alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004118EN.01003603.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/36

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 31 March 2004

in Case T-10/02, Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Staff case - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Permanent post remunerated on research and investment credits - Temporary agent within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the CEOS - Rejection of application - No comparative examination of merits - Interim judgment)

(2004/C 118/77)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-10/02, Marie-Claude Girardot resident in L'Hay-les-Roses (France), represented by N. Lhoest, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Cuvieusart and L. Lozano Palacios, then F. Clotuche-Cuvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) - Application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 March 2001 rejecting seven applications for permanent posts remunerated on research credits, secondly, annulment of the Commission's decision of 15 March 2001 rejecting one application for a permanent post remunerated on research credits and, thirdly, annulment of the Commission's decisions making appointments in respect of those posts - the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President and H. Legal and M. E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 31 March 2004, in which it

| 1. | Annuls the Commission's decision of 13 March 2001 rejecting seven applications for permanent posts remunerated on research credits; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission's decision of 13 March 2001 rejecting seven applications for permanent posts remunerated on research credits;

| 2. | Annuls the Commission's decision of 15 March 2001 rejecting one application for a permanent post remunerated on research credits; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls the Commission's decision of 15 March 2001 rejecting one application for a permanent post remunerated on research credits;

| 3. | For the rest dismisses the application |
| --- | --- |

3.

For the rest dismisses the application

| 4. | Orders the parties to provide to the Court within a period of three months from delivery of this judgment either an agreed amount of monetary compensation attaching to the decisions of 13 and 15 March 2001 or their submissions, with figures, on that amount; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the parties to provide to the Court within a period of three months from delivery of this judgment either an agreed amount of monetary compensation attaching to the decisions of 13 and 15 March 2001 or their submissions, with figures, on that amount;

| 5. | Reserves costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Reserves costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002

1

---
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00038

- CR
RONNY JOE STANDIFER , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- 122

- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronny Joe Standifer was convicted of aggravated assault causing serious bodily
injury which was enhanced to a first degree felony because of a prior felony conviction.

See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . 22.02 (West 2011). He was sentenced to life in prison.

Becau se error, if any, has not been preserved, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The victim of the crime died of cancer before trial.
Standifer contends the State was allowed to ask improper commitment
questions. In his sole issue, Standifer complains th at the trial court erred in permittingStandifer v. State Page 2

“the prosecution to ask the voir dire panel what evidence the panel wanted at trial
when the alleged victim would not testify.”
During voir dire, the State asked, “[h]ow would you prove something without

the victim

– the person that was actually there who was injured?” Standifer objected to
the question as an improper commitment question. That objection was overruled. The
State did not, however, press the question with the voir dire panel and obtain an

answer. R ather, the State moved on and when the State rephrased the question, two
questions later, and asked, “What [type of evidence] would you want to see,” Standifer
did not object.
A colloquy followed that ended with the State and prospective jurors discussin g
other types of evidence to prove the crime other than testimony of the victim. But no
objections were made after the State rephrased the question and moved on to the
discussion. Accordingly, error, if any, is not preserved. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 33.1.

Stan difer’s sole issue is overruled. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed September 10, 2015 Do not publish [CRPM]
**Exhibit 23.2****Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**The Board of Directors and ShareholdersAccenture Ltd:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (Nos.333-127248,333-112854 and333-104628) onForm S-3 and(No. 333-65376) onForm S-8 ofAccenture Ltd of our report dated October 18, 2006 relating tothe statements of financial condition of the Accenture Ltd 2001Employee Share Purchase Plan as of August 31, 2006 and2005, and the related statements of operations and changes inplan equity for each of the years in the three-year period endedAugust 31, 2006, which report appears in theAugust 31, 2006 annual report onForm 10-K ofAccenture Ltd.     /s/ KPMG LLP    Chicago, Illinois October 18, 2006
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 HelpMate Robotics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30,2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Randy A. Lubinsky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

| (1)    |   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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. |

|                       |   |               |                                                                             |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: August 14, 2002 |   |     | /s/ Randy A. Lubinsky                                                       |
|                       |   |               |    Randy A. Lubinsky, Chairman,Chief Executive Officer  |
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report (the “Report”) of Stellar Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Mark G. Sampson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

|   | (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|   | (2)    | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                |

|                   |   | /s/ Mark G. Sampson     |
|------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                   |   |                         |
|                   |   | Mark G. Sampson         |
|                   |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                   |   |                    |
| October       13, 2006 |   |                    |

----
EXHIBIT 13.1  SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  In connection with this amended annual report of Kiska Metals Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jason S. Weber, President, Chief Executive Officer & Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.   /s/ Jason S. Weber  Name: Jason S. Weber Title: President, Chief Executive Officer & Director May 14, 2012
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActClosed Requests

# Closed Appeal & FOIA/PA Cases by Subject - FY 2014

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofDuke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis D. Oklak,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/                                  | Dennis D. Oklak |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|-----------------|--------|
|   | Dennis D. Oklak                      |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | of the General Partner               |
|   | Date: November 14, 2005         |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to DukeRealty Corporation, and will be retained by Duke Realty Limited Partnership andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     00001003464
<NAME>     Endocare Inc.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                  10,455,230
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,439,025
<ALLOWANCES>                              (429,863)
<INVENTORY>                              1,322,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        12,916,612
<PP&E>                                   2,077,336
<DEPRECIATION>                             710,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          15,663,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    4,389,814
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    13,056
<OTHER-SE>                              27,268,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            15,663,521
<SALES>                                  2,530,962
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         2,876,242
<CGS>                                    1,152,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,370,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         7,399,987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         471,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (6,365,061)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (6,365,061)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                            (6,365,061)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.530)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.530)



</TABLE>
UNITED TACONITE FLOW SHEET No. 2: REV 1 (EXTERNAL) 

MINE CO~RSE ORE FINES CRUSHER 

5000T SURGE f 600,000T SURGE 

UNLOADING 1 - - ---j·r=C=O=A-R_S_E _O_R_E_S_U_R G-E--,1 

POCrET : ~ 

I #1 CONV. #2 CONV. ,-- #3 

lOOOT SURGE f <AL TERNA TD t : '-------__j 

I 3rd STAGE SURGE J ___ j 

CONV. 

#7 CONV. 

I,--~ #8 CONV. 

2700T SURGE 

STAGE CRUSHING I .----~ #6 CONV. 

I 4th STAGE SURGE I 

14th STAGE CRUSHING I 

2 DECK D'SIZE 

SCREENS r---~#Sc CONV 

U'SIZE f #Sf CONV~_D_'S_IZ_E-----1 2 DECK 

SCREENS 

#9c CONV U'SIZE 

#9ct CONVr-------11~•#9f CONV r-----------~# 10 CONV, 

SEE FLO'v/ 

SHEETS 3 & 4 

lBO,OOOT SURGE 

,------L----, 

FINE ORE SURGE
**Exhibit 10.24**

**SECONDAMENDMENT TOETHANOL MARKETING AND****SERVICESAGREEMENT**

This Second Amendment toEthanol Marketing and Services Agreement (the “Amendment”)****is made on this 30th day of November,2006, by and between **Great Plains Ethanol,LLC**located in Turner****County,South Dakota, (“Owner”), and **EthanolProducts, LLC**, having an address of 9530 E. 37th  N., Wichita, Kansas 67226 (“Marketer”).

**RECITALS:**

A.                                   Inaccordance with the terms and conditions of an Ethanol Marketing and ServicesAgreement dated the 18th day of December, 2000 (the “Original Agreement”),Owner granted to Marketer the exclusive right to market all ethanol producedfrom Owner’s ethanol production facility.

B.                                     Ownerand Marketer made and entered into a First Amendment to Ethanol and MarketingServices Agreement on November 27, 2002.

C.                                     Marketerand Owner now desire to modify an additional provision of the OriginalAgreement, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Amendment.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing andthe mutual covenants and agreement set forth herein, the parties agree asfollow:

1.                                       TheOriginal Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 5 and replacing itwith the following provision:

5.                                       MarketingFee. The Marketing Fee will be $.0060/gallon o Ethanol as produced by theEthanol Plant to be sited in Turner County, South Dakota.

2.                                       Allother terms and conditions of the Original Agreement, as amended, shall remainin full force and effect except as modified in this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executedthis Amendment on the date and year first above written.
|   | **GREAT PLAINS ETHANOL, LLC (Owner)** |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | ** **                            |
|   | By                                    | /s/ Darin Ihnen |   |
|   | Its                                   | President |   |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | **ETHANOL PRODUCTS, LLC (Marketer)**  |
|   | ** **                            |
|   | By                                    | /s/ Robert  Casper |   |
|   | Its                                   | President |   |

 

----
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2005

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 Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 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 Tuesday, April 5, 2022
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffPerformance Budget/Congressional Budget Justification (NUREG-1100)

# Performance Budget: Fiscal Year 2004 (NUREG-1100, Volume 19)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Overview

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1100, Volume 19

## Publication Information

**Date Published**: February 2003

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001 

Availability Notice

## Overview

The fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget and performance plan submitted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's supports the implementation of the agency's Strategic Plan goals and strategies for FY 2000–FY 2005 and addresses a number of new challenges, as well as an increased workload. The NRC's proposed FY 2004 budget totals $626.1 million, an increase of $41.1 million over the FY 2003 budget. This budget reflects $545.6 million from fees assessed to NRC licensees, resulting in a net usage of appropriated funds of $80.5 million. The following table details the NRC's budget authority by appropriation.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 28, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2025
          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2002

#### 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 Monday, March 28, 2022
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Investigation of Twenty-Foot Separation Distance as a Fire Protection Method as Specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix R (NUREG/CR-3192)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-3192 (PDF - 5.38 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** October 1983

**Prepared by:**Douglas D. Cline,Walter A. von RiesemannJames M. Chavez

Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, NM 87185operated by Sandia Corporationfor the US Department of Energy

NRC FIN A1010

**Prepared for:**Division of Engineering TechnologyOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555Under Memorandum of Understanding DOE 40-550-75

Availability Notice

## Abstract

A combined experimental/analytical program was conducted to examine the adequacy of the 20-foot separation requirement, one of the requirements set forth in Appendix R of 10 CFR 50 for the fire protection of redundant safety systems that are necessary to achieve hot shutdown in nuclear power plants. Specifically, Sections III.G.2.b and d of Appendix R require separation of the redundant safety systems by a horizontal distance of more than 20 feet with no intervening combustibles or fire hazards. Section III.G.2.b also requires installation of fire detectors and an automatic fire suppression system within fire areas. The experimental investigation consisted of six full-scale fire tests of unqualified and qualified electrical cables separated by 20 feet with (1) no protection, (2) protection with a ceramic fiber blanket and sheet metal covers on the cable trays, and (3) protection with a fire protective coating. For the test conditions investigated, all unqualified cable electrically shortened while qualified cable was found to short only when left unprotected.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021