alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
31.2**
 
 **Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**
 
 I, Robert
E. Brummels, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer, certify
that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Husker Ag, LLC;
 
 2. Based on
my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on
my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The small
business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:
 
 (a) designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) evaluated
the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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; and
 
 (c) disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and
 
 5. The small
business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business
issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 
 (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 small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: March
      29, 2005****By:
    /s/ Robert E.
    BrummelsRobert E. Brummels, Treasurer and
      Director *(Principal Financial
Officer)*
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsPetition  for Rulemaking Dockets

# Petition for Rulemaking Dockets for 2024

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, January 18, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Open Petition for Rulemaking Dockets
          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, January 18, 2024
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) and
Star Gas Finance Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard F. Ambury, Chief Financial Officer of the
Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (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 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 Partnership and Star Gas Finance Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                    |  |                         
|----------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|            |  | STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P.           
|            |  | STAR GAS FINANCE COMPANY          
|            | 
|            |  | By: STAR GAS LLC (General Partner)
|            |  |                                   
|May 9, 2007 |  | By:                                |  | /s/ RICHARD F. AMBURY   
|            |  |                                    |  | Richard F. Ambury       
|            |  |                                    |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|            |  |                                    |  | Star Gas Partners, L.P. 
|            |  |                                    |  | Star Gas Finance Company
No. 82-5994.

#### Morris *v.*United States.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition (NUREG-0800, Formerly issued as NUREG-75/087)

**Both current and previous versions of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) are publicly available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) and can be accessed through this Web site using the**Table of Contents or the chapter-specific pages listed below. This SRP was previously issued as NUREG/75-087 (PDF – 8.47 MB). Please Contact Us if you have questions or comments regarding the SRP.
        - Cover, Table of Contents, and Introduction
        - Chapter 1, Introduction and Interfaces
        - Chapter 2, Sites Characteristics and Site Parameters
        - Chapter 3, Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems
        - Chapter 4, Reactor
        - Chapter 5, Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
        - Chapter 6, Engineered Safety Features
        - Chapter 7, Instrumentation and Controls
        - Chapter 8, Electric Power
        - Chapter 9, Auxiliary Systems
        - Chapter 10, Steam and Power Conversion System
        - Chapter 11, Radioactive Waste Management
        - Chapter 12, Radiation Protection
        - Chapter 13, Conduct of Operations
        - Chapter 14, Initial Test Program and ITAAC-Design Certification
        - Chapter 15, Transient and Accident Analysis
        - Chapter 16, Technical Specifications
        - Chapter 17, Quality Assurance
        - Chapter 18, Human Factors Engineering
        - Chapter 19, Severe Accidents
        - Appendices
        - Bibliographic Data Sheet

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, October 02, 2023
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11116

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VINCENT MULINAX,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-45-2-A

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vincent Mulinax appeals his sentence following his guiltyplea conviction for conspiracy to fraudulently use identities, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1028. He argues that the

district court abused its discretion in imposing an upward

departure. Mulinax asserts that his case did not fall outside

the “heartland” of cases covered by the Sentencing Guidelines, so

that an upward departure was not warranted under U.S.S.G.

§ 5K2.0, p.s. He additionally maintains that the harm suffered
No. 01-11116

-2-

by some of the victims was not serious enough to warrant an

upward departure.

The district court’s decision to depart from the Guidelines

is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Koon v. United States, 518

U.S. 81, 96-100 (1996). Contrary to Mulinax’s contention, the

Guidelines specifically encourage upward departures based on the 

factors delineated by the district court at the sentencing

hearing. See id.; United States v. Wells, 101 F.3d 370, 373-74

(5th Cir. 1996)(recognizing that application notes to U.S.S.G.

§ 2F1.1 encourage upward departures based on non-monetary and

psychological harm). Furthermore, in light of our decision in

Wells, the district court could have reasonably concluded that 

the hardships suffered by the victims in this case made their

harm unusual, taking this case out of the heartland of the

Guidelines and making the two-level upward departure appropriate. 

See Wells, 101 F.3d at 374-75. Accordingly, we conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an upward

departure. 

To the extent that Mulinax seeks to appeal the denial of his

motion for downward departure, we lack jurisdiction to review it. 

See United States v. Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir.

1999).

AFFIRMED.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40862 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SALVADOR CONTRERAS PINEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:98-CR-3-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Salvador Contreras Pineda appeals his sentence following his

guilty plea to two counts of possession of black-tar heroin with

intent to distribute, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1). He

argues that the district court erred in enhancing his offense

level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession

of a weapon. The uncontradicted information in Pineda’s

Presentence Report (“PSR”) showed that hundreds of grams of both

cocaine and heroin were found along with several loaded weapons 
No. 98-40862

-2-

in the house where Pineda lived with his brother, who was a

codefendant, and others. See U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 (“court may

consider relevant information without regard to its admissibility

under the rules of evidence applicable at trial”); United States

v. Fitzgerald, 89 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1996) (PSR information

generally bears “sufficient indicia of reliability” to be

considered at sentencing for making factual determinations under

the Sentencing Guidelines). The district court did not err in

implicitly determining that it was not “clearly improbable” that

these guns were “connected” to Pineda’s offense. See § 2D1.1,

comment. (n.3); United States v. Cortinas, 142 F.3d 242, 250 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 224 and 119 S. Ct. 573 (1998);

United States v. Vasquez, 161 F.3d 909, 912 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2021

No. 04-21-00250-CV

IN RE WINN EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC., C.A. Winn Family Enterprises, Ltd., Tom 

C. Winn Family Enterprises, Ltd., & Southern Winn Family Enterprises, Ltd., Relators

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on July 21, 2021.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020CI16177 pending in the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, 

Texas, the Honorable Angelica Jimenez presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7122

OWEN D. LEAVITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CARLTON B. JOYNER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00038-FDW)

Submitted: December 19, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Owen D. Leavitt, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Owen D. Leavitt seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 petition 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 

Leavitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

deny Leavitt’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# L_2015284DE.01019001.xml

| 30.10.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 284/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 284/190

---

Berichtigung der Empfehlung (EU) 2015/1381 der Kommission vom 10. August 2015 für eine Überwachung von Arsen in Lebensmitteln

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 213 vom 12. August 2015
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 213 vom 12. August 2015

Seite 9, Nummer 1 Satz 2:

anstatt:

„..., Lebensmittel für besondere medizinische Zwecke und Lebensmittelzusatzstoffe, ...“

muss es heißen:

„..., Lebensmittel für besondere medizinische Zwecke und Nahrungsergänzungsmittel, ...“

---
# New Hampshire State Office

273 Locust Street, Ste 2DDoverNH03820

603-868-7581

273 Locust Street, Ste 2DDoverNH03820

New Hampshire

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  New Hampshire 
-  New Hampshire State Office 

The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in New Hampshire is operated under the guidance of the NRCS, N.H. State Office in Dover. 

## **Welcome to NRCS in New Hampshire!**

### ***Beckey Ross, State Conservationist***

New Hampshire NRCS, led by our State Conservationist and our State Leadership Team serves diverse agricultural needs of the state's 10 counties though 7 field offices. We provide voluntary, cost-effective program and technical assistance to farm and non-industrial private forest landowners and operators to conserve, protect and improve soil, water, air, plants and animals. In doing so, we enable customers and landowners to better steward and manage their property and remain economically viable in the Granite State.

----

## Key Contacts

### Becky Ross

                -    603-868-7581 
                -    becky.ross@usda.gov 

----

##   State Office Staff
No. 90-6312.

#### Franco *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of a Loss of Normal Feedwater Transient at the Ringhals-3 NPP Using RELAP5/Mod3.3 (NUREG/IA-0234)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0234 (PDF - 611.92 KB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**May 2010**Date Published:**July 2010

**Prepared by:** J. Bánáti, C. Demaziére, and M. Stålek

Chalmers University of Technology Department of Nuclear Engineering S-41296 Gothenburg, SWEDEN

A. Calvo, NRC Project Manager

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

**Prepared as part of**: The Agreement on Research Participation and Technical Exchange Under the Thermal-Hydraulic Code Applications and Maintenance Program (CAMP)

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report gives an account on the development and validation of the RELAP5/Mod3.3 model of the Ringhals-3 pressurized water reactor against a Loss of Normal Feedwater Transient, which occurred on August 16, 2005. The 3rd unit of Ringhals Nuclear Power Plant comprises a 3-loops Westinghouse design pressurized water reactor on the Swedish West Coast.

At first, the RELAP5 model is presented. All the 157 fuel assemblies are modeled individually in the code input. The model is furthermore able to handle possible asymmetrical conditions of the flow velocity and temperature fields between the loops.

The transient was initiated by a malfunction of the feedwater valve at the 2nd steam generator. Consequently, the turbines were tripped and, due to the low level in the SG-2 the reactor was scrammed. Activation of the auxiliary feedwater provided proper amount of cooling from the secondary side, resulting in safe shutdown conditions. Capabilities of the RELAP5 code were challenged in this transient. The calculated values of the parameters show good agreement with the measured data.

A parametric study was performed In order to evaluate the dependence of the steam generator level on the injected auxiliary feedwater flow. It indicated that the turbine driven auxiliary feedwater pump could possibly inject at a higher flowrate than its nominal value.

The work was performed by the Department of Nuclear Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology in the framework of the Ringhals-3 power uprate project, supported by the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM). The ultimate goal of this project is to perform independent safety analyses of some limiting transients associated to the power uprate. The work carried out so far was targeted towards the development of state-of-the-art modelling capabilities for the Ringhals-3 unit.

The present validational study is a Swedish contribution to the international Code Assessment and Maintenance Program (CAMP).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Technical Specifications – Westinghouse Plants (NUREG-1431, Revision 5)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, December 06, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         121,193
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,716,944
<ALLOWANCES>                                   275,272
<INVENTORY>                                  2,568,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,773,327
<PP&E>                                       3,544,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                 872,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,470,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,131,845
<BONDS>                                      1,829,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,026
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,506,053
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,470,928
<SALES>                                      2,513,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,513,751
<CGS>                                        1,820,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,702,060
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,293
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,058
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,029,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,029,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,029,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>