alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         I, Steven G. Stewart, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Headwaters
Incorporated;

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

         4. Headwaters' other certifying officer 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)) for Headwaters 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 Headwaters, 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)       Evaluated the effectiveness of Headwaters' 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

         c)       Disclosed in this report any change in Headwaters' internal
                  control over financial reporting that occurred during the
                  quarter ended June 30, 2003 that has materially affected, or
                  is reasonably likely to materially affect, Headwaters internal
                  control over financial reporting; and

         5. Headwaters' other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
Headwaters' auditors and the audit committee of Headwaters' board of directors:

         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
                  Headwaters' 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 Headwaters'
                  internal control over financial reporting.


Date: August 8, 2003

/s/ Steven G. Stewart
--------------------------
Steven G. Stewart
Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Carlos Zapata, Appellant, v Raul Russi, as Chairman of the New York State Division of Parole, et al., Respondents.

[632 NYS2d 1010]

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied the petition seeking review of a determination of respondent Board of Parole that denied petitioner release on parole. Respondents’ determination is supported by the record and was made in accordance with the law, thereby foreclosing judicial intervention *(see,*Correction Law § 805; *Matter of Despard v Russi,*192 AD2d 1076, *lv denied*82 NY2d 652; *Matter of Salcedo v Ross,*183 AD2d 771). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 4762** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ANITA LAVON WILLIAMS, a/k/a Lavon Williams, a/k/a Sylvia Hayes, a/k/a Akeen Lewis, a/k/a Betty Davis, a/k/a Stac y Meadows, a/k/a Keith Chase, a/k/a April Shoulders, a/k/a Beverly Purdue , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eag l es , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00010

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Pub lic Defender , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anita Lavon Williams pled guilty to one count of ma il fraud, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2011 ), and was sentenced to an above

- Guidelines term of fifty

- four months imprisonment. Williams appeals her sentence, arguing that it was unreason ably high and an abuse of discretion. We affirm. Williams had fifteen criminal history points, which placed her in criminal history category VI. Her advisory Guidelines range was 37

- 46 months. The district court characterized its decision to sentence Williams above the Guidelines range as both a departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.3, p.s. (2010), and a variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). The court considered Williams’ long record of fraud offenses, including ten worthless check convictions which were not counted in her criminal history
score, see USSG § 4A1.3 cmt. n.8, and the fact that she attempted to extort money from the victim after her arrest. The district court decided that a one

- level departure was insuff icient and a two

- level departure was necessary to achieve a sentence that took into account Williams’ past criminal conduct , reflected the seriousness of the offense, promoted respect for the law, and served to protec t the public. We review a sentence, including a sentence outside the Guidelines range, for procedural and substantive reasonableness.3 United States v. Gall , 552 U.S. 38, 46, 51 (2007) ; United
States v. Diosdado

- Star , 630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir. ) , cert. denied , 131 S. Ct. 2946 ( 2011). Here , after review of the record, we conclude that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The court had a reasoned basis for its decision to impose a sentence above the Guidelines range and made an individualized statement explaining its decision. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.

AFFIR MED
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Experimental Study of Narrow Pulse Effects on the Behavior of High Burnup Fuel Rods with Zr-1%Nb Cladding and UO 2Fuel (VVER Type) under Reactivity-Initiated Accident Conditions (NUREG/IA-0213)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                       Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended
                                                      September 30,
                                               --------------------------
                                                  1998            1997
                                               ----------      ----------
<S>                                            <C>             <C>       
Basic earnings per common share

Net income for calculating basic earnings
per common share ........................      $2,451,000      $1,697,000
                                               ==========      ==========

Average common shares outstanding .......       5,884,000       4,147,000
                                               ----------      ----------
Basic earnings per common share .........      $     0.42      $     0.41
                                               ==========      ==========


Diluted earnings per common share

Net income for calculating basic earnings
per common share ........................      $2,451,000      $1,697,000
                                               ==========      ==========

Average common shares outstanding .......       5,884,000       4,147,000

Add exercise of options and warrants ....              --              --
                                               ----------      ----------
Diluted common shares outstanding .......       5,884,000       4,147,000
                                               ==========      ==========

Diluted earnings per common share .......      $     0.42      $     0.41
                                               ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, George Z. Moratis, Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer (principal financial and accounting officer) of InPhonic, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based
upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the period ended December 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the Report):

(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 results of operations
of the Registrant.



/s/ GEORGE Z. MORATISName:

George Z. MoratisDate:

June 4, 2007
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 34 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. Terrel l Si m

ps on ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: May 6, 20 16 Fi le d: May 17, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, ARNOLD, SHEPHE RD, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.
Terrel l Si m

ps on ch a l l e n g e s th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at he vi ol at ed th e 1 co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d arg ue s th at th e d i s t ric t co ur t ab us ed it s
The Hon or ab le Greg Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng hi m to two y ears in pr is on . Add it io na ll y, h i s co un se l ha s

m ov ed to wit hd raw. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in it s fact ua l fin di ng s, or ab us e it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng Si m ps on . Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mil le r , 5 57 F.3 d 91 0 , 9 1 4

- 9 1 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta nd ard s of rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. Meyer , 48 3 F.3 d 86 5, 86 9 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (d is cu ss in g rel iabi li ty of swe at -p at ch res ul ts ).
Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t c o u n s e l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, an d we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRegulatory Guides (by Division)Division 1 - Power Reactors

# Power Reactors (Division 1): Regulatory Guides 1.101 - 1.120

This page lists the number, title, publication date, and revisions for each regulatory guide in Division 1, "Power Reactors," with references to draft guides and related documents (where applicable).

See also Draft Regulatory Guides for Public Comment.

See NRC Regulatory Guides for more general information.

Regulatory Guides are reviewed about every 10 years, although a guide may be reviewed more frequently if the staff believes an emerging issue affects the guide. The NRC began these reviews in 2010, and began posting the results of its reviews on this site in 2013. The review dates are hyperlinked to the review memorandum, which provide useful information about the status and any known issues with the associated regulatory guide.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, April 3, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Regulatory Guides 1.1 - 1.20
          - Regulatory Guides 1.21 - 1.40
          - Regulatory Guides 1.41 - 1.60
          - Regulatory Guides 1.61 - 1.80
          - Regulatory Guides 1.81 - 1.100
          - Regulatory Guides 1.101 - 1.120
          - Regulatory Guides 1.121 - 1.140
          - Regulatory Guides 1.141 - 1.160
          - Regulatory Guides 1.161 - 1.180
          - Regulatory Guides 1.181 - 1.200
          - Regulatory Guides 1.201 - 1.220
          - Regulatory Guides 1.221 - 1.240
          - Regulatory Guides 1.241 - 1.253

#### 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 Wednesday, April 3, 2024
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Emergency Response Data System (NUREG-1394, Revision 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1394 (PDF - 1.44 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**July 2022**Date Published:** August 2022

**Prepared by:**Bezakulu Alemu, NRC Project Manager

Office of Nuclear Security and Incident ResponseU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

During the 1990s, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) implemented the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) to upgrade its ability to acquire data from nuclear power plants in the event of an emergency at a plant. ERDS provides a direct real-time data transfer from licensee plant computers to the NRC Operations Center and regional incident response centers. The system was designed to be activated by the licensee during an emergency that the licensee classifies at an Alert or higher level. The NRC portion of ERDS receives the data stream and sorts and files the data. The users of ERDS include the NRC Operations Center, the NRC regional incident response centers, and the State agencies of the affected plant, and, if requested, the States located within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway radius of the emergency planning zone of a plant located in another State. The emergency notification system supplements ERDS data.This document provides guidance for the implementation and continued operation of ERDS at licensee sites.This guidance document is not a substitute for the regulations, and compliance with it is not required. However, the staff will accept an approach or method different from that explained in this guidance only if the substitute approach or method provides a basis for determining that it meets the above-cited regulatory requirements.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, September 07, 2022
**EXHIBIT12.1**

**DUKE REALTYLIMITED PARTNERSHIP**EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES CALCULATION(in thousands, except ratios)
| ** **                                                                   | ** ** | **Six Months  Ended June 30, 2006** | ** ** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| Net income from  continuing operations, less preferred distributions         |       | $                                                       | 31,708     |   |
| Preferred distributions                                                      |       | 25,967                                                  |       |
| Interest expense                                                             |       | 83,757                                                  |       |
| Earnings before  fixed charges                                               |       | $                                                       | 141,432    |   |
|                                                                         |       |                                                    |       |
| Interest expense                                                             |       | $                                                       | 83,757     |   |
| Interest costs  capitalized                                                  |       | 15,129                                                  |       |
| Total fixed  charges                                                         |       | $                                                       | 98,886     |   |
|                                                                         |       |                                                    |       |
| Preferred dividends                                                          |       | 25,967                                                  |       |
| Total fixed charges and preferred distributions                              |       | $                                                       | 124,853    |   |
|                                                                         |       |                                                    |       |
| **Ratio of earnings to fixed  charges**                                      |       | **1.43**                                                |       |
| ** **                                                                   | ** ** | ** **                                              | ** ** |
| **Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and  preferred distributions** | ** ** | **1.13**                                                | ** ** |

 

----
No. 90-6396.

#### Glaspy *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-03-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-28-2000
<CASH>                                          12,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,291
<PP&E>                                           4,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,311
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,051
<SALES>                                         57,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,165
<CGS>                                           35,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   56,922
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   240
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    483
<INCOME-TAX>                                       238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                245
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
HomeSite Help

# NRC Site Search: NSTS Blog

### Filter by Document Type

 All 

### Sort Documents by

Sort by                  - Relevance
                  - Date

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, December 28, 2023

#### Related Information

                - NSTS Blog

Section Navigation

#### Site Help

          - Search All Sites
          - Main Site
          - News Releases
          - Public Documents (ADAMS)
          - Agency Correspondence
          - Commission Documents
          - Commission Papers
          - Commission Speeches
          - Contracts
          - Enforcement
          - Event Reports
          - Facility Locator
          - FOIA
          - Generic Communications
          - Glossary
          - Images
          - Inspection Manual
          - Inspection Reports
          - NSTS Blog
          - NUREG-Series Publications
          - Reactor Oversight
          - Regulations (10 CFR)
          - Regulatory Guides

#### 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
#### ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Appellant, v. BREWERY WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 366, an unincorporated association, and International Union of the United Brewery, Flour Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, an unincorporated association, Appellees.

No. 7894.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 19, 1965.

Charles Matheson, Denver, Colo. (Fairfield & Woods, Denver, Colo., and Potruch & Lerten, Beverly Hills, Cal., on the brief), for appellant.

Philip Hornbein, Jr., Denver, Colo. (Roy 0. Goldin, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PICKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed for the reasons so ably stated in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed by that Court in the case and reported in 240 F.Supp. 279.