alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OpenAGS: an Online Analysis Program for 

Prompt & Delayed Gamma Activation 

Spectra

Christopher Stallard

Mentor: Dr. Heather Chen-Mayer
Why PGAA?

▣ Detecting boron at concentrations ~10ppb

○ Only method with this level of precision for boron

▣ Detecting chlorine within concrete

○ Can pose failure risks even at small conc.

▣ So how does it work?

1
Data Analysis for PGAA

▣ Peak area is directly related to elemental mass

▣ Calculate a sensitivity value using a known mass (Counts per Second / mg)

▣ Use this sensitivity to determine an unknown mass based on area of new peak

▣ Example:

○ Irradiate 100mg of Calcium-41 

○ Find peak area, say 10 cps

○ Sensitivity = .1 cps/mg. 

○ Irradiate unknown sample

○ Find peak area, say 15cps

○ 15cps/(.1 cps/mg) = 150 mg

▣ Create Sensitivity Table

2
Complexities with Data Analysis

▣ The Boron Peak

○ Different decay path

○ B-10 + n → B-11* → Li-7* + a

○ Li-7* → Li-7 + γγ

○ No analytical solution

▣ Overlapping Peaks

▣ Low SNR

▣ Compton Scattering

○ Background must compensate

3
Model Function Choices

▣ Peaks

○ Simple Gaussian

○ Complex Gaussian-like model (accounts for charge carrier 

build-up)

○ Boron peak approximation (difference of 2 error functions)

○ Physical Boron peak model (requires numerical convolution)

▣ Backgrounds

○ Linear

○ Quadratic

○ Arctan

4
My Approach

▣ Nonlinear least squares (LM) fitting

▣ User chooses peak/background models to use

○ This lets them balance # of fitter params and physical 

accuracy of models

▣ User then selects regions to fit

▣ Program finds and fits peaks

▣ User adjusts fit

▣ Program outputs results

○ .xlsx and .csv formats

5
Program Flow

6
The Data Analysis Process: A Demo

7
Comparison to Existing Solution

▣ Both programs support reading proprietary spectrum file formats

▣ Both also support several output formats (including CSV)

8
Acknowledgements

▣ Dr. Heather Chen-Mayer

▣ Paul Kienzle
Questions?
References

▣ Paul, R. L., & Lindstrom, R. M. (2000). Prompt Gamma-Ray Activation Analysis: 

Fundamentals and Applications. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 

243(1), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006796003933

▣ Szentmiklósi, L., Gméling, K., & Révay, Z. (2007). Fitting the Boron peak and resolving 

interferences in the 450–490 KEV region Of PGAA spectra. Journal of Radioanalytical 

and Nuclear Chemistry, 271(2), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10967-007-0229-7

▣ https://www.nist.gov/laboratories/tools-instruments/prompt-gamma-ray-activationanalysis-pgaa

▣ https://www.nist.gov/laboratories/tools-instruments/instrumental-neutron-activationanalysis-inaa

▣ https://numpy.org/

▣ https://www.scipy.org/

▣ https://pgjones.gitlab.io/quart/

▣ https://github.com/wojdyr/xylib
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1509 

To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to 

reauthorize the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Ms. LEE of California (for herself, Ms. BROWN, and Mr. EVANS) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 

Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Healthy Food Financing 

Initiative, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Healthy Food Financ5 ing Initiative Reauthorization Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF HEALTHY FOOD FINANCING 

7 INITIATIVE. 

8 Section 243(d) of the Department of Agriculture Re9 organization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6953(d)) is amended 

10 to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1509 IH

1 ‘‘(d) MANDATORY FUNDING.—Of the funds of the 

2 Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary shall use to 

3 carry out this section— 

4 ‘‘(1) $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2024; 

5 ‘‘(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; 

6 ‘‘(3) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; 

7 ‘‘(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2027; and 

8 ‘‘(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2028 and each 

9 fiscal year thereafter.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P. AS
OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          53,345
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,765
<PP&E>                                         705,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 727,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,783
<BONDS>                                        355,000
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     289,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   727,182
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,549
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,132
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,644
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,644
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25
        

</TABLE>
11898.

#### Antonopoulas *v.*Black, judge.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where one convicted of a capital felony has filed a certified bill of exceptions to the judgment overruling his motion for a now trial, the granting of a supersedeas is a matter of course, and can be enforced by mandamus. *Spann*v. *Clark,*47 *Ga.*369; *Malone*v. *Hopkins,*49 *Ga.*221. Where, however, there is a conviction of a lesser offense, the filing of such a bill of exceptions does not operate as a supersedeas and the judge is not *required*to order a supersedeas until the defendant has given bond in a sum fixed by the judge or has filed an affidavit in forma pauperis. Penal Code (1910), § 1104.

2. On an application for mandamus to compel the trial judge to grant a supersedeas of the judgment in a case in which there has been a conviction of a crime other than a capital felony, where it appears that a certified bill of exceptions was duly filed, but that no bond was given nor pauper’s affidavit filed, the application must be denied.

*722Decided October 20, 1920.

Application for mandamus.

*C. Vernon Elliott, Callaway & Howard,*for plaintiff.

(a) *This*ruling is *not*affected by the fact that the judge refused to assess the ainount of the supersedeas bond, since the Supreme Court in *Fountain*v. *Crum,*148 *Ga.*272 (96 S. E. 337), ruled that this court is without jurisdiction to issue a mandamus to compel the judge to assess the amount of a bond in such a case.

*Mandamus nisi denied.*

*Bloodworth, J., concurs. Luke, J., absent on account of illness.*
II 

Calendar No. 457 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1555 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, California, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CORPORAL MICHAEL D. ANDERSON JR. POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in Modesto, 

7 California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cor8 poral Michael D. Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1555 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. 

5 Anderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 457 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1555 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostAnderson Jr. Post Office Building’’. desto, California, as the ‘‘Corporal Michael D. al Service located at 2300 Sylvan Avenue in MoAUGUST 1, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
---

Exhibit 32.1



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 First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick L. Wessel, Chief Executive Officer 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 my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 9, 2010

/s/ Rick L. WesselRick L. Wessel
Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

W. NEIL ARMENTROUT and : 

FRANCES ARMENTROUT, : 

 : 

Plaintiffs, : 

 : 

 : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION: 10-0149-KD-C 

 : 

ATLANTIC CASUALTY INS. CO., : 

 : 

Defendant. : 

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to 

the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation 

to which objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 

U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(A) and dated July 22, 2010, is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of 

this Court. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of August 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00149-KD-C Document 20 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit  32.1

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 Mason Hill Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2001 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Eiten, President 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:

          1.     The Report fully complies with he 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:     February  24,  2004

     /s/  Geoffrey  Eiten
     President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 74767)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 6, 2014, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, since April 30, 2014, ASME has established one new consensus committee, initiated two new standards activities and withdrawn three published standards within the general nature and scope of ASME's standards development activities, as specified in its original notification. More detail regarding these changes can be found at                     *www.asme.org.*

                    On September 15, 2004, ASME filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60895).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 2, 2014. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 9, 2014 (79 FR 32998).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2014-29409 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND THE 
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 OF NALCO
CHEMICAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE 
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                     31,200,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0         
<RECEIVABLES>                             282,800,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (6,100,000)
<INVENTORY>                               121,800,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          477,600,000 
<PP&E>                                  1,225,100,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          (707,800,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,650,700,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     351,300,000
<BONDS>                                   496,200,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   400,000
<COMMON>                                   15,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                                570,400,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            1,650,700,000
<SALES>                                 1,573,500,000 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,573,500,000
<CGS>                                     714,100,000         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             714,100,000 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         26,500,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            59,900,000
<INCOME-TAX>                               22,000,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        37,900,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                               37,900,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.40
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES M. BROADHEAD, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0012-WS-C

NURSE MIXON, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE this 29th day of March, 2010.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00012-WS-C Document 5 Filed 03/29/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL T. MAIBEN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 09-0408-C

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, :

Commissioner of Social Security,

:

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and order entered on this

date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff disability

insurance benefits and supplemental security income be affirmed. 

DONE this the 4th day of March, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00408-C Document 24 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 1
OSAC Affiliates 

October 2023    

AFFILIATES 

Ivan Birch 

Julie Carnes 

Jason Cuddyer 

Jordan Graves 

Catalin Grigoras 

Paul Hartzell 

Christopher Iber 

Carl Kriigel 

Aaron Matson 

Kimberly Meline 

Christine Miller 

Michael Nirenberg 

Ruth Phillips 

Michael Piper 

George Reis 

Melissa Southern 

John Twomey 

Jesus Valenzuela 

David Witzke
____________________________________

United States Department of Commerce 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

South Carolina 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017.

Scope 2024 

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2024-02-01 to 2025-01-31

Mass Echelon II

20 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb 

500 lb

50 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Mass Echelon III

2000 kg to 1 mg

2500 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

6000 lb to 3000 lb

Wheel Load Weighers

40 000 lb

Volume Gravimetric, I

5 gal 

Volume Transfer, II

20 L to 5 L

1500 gal to 1 gal

Volume Transfer, II LPG

100 gal 

25 gal

(Rev.: September 2021)
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 28, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-30867

Summary Calendar

 

WILLIE L WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VENETIA MICHAEL; MICHAEL RHODES; CHAROLETTE APPEL; 

INSURANCE CO., Unknown,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:03-CV-1586-DEW

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie L. Washington, Louisiana prisoner # 77381, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action against

various prison officials for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies.

In addition to arguing the merits of his case, Washington

argues on appeal that he “made not one (1), but two (2) attempts

to file Administrative Remedies,” both of which were rejected,

and that an administrative remedy procedure (ARP) screening
No. 04-30867

-2-

officer stated in a memorandum to Washington, “Once an ARP has

been rejected, you have exhausted your Administrative Remedies.” 

However, in the district court, Washington did not object to, but

agreed with, the magistrate judge’s finding that he had failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies. Accordingly, our review is

for plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79

F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).

Washington has not shown that he has exhausted his

administrative remedies; he does not argue that he appealed the

rejection of either ARP or that the second ARP was an appeal of

the first, and there is no indication of this in the record. See

22 LA. ADMIN. CODE, Pt. I, § 325(G)(1), (2). Furthermore, because

the memorandum is not in the record on appeal and was in fact

written after the district court entered its decision, this court

need not consider it as evidence of an administrative procedural

policy, futility, or a waiver of the exhaustion requirement. See

Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir.

1999) (appellate court may not consider evidence presented for

first time on appeal or facts not before the district court at

the time of the district court’s ruling). 

Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in

dismissing Washington’s complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. 

AFFIRMED.