,701, I find from the evidence that the actual damage sustained was $3,852.

The debtors’ misconduct was discovered and acknowledged by the debtors who immediately abandoned the job. The third party with whom the plaintiff had contracted demanded completion of the contract and threatened an action for damages. On the following day, plaintiff contracted with the debtors to reemploy them to complete the job at a higher rate of pay than that stipulated in the original contract. The debtors completed the job. The plaintiff received credit under the contract for the stolen money and, from this fact, the debtors contend that the claim for $25,350 was satisfied in full.

The plaintiff argues that his reemployment of the debtors was under economic compulsion forced on him by the debtors’ abandonment of their contract and resulted in plaintiff being forced to pay $51,129 more than the original contract price for the debtors’ services. I agree with plaintiff. California law is controlling in this instance and:

> “A threatened breach of contract in bad faith with the intent to force another to do something he would not otherwise have been willing to do can constitute economic compulsion.” *Louisville Title Insurance Co. v. Surety Title and Guarantee Co.,*60 Cal.App. 3rd 781, 800, 132 Cal.Rptr. 63 (1976).

See also *Thompson Crane and Trucking Co. v. Eyman,*123 Cal.App. 2d 904, 910, 267 P.2d 1043 (1954).

I find that the plaintiff is owed $29,202 by the debtors, jointly and severally, for fraud or defalcation on their part while acting in a fiduciary capacity. As is required by B.R. 9021(a), a separate judgment will be entered in that sum and excepting that claim from discharge under § 523(a)(4).
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# BWR ECCS Pump Suction Concerns following a LOCA (NUREG-2196)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG–2196 (PDF – 15.78 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2016**Date Published:** May 2016

**Prepared by:** W.J. Krotiuk, C. Boyd, T. Zaki, W. WangOffice

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document describes a method to perform a plant-specific assessment to determine whether an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pump will operate acceptably following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in a boiling water reactor (BWR) pressure suppression pool. The assessment approach uses the ECCS pump strainer location, the ECCS pump operation criteria, the ECCS pump startup and full operation timing information, and an estimate of the transient pool void fraction information to make the determination.

To support the developed assessment method, this report describes the acceptable ECCS pump operating range necessary to prevent pump damage if noncondensable gas ingestion occurs or to permit recovery from noncondensable gas ingestion. Additionally, this report uses computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses to define a noncondensable gas bubble "exclusion zone" and to provide the time-dependent noncondensable void fraction distribution in the suppression pool outside the large gas bubble following a LOCA. The report also lists the test facilities used to test BWR pressure suppression systems and summarizes the available test data that are used to verify the acceptability of the CFD analyses.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-8520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

DONNELL SEAN WIGGINS, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:06-cr-00034-JBF-JEB-1) 

Submitted: April 6, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009 

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Donnell Sean Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Donnell Sean Wiggins appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order 

denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See United States v. Wiggins, No. 2:06-

cr-00034-JBF-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2008; Oct. 17, 2008). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
TONYA L. RANDLEMAN, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

FIRELANDS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1813

______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in No. 3:24

- cv

- 00760

- JJH, Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick.

______________________

Before P ROST
, T ARANTO
, and H UGHES
, Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

The court considers the parties’ responses to the May 23, 2024 order to show cause.

Firelands Habitat for Humanity filed a foreclosure action against Ms. Randleman in a state court in Ohio. Ms.Randleman removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, but that court later issued an order remandin g the case to state court, explaining the court “lacks original jurisdiction over the Case: 24-1813 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 07/22/2024RANDLEMAN v. FIRELANDS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
, INC

. 2

foreclosure action” because “[t]he foreclosure action filed by Firelands Habitat for Humanity in state court was based on state law” and Ms. Randleman’s “[f]ederal counte rclaims and defenses are inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.” ECF No. 1

- 2 at 9

– 10 (citation omitted).

Our jurisdiction to review decisions of federal district courts generally extends only to cases arising under the pa

tent laws, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(C); or cases involving certain damages claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1). This case is outside of that limited subject matter jurisdiction.

Though Firelands Habitat for Humanity urges dismissal

, we deem it the better course to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which can address Firelands Habitat for Humanity’s contentions regarding delay and whether appellate review is precluded under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

. Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : This appeal and all its filings are transferred to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631.

J u l y 22 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-1813 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 07/22/2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Format and Content for Technical Specifications for 10 CFR Part 72 Cask Certificates of Compliance (NUREG-1745)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1745 (PDF 1.70 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2001**Date Published:** June 2001

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for dry cask storage are intended to be used by potential 10 CFR Part 72 Certificate Holders in developing a set of clear and consistent technical specifications for their dry cask storage applications.

The NRC believes that these Dry Cask STS in this NUREG will assure the overall safety goals for dry cask storage are met, including maintaining subcriticality, controlling radiation dose to the workers and the public, assuring fuel retrievability, and maintaining the confinement barriers. This effort has removed the unnecessary detail from the technical specifications, moved the less significant requirements to administrative programs, made the requirements less prescriptive and maintained consistency with the site specific requirements contained in 10 CFR 72.44. Although these STS were developed for Certificate Holders, the format and level of detail presented in this set of STS can easily be translated to technical specifications for site-specific licensees.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
No. 86-967.

#### Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Co. *v.*Beissel.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Regulatory Evaluation 

DocketNo. FAA-Z0/?-0082 Directorate Identifier: 

2CJl c(- AJ/11 ~ 2 ~3 ~4.[) -AD 

f/ \'UII make c/wnges to the l'ahtc\ in the table he/ow. you Ill/IS/ ensure t!ze totals updare accordingly fl 

the\' do 1/ul, click rm· J'ah; i11l0 and !hen out o{lf1e changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

Action propeller, appliance) 

(e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

(include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet replacement) access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection l.O 120 

Modification (if 58.0 ~~1-tV 120 required) 

' 

The known number of products in com pi iance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $601,800 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

Special considerations fo•· Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

~Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-/R-M-8040./C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"?-

YES* D NO [g] 

*Explanation: 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 0 

YES* D NO I:8J 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. G 

YES D NO I:8J 

Explanation: 

lntt·astate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? G 

YES* D NO I:8J 

*Explanation:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01578]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Registration: Research Triangle 
Institute

ACTION: Notice of registration.

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

SUMMARY: Research Triangle Institute applied to be registered as an 
importer of a certain basic class of narcotic controlled substance. The 
DEA grants Research Triangle Institute registration as an importer of 
this controlled substance.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice dated April 21, 2014, and 
published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2014, 79 FR 23373, 
Research Triangle Institute, Kenneth S. Rehder, Ph.D., Hermann 
Building, East Institute Drive, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27709, applied to be registered as an importer of a 
certain basic class of narcotic controlled substance. No comments or 
objections were submitted for this notice.
    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has considered the 
factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the 
registration of Research Triangle Institute to import the basic class 
of controlled substance is consistent with the public interest and with 
United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or 
protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's 
maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and 
testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the 
company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the 
company's background and history.
    Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in 
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted 
registration as an importer of noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of 
narcotic controlled substance listed in schedule II.
    The company plans to import small quantities of the listed 
controlled substance for the National Institute on Drug Abuse for 
research activities.

    Dated: January 21, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-01578 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
_.- 

. 

-. 

L 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
aue8fe?ram8uBlulsFyltBftoexoeeu 

moo.ooPer~~ xuwtablutoflnueny 8peouiO rtetute ulrootirsg .a0 psysmat to the 

l'Il8triat Attorney other chrn laUiart.U in the above gmteU Arttab. I do iSaul, hcuovor, 

YoPy QJoclfio ia8truotlau with lafdbremce to 

tho pWnm3at of tlm dirtdab WSmrnay io cowitier of 355,000 or war, 08 provi&uS by Artiole 39lsb, sec. 1. 

%t&r the pr8aost ayaoa~u set ap by 

our mulltcr, trur orldnal dirtr~at rttomey 

~~~~~~~~~~~ 

aa&leef&lliaDIPLItlIutLtw8lubepa8ulble 

Artlo ~lR&l, V*mon’r Awmteeu 65*231 Rt8tlate8 

INma a8 iollum, 
-- 

APPROVmm 21, 1941 

. 

AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS