alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1



Statement



Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Appleton Papers Inc. (the Company),
hereby certifies that to his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |        |  |                                                
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | APPLETON PAPERS INC.
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 31, 2004 |  |  |  |                     
|                      |  |  |  |                     
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |        |  | /s/    DOUGLAS P. BUTH                         
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |        |  |                                                
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  | Name:  |  | Douglas P. Buth                                
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  | Title: |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
----

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(2005/C 327/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Aid No: XT 30/02

Member State: Italy

Region: Molise

Title of aid scheme: Continuing training under Act No 236/93

Legal basis: DGR n. 1927, 10 settembre 2001‘Avviso pubblico — Formazione continua art. 9 L 236/93 circolare ministero del Lavoro e P.S: 92/2000, 29 dicembre 2000’

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme: No more than EUR 47 514

Maximum aid intensity: 

Date of implementation: 

Duration of scheme: 12 months from the date approved

Objective of aid: The aid scheme covers general and specific training.

Economic sector(s) concerned: All sectors

Name and address of granting authority: 

Aid No: XT 88/04

Member State: The Netherlands

Region: Province of Flevoland

Name of company receiving grant: Center Parcs Europe N.V.

Legal basis: Subsidieverordening ESF doelstelling 1

Planned total of individual aid to be granted to the company: EUR 650 000. Cofinancing by Center Parcs Europe N.V.

Maximum aid intensity: 50 %

Date of implementation: 

Duration of individual grant: until 31 December 2004

Purpose of grant: Training employees. General training.

The Social Fund for Residential Recreation (SFV) has submitted an application to the ESF for a project called ‘Programme of upgrading for De Eemhof, 2003-2004’) covered by the 2000 — 2006 Single Programming Document. The project is being implemented in a recreational park called De Eemhof (near Zeewolde), which is part of Center Parcs Europe N.V. (CPE).

The calibre of CPE's recreational services depends to a large extent on the calibre of its staff. They play a crucial role in the following spheres: improving the company's competitive position, innovation and growth, management of costs and quality, increasingly high expectations on the part of guests and staff, increasing emphasis on safety, working conditions and the environment, and, last but not least, the dynamic labour market. This calls for additional efforts to develop and invest in staff, the goal being competent, efficient and highly motivated staff who see the recreational sector as offering good prospects and come to view CPE as an employer which is prepared to invest in the future of its staff (preventing a high turnover by fostering staff loyalty). A high proportion of staff have low educational levels. New types of vocational training such as Levels 1 and 2 in Housekeeping, which can be taken on block or day release, will enable them to gain nationally accredited vocational qualifications. Other vocational qualifications and short courses train people for jobs in areas including catering, sales, call centres, and swimming pools, as well as for supervisory posts. Training is to be provided for about 1 200 staff members

Economic sector: All services; recreational sector

Name and address of the authority granting aid: Province of Flevoland, Postbus 55, 8200 AB, Lelystad, Nederland

----
§ 102.11 General rules. The following rules shall apply for purposes of determining the country of origin of imported goods other than textile and apparel products covered by § 102.21. ( a ) The country of origin of a good is the country in which: ( 1 ) The good is wholly obtained or produced;
( 2 ) The good is produced exclusively from domestic materials; or
( 3 ) Each foreign material incorporated in that good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification set out in § 102.20 and satisfies any other applicable requirements of that section, and all other applicable requirements of these rules are satisfied.
( b ) Except for a good that is specifically described in the Harmonized System as a set, or is classified as a set pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 3, where the country of origin cannot be determined under paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) The country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of the single material that imparts the essential character to the good, or
( 2 ) If the material that imparts the essential character to the good is fungible, has been commingled, and direct physical identification of the origin of the commingled material is not practical, the country or countries of origin may be determined on the basis of an inventory management method.
( c ) Where the country of origin cannot be determined under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section and the good is specifically described in the Harmonized System as a set or mixture, or classified as a set, mixture or composite good pursuant to General Rule of Interpretation 3, the country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of all materials that merit equal consideration for determining the essential character of the good.
( d ) Where the country of origin of a good cannot be determined under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this section, the country of origin of the good shall be determined as follows: ( 1 ) If the good was produced only as a result of minor processing, the country of origin of the good is the country or countries of origin of each material that merits equal consideration for determining the essential character of the good;
( 2 ) If the good was produced by simple assembly and the assembled parts that merit equal consideration for determining the essential character of the good are from the same country, the country of origin of the good is the country of origin of those parts; or
( 3 ) If the country of origin of the good cannot be determined under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, the country of origin of the good is the last country in which the good underwent production.
[T.D. 96-48, 61 FR 28956, June 6, 1996, as amended by CBP Dec. 21-10, 86 FR 35581, July 6, 2021]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61422-CIV-SINGHAL

SABINE FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.,

,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice

filed by the parties (DE [39]). The Court having reviewed the Stipulation for Dismissal

and the docket, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, attorneys' fees, and paralegals' fees, 

except as otherwise provided in the Parties' Confidential Settlement Agreement. The 

Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 22nd day of 

April 2021.

Copies to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61422-AHS Document 40 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2021 Page 1 of 1
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 Annual Report of TransAltaCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31,2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Brian Burden, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge:

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

 

 
| /s/ Brian Burden                                     |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian Burden                                         |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Dated: March 13, 2008.

 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnishedsolely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not beingfiled for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of theCompany, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-74 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 562-4417

NRC STAFF PLANS PERFORMANCE REVIEW MEETING

AT GE NUCLEAR FUEL FACILITY IN WILMINGTON, NC

Meeting Is Open to Public Observation

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a meeting with

officials of General Electric’s Nuclear Energy Production plant in Wilmington,

NC at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, to discuss the plant’s performance.

The meeting will be held at the GE site in the Building J auditorium.

NRC officials will discuss with GE a licensee performance review

performed by the agency in which performance was evaluated in the areas of

safety operations, safeguards, radiological controls, facility support and

licensing activities for a period from January 1, 1995 through August 15,

1997. The review is a periodic assessment of fuel facilities licensed by the

NRC and is used to form a basis for establishing the NRC‘s inspection program

at the facility for the next year as well as providing the company feedback on

how the NRC views its performance.

The NRC review concluded that performance was good in the major areas of

safeguards, facility support and licensing activities. In a letter to GE on

October 20, NRC Regional Administrator Luis Reyes wrote that the company’s

strong performance was due, in part, to “identification of areas needing

corrective action and the effectiveness of resulting corrective actions.”

Reyes’ letter also highlighted the company’s “thorough and timely”

communication of events to the NRC. The review did find some areas needing

improvement, and challenges were identified in reducing solid radioactive

waste and other waste containing low levels of uranium. In addition, the

review identified challenges in maintaining the safe operation in the ammonium

diuranate processing area and bringing the dry conversion facility into full

operation.

Based on the GE review, the NRC has decided to reduce inspections at the

Wilmington plant to the minimum number for each area as described in the NRC’s

inspection manual, except in the area of solid radioactive waste because of

limited access to waste disposal sites for licensees in North Carolina.

The meeting is open to interested members of the public and the media

for observation, and NRC officials will be available at the conclusion of the

meeting to answer any questions.

###
NOTE TO EDITORS: An outline of the results of the NRC review is

available from this office.
#### § 7.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this regulation is to effectuate the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter referred to as the “Act”) to the end that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-49 September 15, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $88,000 FINE FOR INADQUATE SHUTDOWN

PROCEDURES IN EVENT OF FIRE AT QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed an $88,000 fine against

Commonwealth Edison Company for failing to develop adequate procedures and

systems to safely shut down the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station under certain fire

conditions.

The two-reactor facility is located at Cordova, Illinois.

The NRC requires nuclear plant operators to have the capability of shutting down

the reactor and maintaining it in a safe condition even if a possible fire damages safety

equipment.

In notifying the utility of the fine, NRC Acting Regional Administrator James

Caldwell said, “These violations represent a very significant safety concern because

they involve inadequacies in ComEd’s ability to shut down the Quad Cities facility

following a postulated fire.”

The deficiencies in the shutdown procedures were initially found by the utility in

September of last year. ComEd promptly shut one reactor down and took

compensatory measures for the other reactor, which remained in operation.

In December, the utility shut the second reactor down after the NRC inspectors

found the shutdown procedures for the unit remaining in operation were still

inadequate.

Both reactors remained shut down until May of this year for improvements to

plant safety systems and procedures for use in the event of a fire.

Caldwell noted that the utility expected that its operators would have been able

to safely shut down the plant in the event of a fire, based on their training and various

procedures and on equipment not included in its fire safety analysis.

“However, the NRC concluded,” Caldwell said, “that some equipment necessary

to achieve safe shutdown may not be available or accessible and that reliance on

unanalyzed impromptu measures...would not provide reasonable assurance that
operators could achieve post-fire shutdown conditions.”

In addition to the inadequacies in the shutdown procedures, the NRC staff also

cited ComEd for initially changing its procedures to rely on an additional diesel

generator without doing the necessary safety reviews.

The utility has until October 12 the pay the fine or to protest it. If the fine is

protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, ComEd may request a hearing.

#####
### §107. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 107 was editorially reclassified as section 6570 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.179 Canadian crude petroleum subject to a commercial exchange agreement between United States and Canadian refiners. ( a ) Crude petroleum (as defined in Chapter 27, Additional U.S. Note 1, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202)) produced in Canada may be admitted free of duty if the entry is accompanied by a certificate from the importer, or its electronic equivalent, establishing that: ( 1 ) The petroleum is imported pursuant to a commercial exchange agreement between United States and Canadian refiners which has been approved by the Secretary of Energy;
( 2 ) An equivalent amount of domestic or duty-paid foreign crude petroleum on which the importer has executed a written waiver of drawback, has been exported to Canada pursuant to the export license and previously has not been used to effect the duty-free entry of like Canadian products; and,
( 3 ) An export license has been issued by the Secretary of Commerce for the petroleum which has been exported to Canada.
( b ) The provisions of this section may be applied to: ( 1 ) Liquidated or reliquidated entries if the required certification is filed with CBP, either at the port of entry or electronically on or before the 180th day after the date of entry; and
( 2 ) Articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, pursuant to a commercial exchange agreement.
( c ) Verification of the quantities of crude petroleum exported to or imported from Canada under such a commercial exchange agreement shall be made in accordance with import verification provided in Part 151, Subpart C, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 151, subpart C).
[T.D. 81-292, 46 FR 58069, Nov. 30, 1981, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51252, Dec. 21, 1988; T.D. 91-82, 56 FR 49845, Oct. 2, 1991; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61284, Oct. 13, 2015]
### §§1731 to 1735. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section 1731, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §451, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1381; Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(1), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1077, related to national partnership and special training programs.

Section 1732, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §452, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1381; Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(2), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1078, related to research, demonstration, and evaluation.

Section 1733, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §453, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1382; Pub. L. 99–496, §13, Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1265; Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(3), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1080, related to capacity building, information, dissemination, and replication activities.

Section 1734, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §454, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(b), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1084; amended Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(n)(12), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2174, related to guidance on eligibility verification.

A prior section 1734, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §454, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1383; Pub. L. 97–404, §4(c), Dec. 31, 1982, 96 Stat. 2026, related to evaluation of effectiveness of programs, activities, and projects authorized by this chapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(4), title VII, §701(a), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1084, 1103, effective July 1, 1993.

Section 1735, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §455, as added Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §404(a), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1084; amended Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(n)(13), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2174, related to uniform reporting requirements.

A prior section 1735, Pub. L. 97–300, title IV, §455, Oct. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1383, related to personnel training and technical assistance with respect to programs under this chapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–367, title IV, §403(a)(4), title VII, §701(a), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1084, 1103, effective July 1, 1993.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
§ 113.31 Same party as principal and surety; attorney in fact. ( a ) *Same party as principal and surety.* The same person, partnership, or corporation cannot be both principal and surety on a bond.
( b ) *Attorney in fact for principal or surety.* In executing a bond, a person may act as: ( 1 ) Attorney in fact for both principal and surety;
( 2 ) Surety and attorney in fact for the principal; or
( 3 ) Principal and attorney in fact for the surety.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNuclear power systems for lunar and Mars explorationInitial studies of a variety of mission scenarios for the new Space Exploration Initiative, and the technologies necessary to enable or significantly enhance them, have identified the development of advanced space power systems whether solar, chemical or nuclear to be of prime importance. Lightweight, compact, reliable power systems for planetary rovers and a variety of surface vehicles, utility surface power, and power for advanced propulsion systems have been identified as critical needs for these missions. These mission scenarios, the concomitant power system requirements, and power system options considered are discussed. The significant potential benefits of nuclear power are identified for meeting the power needs of the above applications.Document ID19900017557Acquisition SourceHeadquartersDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsSovie, R. J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Bozek, J. M.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategorySpacecraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-103168NAS 1.15:103168IAF-90-200E-5540Meeting InformationMeeting: International Astronautical ConferenceLocation: DresdenCountry: German Democratic RepublicStart Date: October 6, 1990End Date: October 13, 1990Accession Number90N26873Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-41-3KDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017557.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024