alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
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 on Form 10-Q/A of Aavid Thermal
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Brian A. Byrne, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      1.    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.

Dated: October 28, 2005

                                           /s/ Brian A. Byrne
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Brian A. Byrne
                                           Vice President
                                           and Chief Financial Officer

                                       23
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TICO LOMBARD FLEMING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:07-cr-00033-MR-4; 1:08-cv-00520-MR)

Submitted: April 26, 2012 Decided: May 1, 2012

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tico Lombard Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 

Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Corey F. Ellis, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tico Lombard Fleming seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Fleming has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court July 19,

affirmed October 10, 1990

#### Duncan C. FELLER, *Appellant, v.*R. L. WRIGHT, *Respondent.*

(CV88-718; CA A60277)

798 P2d 703

Kurt C. Bendixsen and Garry L. Reynolds, P.C., Her-miston, for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Wendy J. Paris, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for respondent.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

BUTTLER, P. J.

*577BUTTLER, P. J.

In this *habeas corpus*proceeding, we reversed the trial court’s judgment of dismissal after it had granted defendant’s ORCP 21A motion to dismiss. We did so because of the Supreme Court’s admonition in *Bedell v. Schiedler,*307 Or 560, 562, 770 P2d 909 P2d (1989), that “any motion practice other than an ORS 34.680 motion to strike is inappropriate in *habeas corpus*actions * *

While this case was pending in the Supreme Court, that court decided in *Lane v. Maass,*309 Or 671, 790 P2d 1137 (1990), that a motion to dismiss pursuant to ORCP 21A is the functional equivalent of a pre-ORCP demurrer and is, therefore, appropriate in *habeas corpus*actions to test the legal sufficiency of a plaintiffs allegations to support a right to *habeas corpus*relief. It disapproved, as inaccurate, the contrary language in *Bedell*on which we had relied. Thereafter, the court remanded this case to us for reconsideration in the light of *Lane v. Maass, supra.*

Plaintiffs replication alleges that he was assaulted on one occasion by prison guards when he was subdued incident to his being placed in isolation and that he fears that he might be assaulted by the guards at some time in the future. Those facts are not sufficient to support a claim for *habeas corpus*relief. *Penrod/Brown v. Cupp,*283 Or 21, 581 P2d 934 (1978); *Grenfell v. Gladden,*241 Or 190, 405 P2d 532, *cert den*382 US 998 (1965). The essence of the relief that plaintiff seeks is that defendant be enjoined to direct the guards not to use excessive physical force against plaintiff without provocation. An injunction would provide plaintiff an adequate remedy. *Keenan v. Peterson,*307 Or 323, 767 P2d 441 (1989).

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was properly granted.

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

# TRAC-M Validation Test Matrix (NUREG/CR-6720)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6720            - Cover – Appendix C-22 (PDF 8.10 MB)
          - Appendix D – End  (PDF 5.60 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2000**Date Published:** July 2001

**Prepared by:** B. E. Boyacka M. Strakab L. W. Wardc

aLos Alamos National Laboratory P.O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, NM 87545

bScientech, Inc. 910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, MD 20878

cInformation Systems Laboratories 11140 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

F. Odar, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of System Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code W6245

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document briefly describes the elements of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) software quality assurance program leading to code qualification and identifies and proposes specific tests for qualifying the modernized TRAC code (TRAC-M) for a broad spectrum of pressurized- and boiling-water reactor accidents and transients such that the requirements of the NRC's software quality assurance program are satisfied.

Verification is the process of ensuring that the products and process of each major activity of the software life cycle meet the standards for the products and objectives of that major activity. Examples of verification activities include formal major life-cycle reviews and audits, formal peer reviews, and informal tests such as unit and integration testing. Verification efforts are not discussed in this report.

Validation is the process of demonstrating that the as-built software meets its requirements. Testing is the primary method of software validation. We have subdivided the TRAC-M validation test matrix into four elements. The first set of validation activities compares code-calculated results with data from tests other than those employing experimental data, designated Other Standard Tests. The second set of validation activities compares code-calculated results with data from Separate Effect Tests. The third and fourth sets of activities compare code-calculated results with data from Component Effect Tests and Integral Effect Tests, respectively. The four elements identified above constitute the TRAC-M Validation Test Matrix.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# L_2015329EN.01001601.xml

| 15.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 329/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 329/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/2336

of 14 December 2015

amending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and in particular Article 28, Article 42(4) and Article 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (1) on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 May 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/279/CFSP (1) on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN).

| (2) | On 17 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/922/CFSP (2) amending and extending Decision 2010/279/CFSP, in particular by extending EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 December 2016 and providing for a financial reference amount for the period until 31 December 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 17 December 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/922/CFSP (2) amending and extending Decision 2010/279/CFSP, in particular by extending EUPOL AFGHANISTAN until 31 December 2016 and providing for a financial reference amount for the period until 31 December 2015.

| (3) | Decision 2010/279/CFSP should be amended to provide for a financial reference amount for the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2010/279/CFSP should be amended to provide for a financial reference amount for the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 13(1) of Decision 2010/279/CFSP, the following sub-paragraph is added:

‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUPOL AFGHANISTAN for the period from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 shall be EUR 43 650 000.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2015.

For the Council

The President

F. MOGHERINI

---

(1)  Council Decision 2010/279/CFSP of 18 May 2010 on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (OJ L 123, 19.5.2010, p. 4).

1

(2)  Council Decision 2014/922/CFSP of 17 December 2014 amending and extending Decision 2010/279/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL AFGHANISTAN) (OJ L 363, 18.12.2014, p. 152).

2

---
# L_2015245EN.01001301.xml

| 22.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 245/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 245/13

---

GUIDELINE (EU) 2015/1575 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 4 September 2015

amending Guideline ECB/2014/9 on domestic asset and liability management operations by the national central banks (ECB/2015/28)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular to the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Articles 12.1 and 14.3 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Guideline ECB/2014/9 of the European Central Bank (1) specifies the general principles to be followed by the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter the ‘NCBs’) when carrying out domestic operations in assets and liabilities on their own initiative. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Guideline ECB/2014/9 of the European Central Bank (1) specifies the general principles to be followed by the national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter the ‘NCBs’) when carrying out domestic operations in assets and liabilities on their own initiative.

| (2) | The Eurepo index was identified in Article 2(e) of Guideline ECB/2014/9 as the secured market rate with regard to fixed term deposits in domestic currency. The Eurepo index was discontinued on 2 January 2015. The secured market rate with regard to fixed term deposits in domestic currency will now be the STOXX EUR GC Pooling term indices with a comparable maturity. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Eurepo index was identified in Article 2(e) of Guideline ECB/2014/9 as the secured market rate with regard to fixed term deposits in domestic currency. The Eurepo index was discontinued on 2 January 2015. The secured market rate with regard to fixed term deposits in domestic currency will now be the STOXX EUR GC Pooling term indices with a comparable maturity.

| (3) | Therefore, Guideline ECB/2014/9 should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Therefore, Guideline ECB/2014/9 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS GUIDELINE:

Article 1

Amendment

Article 2(e) of Guideline ECB/2014/9 is replaced by the following:

| ‘(e) | “secured market rate” means: (a) with regard to fixed term deposits in domestic currency, the STOXX EUR GC Pooling term indices with a comparable maturity; and (b) with regard to fixed term deposits in foreign currency, a comparable rate.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(e)

Article 2

Taking effect

This Guideline shall take effect on the day of its notification to the NCBs.

Article 3

Addressees

This Guideline is addressed to the NCBs.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 4 September 2015.

For the Governing Council of the ECB

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  Guideline ECB/2014/9 of the European Central Bank of 20 February 2014 on domestic asset and liability management operations by the national central banks (2014/304/EU) (OJ L 159, 28.5.2014, p. 56).

1

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-1885

# Report to Congress on the Security Inspection Program for Commercial Power Reactor and Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities: Results and Status Update - Annual Report for Calendar Year 2007 (NUREG-1885, Rev. 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG - 1885, Rev. 1 (PDF - 1.32 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2008**Date Published:** July 2008

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report fulfills the requirements of Chapter 14, Section 170D, of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which states that “not less often than once each year, the Commission shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report, in classified form and unclassified form, that describes the results of each security response evaluation conducted and any relevant corrective action taken by a licensee during the previous year.” This report covers calendar year 2007. In addition to information on the security response evaluation program (force-on-force inspections), the NRC is providing additional information regarding the overall security performance of the commercial nuclear power industry and Category I fuel cycle facilities to keep Congress and the public informed of the NRC’s efforts to protect the Nation's electric power infrastructure and strategic special nuclear material (SSNM) against terrorist attacks.

**Paperwork Reduction Act Statement**

This NUREG does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

**Public Protection Notification**

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JAMES KENNEY

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (LOWER POTTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP AND DELAWARE VALLEY 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION TRUST)

PETITION OF: LOWER POTTSGROVE 

TOWNSHIP AND DELAWARE VALLEY 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION TRUST

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 596 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
|   | (a) | The      quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 of the      Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;    and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | Information      contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates      and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Heera Lee                    |
|----------------------------------|
| By:      Heera Lee,              |
| Principal      Financial Officer |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2088 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2088

   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase certain 
       Federal amounts payable under Medicaid for certain States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2017

Mr. Engel (for himself, Mr. Suozzi, Mr. Tonko, Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney 
    of New York, Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, Ms. Meng, Mr. 
 Serrano, Mr. Crowley, and Mrs. Lowey) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to increase certain 
       Federal amounts payable under Medicaid for certain States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Empire State Equity Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING CERTAIN FEDERAL AMOUNTS PAYABLE UNDER MEDICAID FOR 
              CERTAIN STATES.

    (a) Increase in FFP for Certain States.--Section 1903 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(aa) Increase in FFP for Certain States.--Notwithstanding the 
previous provisions of this section, in the case of a State that has a 
DSH allotment under section 1923(f) for fiscal year 2016 that was more 
than 6 times the national average of such allotments for all the States 
for such fiscal year, in determining the amount that is payable to the 
State for expenditures in a quarter in a fiscal year (beginning with 
fiscal year 2018) under subsection (a)(1), the amount of such 
expenditures shall be increased by \1/4\ of such amount that would 
result in an increase in the amount so payable to such State in such 
fiscal year by not less than $2,300,000,000.''.
    (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the Sense of the Congress that 
the amendment made by subsection (a) should result in all political 
subdivisions of affected States providing property tax relief for the 
citizens of such political subdivisions.
                                 <all>
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Review Templates for Computer-Based Reactor Protection Systems (NUREG/CR-6680)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6680 (PDF - 4.58 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** July 2000**Date Published:** August 2000

**Prepared by:** G. Johnson, LLNL and University of California at Berkeley D. Schrader, LLNL R. Yamamoto, University of California at Berkeley

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7000 East Avenue Livermore, CA 94550

University of California Berkeley, CA 94720

R. Brill, NRC Project Manager

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

NRC Job Code W6677

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

This work was supported by the United States Nuclear Regulatory commission under a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Energy, and performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021