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



Exhibit 31.02
 Certification Under
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    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
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Robert R. FreemanRobert R. FreemanChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
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, Lawrence S. Winkler, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and
Treasurer (principal financial officer) of InPhonic, Inc. (the Registrant), certify, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 of the Registrant (the
Report), 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    LAWRENCE S.
WINKLERName:

Lawrence S. WinklerDate:

March 10, 2005
Attn: U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Carter York dba. YorKool Media REQUEST AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI Phantom 3 AND DJI INSPIRE 1 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Carter York Owner/Operator YorKool Media 3101 Emory Dr. Flower Mound, TX 75022
214-724-9035 carter@yorkoolmedia.com
(nungrPSs nf t4P Uni#eb ^$:ttt#es

wtts4ingtait, BT 20515 

March 2, 2015 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy, 

We understand the EPA has scheduled one public hearing in Washington, DC on March 10, 

2015 on the proposed rule regarding 40 CFR Part 192 Health and Environmental Protection 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings. We respectively request you schedule ar 

additional public hearing in a geographically central location relative to uranium production, 

Given the substantial uranium production in Wyoming, we request that you hold a hearing i^ 

Casper, Wyoming. 

The State of Wyoming accounts for the largest share of any state in total production of uranjur, 

As such, the Wyoming Mining Association requested a public hearing be held in Casper, 

Wyoming so participation by industry and local interests can be maximized. All of Wyomi g' 

uranium is produced by in-situ recovery, which is directly impacted by this rulemaking. 

additional hearing in the leading uranium producing state would allow for public input fro 

those most likely to be impacted and would provide an opportunity for clarifying the rule. e 

have heard many concerns with the underlying proposed rule and believe our constituents shot 

have the opportunity to express them prior to the comment period closing. i 

We also request a 90 day extension to the comment period, currently closing onApri127, 2 15. 

The costs associated with this rulemaking need to be properly analyzed prior to finalization and 

state environmental regulators need time to determine how the rule would change their c nt 

groundwater protection laws. 

Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to receiving a timely response. 

Sincerely, 

.	•	.^,	 ^ 

OR

r*.S.' 

Mike Enzi John Barrasso . L i^

U.S. Senator U.S. Senator esent tive 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND
UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED March 31, 1998, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           558,682
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    396,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    3,537,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,064,122
<PP&E>                                        29,851,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                   774,196
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                46,905,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         10,121,748
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                          316
<COMMON>                                          10,319
<OTHER-SE>                                    16,360,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  46,905,151
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,610,698
<CGS>                                            730,252
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,747,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (932,037)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,179,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  931,651
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              931,651
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     931,651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.08
        

</TABLE>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Safety Evaluation Report on the Construction Authorization Request for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina (NUREG-1821)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1821 (PDF - 3.13 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**March 2005**Date Published:**March 2005

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

On February 28, 2001, Duke COGEMA Stone & Webster (DCS or the applicant), a limited liability company, submitted a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF or the facility) on the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina. DCS is a DOE contractor. If its construction authorization request (CAR), as revised, is approved, DCS is expected to then submit a license application for authority to possess and use licensed material at the MFFF. Following an acceptance review of such an application, a notice of opportunity for hearing would be published in the Federal Register. In support of its revised CAR, DCS has submitted several items to the NRC, including a quality assurance plan and an environmental report.

Under the applicable requirements of Title 10, Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 70), before a possession and use license may be issued, the NRC must first authorize construction of the facility. This final safety evaluation report (FSER) documents the NRC staff's review of the revised CAR and supplemental supporting information provided by the applicant. This FSER pertains only to approval of construction and does not address operational aspects of the MFFF.

If the MFFF is eventually authorized to operate, it would be a key asset of the DOE Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program (SPDP), which is being implemented as a result of a bilateral agreement with the Russian Federation. Pursuant to this agreement, the United States and the Russian Federation would each convert 34 metric tons (37.5 tons) of weapons-grade plutonium that has been declared excess to national security needs into forms less usable in nuclear weapons. As part of the SPDP, surplus U.S. weapons-grade plutonium would be converted into MOX fuel and irradiated in commercial reactors to produce electricity. Following irradiation, the resulting spent fuel would contain plutonium in a form less usable in nuclear weapons.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00299

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M. L.R

. , a Child

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- PA

- 03170

Honorable Gloria Salda ñ a, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED August 21, 2013.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
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 Starmed Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Herman H. Rappaport, CEO
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
SS. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                        /s/ Herman H. Rappaport
                                        -----------------------
                                        Herman H. Rappaport, CEO, President,
                                        Acting Chief Financial Officer,
                                        principal executive officer and
                                        principal financial and
                                        accounting officer

April 19, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-0713

# Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities – 2003: Thirty-Sixth Annual Report (NUREG-0713, Volume 25)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-0713, Volume 25 (PDF - 3.31 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed**: October 2004**Date Published**: October 2004

**Prepared by** Sheryl Burrows D. A. Hagemeyer*

Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

*Oak Ridge Associated Universities 210 Badger Road Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report summarizes the occupational exposure data that are maintained in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS). The bulk of the information contained in the report was compiled from the 2003 annual reports submitted by five of the seven categories of NRC licensees subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 20.2206. The annual reports submitted by these licensees consist of radiation exposure records for each monitored individual. These records are analyzed for trends and presented in this report in terms of collective dose and the distribution of dose among the monitored individuals. Because there are no geologic repositories for high-level waste currently licensed, and no low-level waste disposal facilities in operation, only five categories will be considered in this report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR MELANSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CV-162

Before HAYNES, GRAVES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Melanson, federal prisoner # 53804-177, pleaded guilty to one 

count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance,

and the district court sentenced him to 240 months of imprisonment. Melanson

seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion to vacate, correct, or set aside his sentence. He argues that the 

district court erred in not affording him an opportunity to reply to the 

Government’s answer and to amend his motion. Melanson asserts that the 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10493 Document: 00515464214 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2020
No. 19-10493

2

district court failed to address his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, 

specifically his claim that his plea was involuntary due to erroneous advice and 

coercion by counsel. He also argues that the district court erred by not holding 

an evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 motion.

To obtain a COA as to the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion, 

Melanson must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this standard, the movant must show 

“that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his 

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are 

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Melanson has not made the requisite showing. See 

id. 

In addition, Melanson does not reurge his claims of ineffective assistance 

of counsel in regard to sentencing enhancements under the Sentencing 

Guidelines. Those claims are therefore abandoned. See Hughes v. Johnson, 

191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999).

Melanson’s motion for a COA is DENIED. A COA is not required to 

appeal the denial of an evidentiary hearing in a federal habeas proceeding. See 

Norman v. Stephens, 817 F.3d 226, 234 (5th Cir. 2016) (28 U.S.C. § 2254 case). 

Melanson’s request for a COA on the evidentiary hearing issue is DENIED as 

unnecessary and the judgment is AFFIRMED as to that claim.

 Case: 19-10493 Document: 00515464214 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2020
Form 10Q




EXHIBIT 32.01






Certification of Principal Executive 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 June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Camillo Martino, Chief Executive 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: July 29, 2010


/s/ Camillo MartinoCamillo MartinoChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive 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.
#### Camallo, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*May 10*

June *3, 1924.*

*Criminal lam: Intoxicating liquors: Arrest without warrant: Subsequent search on valid warrant: Liquor found on search as evidence.*

Though the accused was arrested and jailed on suspicion without a warrant, the subsequent search of his suitcase for whisky on a valid' search warrant, and his arrest, were legal, and liquor obtained on the search was properly introduced in evidence in a prosecution for unlawful transportation, p. 285.

Error to review a judgment of the municipal court of Racine county: E. R. Burgess, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Leonard P. Battmblatt*of Racine, for the plaintiff in error.

For the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General, J. E. Messerschmidt,*assistant attorney general, *Thorwcid M. Beck,*district attorney of Racine county, and *J. Allan Simpson*and *G. E. Smalley,*assistant district attorneys; and the cause was argued orally by *Mr. Simpson*and *Mr. Messerschmdt.*

Crownhart, J.

The plaintiff in error, herein called the defendant, was convicted in the municipal court of unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor contrary to the provisions of sub. (3), sec. 165.01, Stats. He brings the case here for review on the sole ground that the trial court admitted in evidence, over his objection, liquor obtained from a suitcase which he had in his possession when he was arrested.

It appears that on the 23d of September, 1923, a police officer of Racine observed the defendant sitting on the lot at the corner of North Main and Kewaunee streets in said city. The defendant had with him a suitcase and appeared *285to be waiting for a street car. He was accosted by the officer, who arrested him without a warrant on suspicion that he was violating the prohibition law, and took him to the city jail and locked him up. The officer took possession of the suitcase. This was.on Sunday. On Monday morning the officer procured a search warrant authorizing him to search the suitcase of the defendant. This the officer did, and found in the suitcase the proscribed liquor, which was introduced in evidence on the trial over the objection of the defendant. A warrant for the arrest of the defendant was then duly issued and served.

It is claimed by the defendant that the search and seizure of the liquor were in violation of his constitutional rights, and that the case is ruled by *Allen v. State,*183 Wis. 323, 197 N. W. 808; *Hoyer v. State,*180 Wis. 407, 193 N. W. 89; *Jokosh v. State,*181 Wis. 160, 193 N. W. 976. It should be observed that this is not a case of false arrest. The fact that the defendant was arrested and detained without a warrant is not in issue. His suitcase was not searched until the officer had procured a search warrant for that purpose. The search was therefore legal, his subsequent arrest on a duly issued warrant was legal, and the liquor obtained upon the search was properly taken and introduced in evidence. *Hester v. U. S.*44 Sup. Ct. 445 (decided May 5, 1924).

*By the Court.*— The judgment and sentence of the municipal court are affirmed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00730-CV

In Re Estate of Angelita B. Garza, Deceased

On Appeal from the

229th District Court of Starr County, Texas

Trial Cause No. DC-05-260

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 18, 2015