alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Lucas *v.*Patsey Wasson & John Hardin.

Joint tenants of a chattel have equal rights to its possession, and cannot maintain trover against each other unless the joint property is destroyed. But a disposition of a perishable article by one joint tenant, which prevents the other from recovering it, is equivalent to' its destruction.

Trover. Plea — JVof *guilty,*and on the trial before Swain, Judge, at Rutherford, on the last circuit, the case was, that the plaintiff and the defendant *Wasson*were joint owners of a quantity of cotton ; that the defendant Hardin, by the directions of the defendant Was-*Son,*carried the cotton away and disposed of it in some place not known. His Honor instructed the jury, that if they were satisfied that the cotton was removed by the defendants, entirely beyond the reach and control of the plaintiff, so as to be wholly lost to him, it was such a destruction of the property as would entitle him to recover,

*399
      *A*verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the de-lend ants appealed. - ’

No counsel appeared for either party. ,

Daniel, Judge.

One tenant in common of a personal chattel has as much right to the possession of it as the,other; therefore, one tenant in common cannot maintain trespass or trover against his co-tenant without sho^ig that the co-tenant has destroyed the joint property. (St. *John*v. Standring, 2 *John.*R. 468.) it is not sufficient to shew., that the defendant took forcible possession of- the chattel and carried it away, *(Heath*v. Hubbard, *4*East. 121.) or that lie changed its form-by applying it to the use it was intended for. *(Fennings*v. *Greenville,*1 *Taunt.*241.) In the present case, it was in evidence, that the defendant *Wasson,*did not retain the possession of the cotton, but caused it to be sent off by thjá other defendant to a place unknown to the plaintiff, so that as to him it is wholly lost, and from its perishable nature, must be destroyed as far as his intereSpin it is concerned. We think the charge of the judge was correct, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. — Judgmektt appirme».
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# GSI-191:  Separate-Effects Characterization of Debris Transport in Water (NUREG/CR-6772)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6772 (PDF - 10.03 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2001**Date Published:** August 2002

**Prepared by:** D. V. Rao, B. C. Letellier A. K. Maji,* B. Marshall*

Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, NM 87545

**Subcontractors:** *University of New Mexico  Department of Civil Engineering  Albuquerque, NM 87110

M. L. Marshall, 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 Y6041

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report documents the results of experiments conducted, as part of the resolution of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Generic-Safety-Issue (GSI) 191, to measure specific debris transport properties for a selection of potential types of debris. The purpose of the GSI-191 study is to determine if the transport and accumulation of debris in a containment following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) will impede the operation of the ECCS in operating PWRs. In the event of a LOCA within the containment of a PWR, thermal insulation and other materials in the vicinity of the break will be damaged and dislodged. A fraction of this material would be transported to the recirculation (or emergency) sump and accumulate on the screen thereby forming a debris bed. Excessive head loss across this bed could prevent or impede the flow of water into the core or containment.

The properties measured by these experiments included: 1) the terminal settling velocity in quiescent pools and in water pools in planar motions, 2) the minimum fluid velocity at which an individual stationary fragment resting on the containment floor would begin to move, 3) the minimum fluid velocity required to induce "bulkscale" movement of a population of debris fragments, and 4) the minimum fluid velocity required to lift a fragment of debris over a vertical curb that impedes forward motion along the floor. In all cases, these velocities were measured in terms of the pool average velocity. Experiments were also conducted to examine the variability in transport properties due to flow turbulence.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Agricultural Chemical Handling Facility.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In
connection with the Annual Report of Husker Ag, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 28, 2006.



|    |  |                                                                                                 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Fredrick J. Knievel                                                                         
|    |  | Fredrick J. Knievel, Chairman of the Board, President
and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Robert E. Brummels                                                                          
|    |  | Robert E. Brummels, Treasurer and Director (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit
      13.2**






CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      Hemdat Sawh, Chief Financial Officer of Goldbelt Resources Ltd. (the “Company”),
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge:




(i)
      the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.




Dated:
      December 22, 2006




/s/
      Hemdat
      Sawh


Hemdat
      Sawh


Chief
      Financial
      Officer
* This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 2 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TOMMY E. BRADLEY, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 04-6219 RANDY PARKER; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondents-Appellees. (D.C. No. 04-CV-00307-R) (W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER *

BeforeTACHA , Chief Judge, BRISCOE , and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
Tommy E. Bradley, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We deny the request for a COA and dismiss the appeal. Issuance of a COA is jurisdictional. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). A COA can issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's2

resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El , 537 U.S. at 327. After careful review of all of the filings and the record on appeal, we conclude the requirements for issuance of a COA have not been met. Bradley is serving a controlling five-year sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a stolen vehicle. He contends he is being denied due process by the manner in which his sentence is being executed. He asserts he was improperly assigned to a classification level adversely affecting his ability to obtain earned credits. The magistrate judge concluded Bradley’s claim had been procedurally defaulted in state court and was therefore procedurally barred. Even if the merits of Bradley’s claim were reached, the magistrate judge concluded his claim would fail. The magistrate judge found that Bradley had not shown that any sentence credits had been removed from his sentence, but that he “merely seeks the opportunity to earn more sentence credits based on what he feels is an ‘unjust’ consideration of his past escape history for which he was not disciplined or convicted.” ROA, Doc. 22 at 7. The magistrate judge cited Templeman v.
Gunter , 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir. 1994), which states: “Changing an inmate’s prison classification ordinarily does not deprive him of liberty, because he is not entitled to a particular degree of liberty in prison.” The district court adopted the report and recommendation and denied relief. We DENY the request for a COA for substantially the same reasons as stated in3

the report and recommendation filed June 2, 2004, and the district court’s order filed June 22, 2004, and DISMISS the appeal. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ALTIGEN
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (UNAUDITED) FOR JUNE
30, 2000 AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFRENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,022
<SECURITIES>                                    20,743
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (404)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,030
<PP&E>                                           1,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (963)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,607
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,966
<SALES>                                          9,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,702
<CGS>                                            4,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,027
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,557)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,178)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,178)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,178)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.47)


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

# Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: An Update of Technical Issues on Drugs of Abuse Testing and Fatigue Management (NUREG/CR-7156)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7156 (PDF - 2.50 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** August 2011**Date Published:** June 2013

**Prepared by:** Kristi Branch, Kathryn Baker

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352

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

DaBin Ki, NRC Project Manager

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report is part of a series of updates of technical issues concerning fitness for duty in the nuclear power industry. It discusses technologies relevant to the detection and management of two key elements of a fitness-for-duty program: drug and alcohol testing and fatigue management. On drug and alcohol testing, the report provides an introduction to the pharmacokinetics of drugs of abuse in different bodily fluids and substances (matrices), a review of the technologies used to separate, identify, and quantify drugs in workplace drug testing programs, and a description of emerging research in developing and validating the technology systems capable of testing alternative matrices as well as newly appearing drugs of abuse, both in the laboratory and at the point of collection. On fatigue management, the report reviews recent research on sleep and fatigue, describes efforts under way to develop and deploy technologies to aid fatigue assessment and management, reviews the status of fatigue management in industries and governmental sectors where fatigue is a significant safety concern, and discusses implications for the nuclear power industry. Finally each chapter includes an extensive bibliography of documents to support further, more in-depth reviews.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Michael
Tate, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amendment no.1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of NetLogic Microsystems, 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. [Intentionally omitted]

4. [Intentionally omitted]

5. [Intentionally omitted]

Date:
February 16, 2012



/S/ MICHAEL TATEMichael Tate Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No. COMP/M.3470 – First Reserve/ Blackstone / RAG American Coal)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 149/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

(2)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32; Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 has been replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

----
##### 



Exhibit 99.3
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Report
 1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Precision Drilling Trust
 By:


/s/ Kevin A. NeveuKevin A. Neveu, Chief Executive Officerof Precision Drilling Corporation
as agent for and on behalf of Precision Drilling Trust
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Philip
McDermott, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of AltiGen
Communications, Inc.





Date:
      May 14, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Philip M. McDermottName:
              Philip
      M. McDermottTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit
        23.2
 
 CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT
        REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 
 We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        on
        Form   S-8 (Nos. 333-87255, 333-110750 and 333-114945) of Zones,
        Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2005, except for Note 15, as to which
        the
        date is November 13, 2007, relating to the financial statements and financial
        statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.
 
 
 PricewaterhouseCoopers
        LLP
 Seattle,
        Washington
 December
        21, 2007
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Gilbert Hu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      Quarterly Report of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the
      quarter ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents
      in
      all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
      AltiGen Communications, Inc.





Date:
                February 14, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Gilbert HuName:
            Gilbert
                HuTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer
# L_2015291EN.01001001.xml

| 7.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/10

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision (EU) 2015/1289 of 13 July 2015 imposing a fine on Spain for the manipulation of deficit data in the Autonomous Community of Valencia

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 198 of 28 July 2015
  )

On the cover, in the table of contents, and on page 19, in the title:

for:

‘Council Decision (EU) 2015/1289 ...’,

read:

‘Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1289 ...’.

---
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Subsidiaries of International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.**

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**                                                  | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Tower   Hill Mines, Inc. (100% owned by International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.) |       | Alaska                                     |
|                                                                              |       |                                       |
| Tower   Hill Mines (US) LLC (100% owned by Tower Hill Mines, Inc.)           |       | Colorado                                   |
|                                                                              |       |                                       |
| Livengood   Placers, Inc. (100% owned by Tower Hill Mines, Inc.)        |       | Nevada                                     |
|                                                                              |       |                                       |
| 813034   Alberta Ltd. (100% owned by International Tower Hill Mines Ltd.)         |       | Alberta,   Canada                          |

 

----
#### Smart, Executrix, Respondent, vs. Wisconsin Tax Commission, Appellant.

*May 12*

October *14, 1931.*

*633For the appellant there were briefs by the *Attorney General, F. C. Seibold,*assistant attorney general, *George A. Bowman,*district attorney of Milwaukee county, and *C. Stanley Perry,*assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Seibold.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Fawsett & Shea,*attorneys, and *Kenneth E. Smart*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Smart.*

The following opinion was filed June 12, 1931:

Fairchild, J.

The decision in this case is controlled by the authorities and reasoning of *Norris v. Wisconsin Tax Comm.,*decided herewith *(ante,*p. 626, 237 N. W. 113). The taxpayer here insists that no part of the sum of $15,484.50 is income to this taxpayer within the meaning of that term as used in sec. 1, art. VIII, Const., or as used in ch. 71 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

The law under which the taxing authorities seek to reach this item and tax it as income did not become effective until August, 1927. Mr. Smart died on January 7th preceding. This legislation did not change certain items into income which, by reason of such death, had already become corpus. Collection by the legal representative brought about no element of gain or profit to the estate, and gain or profit is the test as to whether or not it can be considered income. The decision of the circuit court setting aside the assessment must therefore be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on October 14, 1931.