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

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Jacob Inbar, certifythat:

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave:

(a)   Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)   Disclosedin this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.     Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the smallbusiness issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)   Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)   Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: August 20, 2007
| /s/ Jacob Inbar                |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| By: Jacob Inbar                |
| Chief Executive  Officer       |
| (Principal  Executive Officer) |

 

----
# WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENTDIVISION F%hlic Health Pzevenl. Promote. Prolecl. April 23,20 10
David Lutz Data Cei-tificationContact 

### U.S. EPA (C304-06) Ambient Air Monitoring Group Resear-chTriangle Park, NC 277 1

### 1 Re: CY2009 Ambient AirMonitoringData Celtificatioi~ Dear 

### Mr. 

### Lutz: Attached please find a copy ofthe Washoe County Health District, Air Quality Management Division's (AQMD) AQS AMP450 and AMP45ONC summaly reports for ambient concelltration data for all State and Local Air Monitoring Statio~ls (SLAMS) and Federal Reference Method (FM)stations that meet criteria in 40 CFR 58

### Appendix A opertted from January 1 to December 3 1,2009. Also attached is tlie AQS AMY255 sunltnaly report detailing the quality assurance statistics 

### fbr AQMD's ambient air monitors. 

### Tltis letter certifies tl~af the al~ibiertt co~rcent~*ation clntcrnlid the 

### qzmlity ossznmlce chta n1.e co~upletely slrblriitted toAQS, 

### n~ld tlie anlbier~t data mecrcczn.ate to the best ofnty k~~o~vledge taking into consirle~~atio~i the qrralip assii~micefj~~di~~g~~. 'I'his letter also certifies 

### PM2,5 speciationdata, \vhese AQMD Inanages the monitoring station, changes filters, atid perfonns calibrations, verifications, audits, and maintenance on the inonitor, but cliernicalalii~lysis is performed by Resea~.ch Triangle Institute (RTI) under EPA-managed contract. Please contact 

### me at (775) 784-7233 with any questiolis or concesns.

Senior

### Air Quality Specialist

cc: 

### Jared Blumcnfeld, Regional Adtni~:ist~.ator, 

### U.S. EI'A IZegion 9 Andrcw Goodl-icli, Director, AQMD



### P.0. 

### BOX 11130 Itcno, NV 89520-0027 (775) 784-7200 FAX (775) 784-7225
HomeRadioactive WasteStorage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

# Schedule for Rulemakings to Amend Part 72.214 for Dry Storage Casks

The following generic schedule applies to the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) rulemaking under Part 72 and does not apply to any other type of rulemaking. It contains the timeframes used to complete rulemaking to amend Part 72.214 for initial approval or amendments of dry storage casks using the Direct Final Rule process, which includes preparation of a direct final rule and a proposed rule published concurrently in the *Federal Register*. These timeframes reflect the ideal situation and are considered goals that may not be met in all situations. Below, the generic schedule is a list of start and planned end dates for current CoC rulemakings.

## Generic Schedule

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 08, 2020
HomeRadioactive WasteStorage of Spent Nuclear FuelLicensing

# Licensing Process for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations

On this page:
        - Process for New Licenses
        - License Amendment Process
        - License Renewal Process
        - Transfer and Merger Process
        - License Fees
        - Public Involvement

## Process for New Licenses

To apply for a license to store spent fuel at an independent spent fuel storage installation or a monitored retrievable storage facility, an organization would submit an application to NRC for review and approval. The application would contain information as described in the Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities (NUREG-1567). The application must address the safety and operational characteristics of the facility, including the site seismic and environmental conditions, the planned storage system, an accident analysis, and the radiological impact of normal operations.

## License Amendment Process

To amend a license, the licensee would submit a request to NRC with any necessary supporting technical information for NRC to review and, if appropriate, approve the license amendment.

## License Renewal Process

To renew a license at the end of the approval period, the licensee would submit a request to NRC with any necessary supporting information describing the capability of the site and storage systems to continue operations for another license period. After reviewing this information, the NRC would determine whether to approve the license renewal.

## License Transfer and Merger Process

To transfer ownership of the facility or to merge with another organization, the licensee would submit a request to NRC with any necessary supporting organizational and financial information for NRC to review and, if appropriate, approve the license amendment.

## License Fees

The fees charged by the NRC to applicants for an NRC license and to holders of NRC licenses and the associated requirements are found in 10 CFR Part 170 and 10 CFR Part 171. See in particular 10 CFR 170.20 and 170.31, and 10 CFR 171.16 and 171.17(b) for sections directly applicable to fees for fuel cycle facility licenses. Also see 10 CFR 170.11 and 10 CFR 171.11 for exemptions from the fee requirements. For more information about fees, see our License Fees page and 10 CFR 170 and 10 CFR 171.

## Public Involvement

To learn how stakeholders can participate in our licensing process, see Public Involvement in Licensing.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 08, 2020
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 30518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Support of Deployment of Prototype Small Modular Reactors at the 
Savannah River Site

AGENCY: Savannah River Operations Office, Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: DOE-Savannah River Operations Office (SR), in conjunction with 
the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), announces the 
availability of support for deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) 
on the Savannah River Site (SRS).

DATES: DOE-SR is available to discuss a program of support to domestic 
SMR developers until May 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The anticipated specific support available is outlined in a 
separate Document, ``Products and Services Available to Small Modular 
Reactor (SMR) Vendors at the Savannah River Site (SRS).'' Copies of 
that document may be obtained by contacting Sandra Johnson, the lead 
point of contact for siting SMRs at SRS. Ms. Johnson may be reached at 
803-725-8997 or Sandra.Johnson@srs,gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Belencan, DOE-SR, at 803-952-
8696 or Helen.Belencan@srs.gov; or Ron Schroder, SRNL, at 803-952-6527 
or Ronald.Schroder@srs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Support, via specific agreements between 
DOE-SR, SRNL and vendors, may include access to the SRS's real 
property, energy facilities, and nuclear expertise to support potential 
private sector development, testing and licensing of prototype SMR 
technologies for siting at SRS. DOE-SR welcomes inquiries from domestic 
SMR developers regarding the support that is available.
    This Notice is not intended to create or remove any rights or 
duties, nor is it intended to affect any other aspect of DOE 
regulations. Furthermore, this Notice does not, and is not intended to, 
have the force and effect of law.

    Issued in Aiken, South Carolina, on May 14, 2012.
David C. Moody,
Manager.
[FR Doc. 2012-12486 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
#### Louis Y. WILSON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18759.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct. 21, 1964.

Decided Dec. 17, 1964.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied May 5, 1965.

*167Messrs. Bradley G. McDonald and Edward M. Shea, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Gerald E. Gilbert, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Frank Q. Nebeker and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Fahy, Washington and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, along with a co-defendant, was convicted of robbery. 22 D.C.Code, § 2901. His appeal urges several reasons for reversal, only one of which we believe requires comment.

When the case was called for trial the presiding District Judge was advised that appellant and his co-defendant had disrobed in the cell block at the courthouse and the Marshal was having difficulty with them. The Judge then ordered the Marshal to wrap them in blankets and bring them to the courtroom, with permission to place handcuffs and leg irons upon them. They were brought into the courtroom in this manner by several deputy Marshals. Witnesses and prospective jurors were present at the time. Thereupon a jury was impaneled and the trial proceeded. Counsel for defendants moved for a mistrial when the defendants were brought in and again the next day. The trial lasted three days but the record is unclear as to the exact conditions which prevailed after the first day. It does appear that the leg irons had been removed but that the defendants remained handcuffed throughout. There is no information as to the blankets. The court’s instructions to the jury included an admonishment that the jury “completely ignore” the unusual incidents “that happened at the very outset of the trial before the trial started.”

It is contended that the trial in the circumstances was unfair and that accordingly counsel’s motion for a mistrial should have been granted.

Except that the evidence of guilt was very strong we would have some difficulty affirming; for though an accused may not be permitted to prevent his trial by obstructive tactics, the trial court is under obligation to make a reasonable effort to obviate such conditions, even though they are created by the defendant’s own conduct, because of their tendency to prejudice the accused in the eyes of the jury. Here, for example, the prospective jurors and witnesses could have been excused while the defendants were brought before the court, admonished, and the course the court intended to pursue explained to them, with opportunity then afforded them to abandon their tactics. It is possible that in this or some like manner the situation could have been avoided, and it is desirable to explore that possibility when such a situation arises.

The evidence of guilt was so clear and strong, however, that we are convinced the verdict was not affected and, therefore, that reversal is not in order.

Affirmed.
# USDA Website Puts Soils Information, Tools at Your Fingertips

Soil

October 05, 2018

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  News 
-  USDA Website Puts Soils Information, Tools at Your Fingertips 

 USDA has re-designed its Soil Tools web page, to now serve as a one-stop source for new, leading-edge tools and technologies to help farmers, ranchers, and other land users understand, evaluate and conserve soils.

Managed by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Tools web page offers single-site access to soil data and maps, soil databases, digital soil applications, climate data, descriptions of soils, ecological sites, statistical packages and soil-property calculators. The USDA maps and information are free with no user ID or password required.

“Along with air, sunlight and water, soil is one of the four building blocks of life on earth,” said Dave Hoover, Director of the National Soil Survey Center. “Soil is tied, in some way, to everything we use as a society. This new web portal makes it easy to find and use soils data, and provides unique, interactive tools for all customers of soils information.”

Highlights include:
              - Access to download up-to-date  soil data and maps  used for comparing soils over broad areas, make conservation planning and soil evaluation easier.
              - Access to  Web Soil Survey  and other tools that provide the ability to search for soils maps and data by location.
              - Access to  soil apps  that display and allow users to access data and view interactive maps.
              - Access to  calculators  for soil texture and water budgeting.

The new resources are made available thanks to the joint effort of the National Cooperative Soil Survey partnership, which includes Federal and State agencies, universities, and professional societies, and exists to cooperatively investigate, inventory, document, classify, interpret, disseminate, and publish information about soils.

## Contact

                -    NRCS Public Affairs 
                -    202-720-3210 

## Find Your Local Service Center

    USDA Service Centers are locations where you can connect with Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development employees for your business needs. Enter your state and county below to find your local service center and agency offices. If this locator does not work in your browser, please visit offices.usda.gov.
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 Annual Report of NetLogic Microsystems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Donald Witmer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge,



(i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ DONALD WITMERDonald Witmer Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer March 11, 2005




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.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Bonneville County, Idaho (NUREG-1951)

On this page: 
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG - 1951 (PDF - 17.1 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed: ** September 2010**Date Published:**  September 2010 

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report documents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's review and safety and safeguards evaluation of AREVA Enrichment Services LLC's (AES's) application for a license to construct a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility and possess and use byproduct material, source material, and special nuclear material (SNM). The proposed facility is known as the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility (EREF). AES proposes that the EREF be located in Bonneville County, Idaho, about 32 kilometers (20 miles) west northwest of the city of Idaho Falls. The EREF will possess natural, depleted, and enriched uranium, and will be authorized to enrich uranium up to a maximum of 5 weight percent uranium-235.

The objective of the NRC's review is to evaluate the facility's potential adverse impacts on worker and public health and safety, under both normal operating and accident conditions. The review also considers physical protection of SNM and classified matter; material control and accounting of SNM; and the management organization, administrative programs, and financial qualifications provided to ensure safe design and operation of the facility.

The NRC staff concludes, in this safety evaluation report, that the applicant's descriptions, specifications, and analyses provide an adequate basis for safety and safeguards of facility operations—and that operation of the facility does not pose an undue risk to worker and public health and safety.

Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed facility and its reasonable alternatives will be addressed in a separate NRC document, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which is expected to be issued in February 2011.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# C_2004156EN.01000601.xml

| 12.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/6

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), by order of that court of 28 January 2004 in the case of Prof. Dr. Franz Marhold v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-178/04)

(2004/C 156/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) (Germany), received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Prof Dr Franz Marhold against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following question:

In the case of an EU national who, as a professor at a German university, had civil servant status in a German Land and on that account was in receipt of a special allowance under the Gesetz über die Gewährung einer jährlichen Sonderzuwendung (Law on the grant of an annual special allowance, ‘SZuwG’) but before 31 March of the following year accepted an appointment with a university in another Member State and entered into a public law employment relationship with that other Member State, is Paragraph 3(5)(1) of the SZuwG, under which a person leaving before 31 March may retain the allowance only if the new employment relationship is an employment relationship under German law, inapplicable?

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Technical Basis for Evaluating Electromagnetic and Radio-Frequency Interference in Safety-Related I&C Systems (NUREG/CR-5941, ORNL/TM-12221)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-5941 (PDF – 2.39 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** March 1994**Date Published:** April 1994

**Prepared by:** P. D. Ewing, K. Korsah

C. E. Antonescu, NRC Project Manager

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Managed by Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6050

**Prepared for:**Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 NRC FIN L1951 Under Contract No. DE-AC05-84OR21400

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report discusses the development of the technical basis for the control of upsets and malfunctions in safety-related instrumentation and control (I&C) systems caused by electromagnetic and radio-frequency interference (EMI/RFI) and power surges. The research was performed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and was sponsored by the U.S. NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). The motivation for research stems from the safety-related issues that need to be addressed with the application of advanced I&C systems to nuclear power plants. Development of the technical basis centered around establishing good engineering practices to ensure that sufficient levels of electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) are maintained between the nuclear power plant's electronic and electromechanical systems known to be the source(s) of EMI/RFI and power surges. First, good EMC design and installation practices need to be established to control the impact of interference sources on nearby circuits and systems. These EMC good practices include circuit layouts, terminations, filtering, grounding, bonding, shielding, and adequate physical separation. Second, an EMI/RFI test and evaluation program needs to be established to outline the tests to be performed, the associated test methods to be followed, and carefully formulated acceptance criteria based on the intended environment to ensure that the circuit or system under test meets the recommended guidelines. Third, a program needs to be developed to perform confirmatory tests and evaluate the surge withstand capability (SWC) and of I&C equipment connected to or installed in the vicinity of power circuits within the nuclear power. plant. By following these three steps, the design and operability of safety-related I&C systems against EMI/RFI and power surges can be evaluated, acceptance criteria can be developed, and appropriate regulatory guidance can be provided.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021