alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 Ener1,
        Inc.
 500
        West
        Cypress Creek Road-Suite 100
 Ft.
        Lauderdale, Florida, 33309
 
 November
        14, 2006
 
 Securities
        and Exchange Commission
 100
        F
        Street, NE
 Washington,
        DC 20549
 
 Re:
        Certification Of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
        1350
 
 Dear
        Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
 In
        connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1,
        Inc.,
        for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission, I, Ronald Stewart, Interim Chief Executive Officer of
        Ener1, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1)
                  such
                      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter
                      ended
                      September 30, 2006 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
                    of Ener1,
                    Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents,
                    in all
                    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                    of
                    Ener1, Inc.
 
 /s/
                  Ronald StewartRonald
                  Stewart
                Interim
                  Chief Executive Officer
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer and
                Duly
                  Authorized Officer)
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
        document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
        that
        appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
        required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
        retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
        or its staff upon request.
 
 This
        certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.1 to Ener1, Inc. `s
        quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
        to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
        reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange
        Act,
        except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
        filing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Simon SALDANA, also known as Chaparro, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10748.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

J. Michael Worley, Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Alley, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Simon Saldana raises arguments that are foreclosed by the remedy opinion in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), which effectively converted the Sentencing Guidelines from a mandatory regime to an advisory regime. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—COUNTERCYCLICAL PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
No. 13,267.

#### Triangle Truck Service Company *v.*Allard, Assignee.

(19 P. [2d] 1114)

Decided March 13, 1933.

Mr. Thomas K. Hudson, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles E. Compton, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed en banc on application for supersedeas without written opinion.
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.                  

###### U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

# AGENCY:

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.   

# ACTION:

Notice of postponement of open public hearing.   

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the following postponement of hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission scheduled for Seattle, Washington.   

*Name:*                         C. Richard D'Amato, Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.                       

                        The Commission's October 14th hearing scheduled in Seattle, Washington to examine “The Impact of U.S-China Trade and Investment on Pacific Northwest Industries” will not take place. It will be rescheduled for another date and time in early 2005. The Commission will announce the new date and venue when confirmed on its Web site at                         *http://www.uscc.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Any member of the public wishing further information concerning this notice of postponement should contact Kathy Michels, Associate Director for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 602, Washington, DC 20001; phone 202-624-1409, or via e-mail at                         *kmichels@uscc.gov.*

Authority:The Commission was established in October 2000 pursuant to the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act section 1238, Pub. L. 106-398, 114 Stat. 1654A-334 (2000) (codified at 22 U.S.C. section 7002 (2001), as amended, and the “Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003,” Pub. L. 108-7 dated February 20, 2003).   

Dated: October 7, 2004.   

Kathleen J. Michels,   

Associate Director, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission   

[FR Doc. 04-22907 Filed 10-7-04; 10:12 am]   

BILLING CODE 1137-00-P
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61470-61471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23399]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Technology Administration


National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee; 
Notice of Determination for Closure of Meeting

    The National Medal of Technology Nomination Evaluation Committee 
has scheduled a meeting for November 30, 2004.
    The Committee was established to assist the Department in executing 
its responsibilities under 15 U.S.C. 3711. Under this provision, the 
Secretary of Commerce is responsible for recommending to the President 
prospective recipients of the National Medal of Technology. The 
committee's recommendations are made after reviewing all nominations 
received in response to a public solicitation. The Committee is 
chartered to have twelve members.

Time and Place: The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. on 
November 30, 2004. The meeting will be held in Room 4813 at the U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20230. For further information contact: Mildred S. Porter, Director 
National Medal of Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4843, 
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202/482-5572.
    If a member of the public would like to submit written comments 
concerning the committee's affairs at any time before and after the 
meeting, written comments should be addressed to the Director of the 
National Medal of Technology as indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be closed to discuss the 
relative merits of persons and companies nominated for the Medal. 
Public disclosure of this information would be likely to significantly 
frustrate implementation of the National Medal of Technology program 
because premature publicity about candidates under consideration for 
the Medal, who may or may not ultimately receive the award, would be 
likely to discourage nominations for the Medal.
    Accordingly, I find and determine, pursuant to section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended, that the 
November 30, 2004, meeting may be closed to the public in accordance 
with section 552b (c) (9) (B) of title 5, United States Code because 
revealing information about Medal candidates would be likely to

[[Page 61471]]

significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency Action.
    Due to closure of the meeting, copies of the minutes of the meeting 
will not be available, however a copy of the Notice of Determination 
will be available for public inspection and copying in the office of 
Mildred Porter, Director, National Medal of Technology, 1401 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Herbert Hoover Building, Room 4843, 
Washington, DC 20230, Phone: 202/482-5572.

    Dated: October 12, 2004.
Phillip J. Bond,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology.
[FR Doc. 04-23399 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-18-P
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323

Tel. 404-331-5503 or 7878

No.: II-97-06 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts: Ken Clark 404-331-5503 (Friday, January 10, 1997)

Roger Hannah 404-331-7878

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $100,000 IN FINES AGAINST

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT AT ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed $100,000 in

civil penalties against Florida Power & Light Company for violations

of NRC requirements at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant near Jensen

Beach, Florida.

According to the letter sent to the company by NRC Regional

Administrator Luis Reyes, a $50,000 civil penalty is being proposed for

the failure to limit access to certain areas of the plant to only

authorized individuals. This violation involved a former employee

gaining access to the protected area and the identification of other

instances where individuals had left the company but their access

badges were not terminated. In addition, the company failed to notify

the NRC of the unauthorized entry within one hour as required by the

regulations.

The NRC staff is proposing a second $50,000 civil penalty for

failing to appropriately implement portions of the plant's Radiological

Emergency Plan. Specifically, the company failed to ensure a system

was in place that would quickly notify additional employees to report

in the event of an emergency. FPL also failed to adequately

incorporate emergency plan requirements into plant procedures, and

failed to conduct required training for some emergency response

personnel.

The NRC staff also notified FPL of several violations related to

nuclear instrumentation but the agency did not assess a civil penalty

for those violations.

In the letter to FPL, Reyes wrote that although the violations are

unrelated, "the NRC is concerned that collectively they reflect

particularly poor overall performance by FPL." He also wrote that the

NRC is concerned about "FPL's apparent lack of responsiveness and

sensitivity to emergency preparedness issues that were raised by a

concerned employee with FPL management." The letter further stated

that the NRC will schedule a meeting with FPL to discuss the company's

handling of employee concerns.

The company has 30 days to either pay the fines or to protest

their imposition.
#
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.803 Filing of claim for preferential tariff treatment upon importation.

An importer may make a claim for BFTA preferential tariff treatment for an originating good by including on the entry summary, or equivalent documentation, the symbol “BH” as a prefix to the subheading of the HTSUS under which each qualifying good is classified, or by the method specified for equivalent reporting via an authorized electronic data interchange system.
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

61 Forsyth Street SW

Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. II-00-15 March 27, 2000

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416/e-mail: kmc2@nrc.gov

Roger D. Hannah (404)562-4417/e-mail: rdh1@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF TO REVIEW WESTINGHOUSE PERFORMANCE

AT NUCLEAR FUEL PLANT NEAR COLUMBIA ON MARCH 31

Meeting At 8:30 A.M. Is Open To Public Observation

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of the Westinghouse

commercial nuclear fuel fabrication plant near Columbia at 8:30 a.m. (est) next Friday to discuss the

results of a Licensee Performance Review recently completed by the agency to assess the adequacy of

the facility’s regulatory performance of NRC licensed activities.

The meeting will be between officials of the NRC and Westinghouse, but members of the public

are welcome to attend to observe. NRC officials will be available at the meeting’s conclusion to

answer questions from interested observers.

NRC officials said the review indicates that plant performance in the areas of safety operations,

safeguards, radiological controls, facility support and licensing has been adequate to protect public

safety, health and the environment, and to secure adequate control and security of licensed radioactive

materials. They said performance at the plant generally has improved since the agency’s last review.

The report says certain radiological criticality safety controls and controls for the measurement of

uranium being processed, mentioned in the plant’s 1998 performance review, continue to need

improvement, along with adherence to requirements for nuclear material shipping containers.

The Westinghouse facility at Columbia processes and fabricates low enriched uranium into fuel

for commercial nuclear power plants.

#
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          53,242
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,242
<PP&E>                                     137,566,663
<DEPRECIATION>                             104,869,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,750,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,673,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,750,594
<SALES>                                      9,639,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,678,687
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  470,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,208,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,208,559
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.95


</TABLE>
### §1953. Tax treatment of Fund

#### (a) Contributions to Fund

For purposes of title 26, any contribution or gift to or for the use of the Fund shall be treated as a contribution or gift for exclusively public purposes to or for the use of an organization described in section 170(c)(1) of title 26.

#### (b) Treatment of payments from Fund

Any payment from the Fund shall not be subject to any Federal, State, or local income or gift tax.

#### (c) Exemption

For purposes of title 26, notwithstanding section 501(c)(1)(A) of title 26, the Fund shall be treated as described in section 501(c)(1) of title 26 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of title 26.

(Pub. L. 105–223, §3, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1250.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 207c–2 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.
70

69

69 65

63

23

64

23

15

55

14

18

54

16

20

17

52

69

67

68

66

56 15

16

49

50

61

60

62

22 23

24 24

81 80

83 82

71

82

49

78

36 38

76

85

84 31

29

27 27

32

35

39

75 75

25

40 45

45

43

44

42

41 41

41

41

33 34

72

31

47

47

48

47

47

46

76

Parker Flats R d.

W atkin s Gate R d.

Barloy

Canyo n Rd.

Hen neken's Ranch Rd.

Re servation Rd.

Crescent Bluff Rd.

Pila rcitos Canyon Rd. Skyline Rd.

Skyline Rd.

Guidotti Rd.

Oil Wel l Rd.

J ack's Rd.

Engin eer C

anyon Rd.

Ol d Res. Rd.

Toro Creek Rd.

Laguna

Seca

68

Mer rill Rd

BLM

Office

Inter Garrison Rd.

Private

Property

DO NOT

ENTER

Salinas River

Monterey County

Toro Regional Park

Bunkers

Gigling Rd.

59

Eucalyptus Rd.

East

Garrison

16

57

50

49

Davis Rd.

Portola

Dr.

Creekside

Trailhead

Laureles

Grade Rd.

30

28 Monterey Peninsula College

Police Officer Training Center

91

93

91

91

92

94 95

96

56

01

73 74

77 26

Watkin s Spur R d.

West Machine Gun Flats Rd

East Machine Gun Flats Rd

Little Moab Rd

Addington Rd

Border Rd

Bunker Rd Sandstone Ridge Rd

Lookout Ridge Rd

Barloy Spur Rd

Pilarcitos Ridge Rd

Manzanita Rd

Sandy Ridge Rd

Station One Rd

Three Sisters Rd

Lookout Ridge Rd

19

Corral De Tierra Rd

San Benancio Rd

T

T

72

51

68

1

Reservation Rd.

Imjin Rd.

Inter Garrison Rd.

General Jim Moore Rd.

Watkins Gate Rd.

Euc alyp tus R d.

8th Ave.

Lightfighter Rd.

Portola Rd .

Canyon D el Rey

Eucalyptus Rd.

Pa rker Flats Rd.

Blanco Rd.

Davis Rd.

Gigling Rd.

WARNING: EXPLOSIVES AREA!

DO NOT ENTER areas posted

with DANGER signs.

FORT ORD PUBLIC LANDS

Sensitive Habitat Area

Please Use Only

Signed Trails Vicinity Map

0 1 2 4 Miles

0 1 2 4 Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles

0 0.25 0.5 1 Kilometers

I n t e r i m T r a i l M a p

Map Revised July 2007

About Explosives at Former Fort Ord... While every effort has and is being made to clear dangerous materials, 60 years of military occupation

make it possible that live rounds and explosives may remain in public areas as well as posted areas.

DO NOT TOUCH unfamiliar objects, especially metal.

Instead, MARK THE LOCATION and CALL THE FEDERAL

POLICE at (831) 242-7851 or (831) 242-7919.

A FEW LOCAL TRAIL NAMES

10 - Three Sisters Trail

30 - Hobo Trail

32 - Nothing / No Name Trail

34 - Staircase Trail

41 - Goat Trail

42 - Redrock Trail

43 - Ewok Trail

44 - Lombard / Corkscrew /

Outhouse Trail

47 - Couch Canyon /

Hurl Hill Trail

59 - Blair Witch Trail

75 - Ridge / Rock

Garden Trail

Army Lands with Unexploded Ordnance Toilet

Plant Reserve

Parking

Gates

Fire Station

Campground

BLM Public Lands Border

Single track trails

Paved Road

Dirt Road

Ponds/ Vernal Pools

Open Army Trails

Steve Addington Glade

Anza trail
-cr-06219-WDF Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/10/2000 P
# New Source Review (NSR) Program Basics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

RTP, NC

## Tribal Air Quality Management Process

Implement Control Strategies

-Title V and other Permits •Surveillance and • Enforcement Evaluate Air Quality
• Emissions Inventory Data •Ambient Air Monitoring Data Choose Control Strategies

- Voluntary programs

- Some strategies may be regulatory Determine Necessary Emissions Reductions
• Modeling Set Air Quality Goals

## What are the benefits of the NSR program?  

## A key tool for enabling nonattainment areas to reach attainment and for maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)  

## Protects/Preserves clean air in national parks and wilderness areas, as well as other attainment areas

## What are the requirements of the NSR program?
 

### New or modified sources get permits prior to construction
 

### Sources install state-of-the-art control technology
 

### Sources/agencies make sure air quality impacts from the source will be acceptable

## Where does NSR fit into the process?  

## Part of a TIP or a FIP  

## Tool to provide source specific requirements on new or modified sources  

## Allows for Economic growth and improvements or protection of air quality6 

## What are the components of the NSR program? New Source Review (NSR) Program
Major NSR in attainment

areas (PSD) Major NSR in nonattainment

areas (NA NSR) Minor NSR in all areas7 

## PSD Permit Requirements
 

### Main requirements: 

## • Install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

## • Perform air quality analysis to assess impacts on air quality 

## • Perform class I area analysis to assess impacts on national parks and wilderness areas 

## • Perform additional impacts analysis 

## • Allow for opportunities for public involvement8 

### NA NSR Permit Requirements

 

### Main requirements: 

## • Install Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) technologies 

## • Obtain emission offsets 

## • Perform alternative sites analysis 

## • Show statewide facility compliance w/air regulations 

## • Allow for opportunities for public involvement9 

### Minor NSR Permit Requirements

 

### CAA is silent on specific requirements 

## • Minimal requirements found on 40CFR 51.160 - 51.164  

### New sources and modifications cannot violate NAAQS or FIP/SIP/TIP control strategies, nor interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS  

### State program requirements vary greatly

## Contacts Laura McKelvey Phone: 919 - 541 - 5497 mckelvey.laura@epa.gov Raj Rao Phone: 919 - 541 - 5344 rao.raj@epa.gov Jessica Montañez Phone: 919 - 541 - 3407 montanez.jessica@epa.gov
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-97-27 March 11, 1997

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

NOTE TO EDITORS: TIME CHANGE FOR DAVIS-BESSE PUBLIC SALP MEETING

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff and Centerior Service Company

officials will meet at 2:30 p.m. CST on March 21 to discuss the latest

assessment report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The NRC's latest

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the facility

will be discussed in the Administration Building at the Davis-Besse site.

###