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

                    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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of withdrawal of AC 33-10, Considerations for Comparative Test and Analysis Based Compliance Findings for Turbine Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Replacement, Redesign and Replacement Parts.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the withdrawal of the guidance offered in AC 33-10 so it can be revised.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mark Bouyer, FAA, Rulemaking and Policy Branch, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller Directorate Standards Staff, Aircraft Certification Service, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7755; fax: 781-238-7199; email:                         *mark.bouyer@faa.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Background

We are withdrawing Advisory Circular 33-10 to restructure the content and to clarify its intended purpose.

Authority:49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 23, 2015.

Colleen D'Alessandro,

Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2015-01799 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# RASCAL 4.0: Description of Models and Methods

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Physicians Capital Group, Inc. (the
Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sean Kirrane, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Registrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 Registrant as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                                                                         
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 4, 2014 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Sean Kirrane                                                                                                                        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Sean Kirrane                                                                                                                            
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and authorized signatory.
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 31.2

CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Chief Financial Officer



I, Alan Buckey, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of LCA-Vision Inc.;



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



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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 the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report; and



c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial reporting







August 13, 2003

/s/ Alan H. Buckey

Alan H. Buckey

Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0365

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DONNA ELIZABETH SUMMERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 22, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 15 2023

11/15/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0365
April 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Changes to Flow Charts for Determini ng Whether Non-Hazardous Materials Used as Fuels or Ingredients in Combustion Units are Solid Waste, Pursuant to OMB

comments

FROM: Marc Thomas Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On March 29, 2010, EPA provided OMB two flow char ts that generally illustrate the process of determining whether nonhazardous secondary mate rials burned as a fuel or ingredient in

combustion units are or are not solid waste. Th ese diagrams present the proposed rule’s basic framework as a series of questi ons that should be considered wh en determining the appropriate characterization of a nonhazardous secondary material (i.e. as a solid waste or not when burned in a combustion unit). Pursuant to OMB comments , these flow charts were revised to illustrate more clearly that the “point of generation” of a waste is at the moment of discard. Original and

final versions of these flow charts are attached.

Attachments
No. 90-429.

#### Four County Electric Membership Corp. *v.*Justus, in her Official Capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Ct. App. N. C. Motion of National Rural Electric Cooperative Association et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae*granted. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,As Adopted Pursuant ToSection 906 of The Sarbannes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Silicon Image, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert G. Gargus, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1360, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periodpresented therein.

 
|   | /s/ Robert G. Gargus    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Robert G. Gargus        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | May 7, 2004             |

 

A signed original of thewritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
No. 86-963.

#### Brookpark News & Books, Inc., et al. *v.*City of Cleveland et al.

Ct. App. Ohio, Cuyahoga County. Certiorari denied.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11143 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

FELI P E ROMERO

- ARAIZA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16

- CR

- 414

- 1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Felipe Romero

- Araiza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Romero

- Araiza has filed a respo nse. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as
Romero

- Araiza ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 14, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11143 Document: 00514641805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/14/2018No. 17

- 11143

2 appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-11143 Document: 00514641805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/14/2018
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 12:45 PM

To: hswriter@frontiernet.net

Cc: R9AirPermits; Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: Confusion over old and new permit. 

Dear Ms. Strand, 

Thank you for your comment. We will address this comment in our responses to comments document which 

will be issued sometime after the public comment period ends. Shasta County AQMD’s permit is for the 

existing equipment onsite which is referenced in the EPA permit. These permits authorize the construction of 

new or modified equipment. Please contact Shasta County AQMD for more information on the permit issued by 

the air district. 

Sincerely, 

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: hswriter@frontiernet.net [mailto:hswriter@frontiernet.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:47 PM 

To: Kelly, Shaheerah 

Cc: Celeste 

Subject: Confusion over old and new permit. 

Dear Shaheerah, 

According to Sierra Pacific's PSD Permit SAC 12-01 signed by Deborah Jordan on Feb 19th, 2013 

(page 1) 

 

"The PSD permit previously issued by the District to SPI is still in effect and applies to existing 

equipment at the SPI-Anderson site. " 

Could you tell me the date Shasta County renewed this permit? 

Thanks, 

Heidi Strand
July 7, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANDREW HOUSTON ALLEN, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00115-CR

NO. 14-15-00116-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, The State of 

Texas, signed, January 14, 2015, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Andrew Houston Allen, jointly and severally, to pay all 

costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
No. D-606.

#### In re Disbarment of Knowles.

It is ordered that Robert E. Knowles, of Bradenton, Fla., be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Peter G. Traber, M.D., certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Galectin Therapeutics, Inc.; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 29, 2016

/s/ Peter G. Traber

Peter G. Traber, M.D.

President and Chief
Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
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 quarterly report of Pharmaceutical Product
Development, Inc. (PPD) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Linda Baddour, Chief Financial Officer of PPD, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 PPD as of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.



Date: November 10, 2003



| |  | /s/    Linda Baddour |  |                        
| |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
| |  |                      |  | Linda Baddour          
| |  |                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.2

                                 August 28, 2006

El Capitan Precious Metals Inc.
Suite 216
14301 N. 87th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260

Gentlemen:

      The undersigned, the Managing Partner of AuRIC Metallurgical Labs, hereby
consents to the reference to AuRIC Metallurgical Labs in the Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB/A of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. for the year ended September
30, 2005 (the "Annual Report"), including without limitation references in Item
2 of the Annual Report, to be filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.

      I also confirm that I have read each of the references to AuRIC
Metallurgical Labs in the Annual Report and concur with such statements. In
giving this consent, the undersigned does not admit that AuRIC Metallurgical
Labs is within the category of persons whose consent is required by Section 7 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and regulations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                    Sincerely,

                                    AuRIC Metallurgical Labs


                                    /s/ Ahmet B. Altinay
                                    ------------------------------
                                        Ahmet B. Altinay
                                        Its: Managing Partner
#### Thomas Gagnon’s Case.

Franklin.

Opinion December 14, 1921.

*In an appeal to the Law Court from a decree confirming the decision of the Industrial Accident Commission, the record should contain a sufficient amount of the evidence to make it possible to obtain therefrom the facts necessary to a proper decision of the issue involved.*

In an appeal to the Law Court from the decree of the sitting Justice confirming the decision of the Chairman of the Industrial Accident Commission, it is

*Held:*

That where the record does not contain the evidence, if any, taken out before the Industrial Accident Commission, but merely an agreed statement of facts, so meagre that it is impossible to obtain therefrom the facts necessary to a proper decision of the issue involved the entry should be,

Appeal dismissed for want of sufficient record.

On appeal. The applicant sustained by accident personal injuries while in the employment of defendant, the American Realty Com*21pany, as a teamster. Defendant contends that applicant is not entitled to compensation for the reason that the kind of work in which Ire was engaged at the time of the accident is not embraced in its written acceptance, and that it is entitled to the benefits of common law defenses. The Chairman of the Industrial Accident Commission found in favor of the applicant, and defendant appealed from a decree of a sitting Justice confirming such finding.

Appeal dismissed for want of sufficient record.

Case is stated in the opinion.

*James H. Carroll,*for applicant.

*Weeks & Weeks,*for defendant.

Sitting: Cornish, C. J., Spear, Hanson, Morrill, Deasy, JJ.

Cornish, C. J.

Appeal from the decree of a sitting Justice under It. S., Chap. 50, Sec. 34, now found in Public Laws, 1919, Chap. 238, Sec. 34.

The question at issue is whether the employer’s written acceptance covered the class of work in the performance of which the claimant was injured. The record before the Law Court includes the written documents and an agreed statement of facts, but not the evidence taken before the Industrial Accident Commission. The agreed statement is so meagre that it is impossible to obtain therefrom the facts necessary to a proper decision of the issue involved.

The statute requirement is that “upon any appeal therefrom the proceedings shall be the same as in appeals in equity procedure,” Section 34. Appeals in equity carry with them all the evidence, *Caverley*v. *Small,*119 Maine, 291, and it is the common practice to have the report of the evidence before the Law Court in this class of cases as in equity appeals. An agreed statement might perhaps be so full and complete as to cover every necessary point, but that is not the case here. Counsel in their briefs argue important facts which may have been in evidence but they are not contained in the record before us.

We are of the opinion, therefore, that the proper entry under the circumstances is,

*Appeal dismissed for want of sufficient record.*
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# P-CARES: Probabilistic Computer Analysis for Rapid Evaluation of Structures (NUREG/CR-6922)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6922            - Cover – Chapter 3 (PDF - 8.30 MB)
          - Chapter 4 – End (PDF - 41.3 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**November 2006**Date Published:**January 2007

**Prepared by:** J. Nie, J. Xu, and C. Costantino

Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973-5000

V. Thomas, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Fuel, Engineering and Radiological Research  Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code N6103

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Brookhaven National Laboratory undertook an effort to revise the CARES program under JCN N-6103. The revised CARES program (which is referred to as P-CARES in this report) includes many improvements over the existing CARES. A major improvement is the enhanced analysis capability in which a probabilistic algorithm has been implemented to perform the probabilistic site response and soilstructure interaction (SSI) analyses. This is accomplished using several sampling techniques such as the Latin Hypercube sampling (LHC), engineering LHC, the Fekete Point Set method, and also the traditional Monte Carlo simulation. This new feature enhances the site response and SSI analyses such that the effect of uncertainty in local site soil properties can now be quantified. Another major addition to P-CARES is a graphical user interface (GUI) which significantly improves the performance of P-CARES in terms of the inter-relations among different functions of the program, and facilitates the input/output processing and execution management. It also provides many user-friendly features that would allow an analyst to quickly develop insights from the analysis results.

This report describes the theoretical basis, probabilistic and deterministic site response and SSI analysis capabilities and many user-friendly features which have been implemented in P-CARES. Although the execution of P-CARES is driven by on-screen commands powered by the GUI and is self-explanatory, a user's guide is included in this report to serve either as a quick start or as a reference material for navigating through the program.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021