alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**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
          The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 *V.S.C.*Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form l0-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of Naturade, Inc. (the “Company”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periodspresented in such report.      /s/ Bill D.Stewart       Bill D. Stewart   *Chief Executive Officer*   May 16, 2005        /s/ Stephen M.Kasprisin       Stephen M.Kasprisin   *Chief Financial Officer*   May 16, 2005  
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and it will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff on request.
27
§ 271.2 Definitions. For purposes of this part: ( a ) *Board* means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 251).
( b ) *Committee* means the Chair of the Committee or the Chair's designee.
( c ) *Exempt information* means information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to § 271.15(a).
( d ) Federal Reserve Bank or Reserve Bank means one of the District Banks authorized by the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 222, including any branch of any such bank.
( e ) Records of the Committee or Committee records include all information coming into the possession of the Committee or any member thereof or of any officer, employee, or agent of the Committee, the Board, or any Federal Reserve Bank, in the performance of duties for, or pursuant to the direction of, the Committee. These records include rules, statements, decisions, minutes, memoranda, letters, reports, transcripts, accounts, charts, and other written material.
( f ) *Search* means: ( 1 ) A reasonable search of such records of the Committee as seem likely in the particular circumstances to contain information of the kind requested.
( 2 ) As part of the Committee's search for responsive records, the Committee is not obligated to conduct any research, create any document, or modify an electronic program or automated information system.
( g ) *Working day* means any day except Saturday, Sunday, or a legal Federal holiday.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of CNE Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  2004 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
S.  Conigliaro,  Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  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:

            (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/ Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 22, 2004


                                       42
From: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:08 PM

To: Michael.Pelan@lafarge‐na.com

Cc: Fruh.Steve@epamail.epa.gov; Laney, Michael N.; Branscome, Marvin  

R.; silverman.steven@epamail.epa.gov

Subject:Re: Collection of additional data

  

Dear Mike:   

  

It would be desirable to have THC and HCl tests from enough different sources to increase the number  

of sources making up the MACT floor (2 kilns for THC and 4 kilns for HCl) to at least 5 kilns, though the  

more data we have the more representative the floor number will be of the general population.  To use  

five kilns to set the existing source floor you need a minimum data set of 34 kilns (0.12 x 34 = 4.08 and  

we can round up) for both pollutants.  We currently have THC CEM data for 14 kilns and HCl data for 32  

kilns.   

  

It is important that the results be representative of normal operations.  For CEMS, our smallest data set  

is 31 days, so I would say a month of readings is enough.  We could get by with less (maybe 2‐3 weeks)  

if we are sure we have captured the variability, especially for kilns with in‐line raw mills.   

    

For HCl, the minimum is 3 one hour runs with Method 321.  We don't want to use Method 26 data  

because we have concerns about the accuracy of Method 26 for this source category at the emission  

levels we see.   

  
Another important factor is the choice of sources.  For example, if someone submits data from some of  

their kilns, but not others, we need to know the reason why those kilns were chosen.  Our concern

would  

be potential bias in the data.  The sources selected should be either be representative of the source  

category as a whole, or the best performing sources.   

  

Keith W. Barnett  

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG  

Mail Code D243‐02  

Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  

919‐541‐5605  

barnett.keith@epa.gov   

Michael.Pelan@lafarge‐na.com  

05/07/2009 11:55 AM  

To

Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA  

cc

Subject

Collection of additional data

  
  

  

  

Keith:  

  

Questions for you:  

  

  If the cement industry (or Lafarge in particular) chooses to augment the  

  database for EPA for the PC MACT rulemaking effort by collecting  

  additional data (i.e., temporary CEMS), how much data would be required  

  for the data to be included in the database?  For example, if we were to  

  install a temporary CEMS and collect 2‐3 weeks of THC data from a  

  particular kiln, would this be sufficient to include in the current  

  database?  

  If Lafarge were to re‐test some of our kilns for HCl, does EPA require a  

  specific test method (i.e,. 321??).  If so, again, what period of  

  testing is needed to have the data be considered valid for inclusion in  

  the database.  

  

Thanks,  

  

Mike
# C_2005103EN.01002601.xml

| 28.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/26

---

STATE AID — NORWAY

STATE AID — NORWAY

Notice by the EFTA Surveillance Authority to EFTA States, EU Member States and other interested parties

State aid measure 47875 (former SAM 030.03001) — Proposed aid scheme to utilise energy from final waste treatment plants

(2005/C 103/12)

By letter dated 29 January 2003, the Norwegian Government notified the EFTA Surveillance Authority of a proposal for an aid scheme which intended to grant direct state support to waste incineration plants and landfills for the utilization of energy produced in the waste treatment process.

On 11 December 2003, the Authority initiated the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement in respect of the proposed aid scheme. The decision was published in the EEA Section of and the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union
   (1).

Official Journal of the European Union

1

By letter dated 28 June 2004, the Norwegian authorities withdrew the above notification.

As the Norwegian Government has withdrawn the notification and does not intend to grant the aid initially notified, the Authority has decided to close the proceedings initiated under Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.

---

(1)  OJ C 82, 1.4.2004, p. 6, as well as in EEA Supplements to the Official Journal of the European Union No 16 of 1.4.2004, p. 1.

1

Official Journal of the European Union

---
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 Defense Office of the Secretary
 AGENCY: Department of Defense.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to include the Joint Staff, the U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Defense Field Activities, the U.S Court of Appeals and the Armed Forces and the following Defense Agencies: Defense Advance Research Projects Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency, Defense Commissary Agency, Defense Security Service, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Defense Business Transformation Agency, Defense Legal Services Agency, and Pentagon Force Protection Agency. The publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The Performance Review Board provides fair and impartial review of Senior Executive and Senior Professional performance appraisals and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance awards to the Secretary of Defense.
 DATES: Effective October 26, 2009.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah S. Munn, Assistant Director, Human Resources, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense, (703) 699-1869.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following executives are appointed to the Office of Defense PRB with specific PRB panel assignments being made from this group. Executives listed will serve a one-year renewable term, effective October 26, 2009. Office of the Secretary of Defense Chairperson: Eric Coulter. PRB Panel Members
Sheryl McNair
Tim MorganElizabeth McGrath
Paul HulleyJoseph Angello
Caryn HollisWilliam Lowry
Gretchen AndersonBonnie Hammersley
Angela RogersJoseph Bonnet
Radha SekarChristine Condon
Joel SitrinAllen Middleton
Kathleen OttJonathan Cofer
Ronald PontiusTimothy Harp
Janice HaithPaul S. Koffsky
Susan ShekmarDiana J Ohman
Debra FilippiLydia Moschkin
Richard McCormickKaren McKenney
Michael KnollmannMichael Williams
Lisa DisbrowCraig Glassner
David FisherJeanne Farmer
Melvin RussellPaul Kozemchak
Susan YarwoodJames Russell
Matthew Schaffer
 Dated: October 6, 2009. Patricia L. Toppings, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.


[FR Doc. E9-24510 Filed 10-9-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HERMAN LEE TATE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-98-125-9-V) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Herman Lee Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Steven Cromwell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Herman Lee Tate appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tate , No. CR-98-125-9- V (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 25, 2002; entered Oct. 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metal Management, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, certifies that:

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

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Corporation.



/s/ Daniel W. Dienst
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Dienst
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
February 10, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2021352EN.01000801.xml

| 2.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/8

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 352/08)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 26 May 2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 86855 |
| Decision No | 071/21/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 scheme for cancelled and downscaled cultural events |
| Legal basis | Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for cancelled, closed or downscaled cultural events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021 as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | To remedy the shortage of liquidity that organisers and subcontractors to cultural events face following the COVID-19 outbreak |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | NOK 141 million |
| Intensity | For eligible organisers, a grant of up to 95 % of unavoidable costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021.
  For eligible subcontractors, a grant of up to 50 % of loss of income and additional costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021. |
| Duration | 26 May – 31 December 2021 |
| Economic sectors | Cultural sector |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Arts Council Norway |
| P.O. Box 4808 Nydalen |
| N-0422 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

26 May 2021

Case No

86855

Decision No

071/21/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 scheme for cancelled and downscaled cultural events

Legal basis

Regulation on a temporary compensation scheme for cancelled, closed or downscaled cultural events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021 as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

To remedy the shortage of liquidity that organisers and subcontractors to cultural events face following the COVID-19 outbreak

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

NOK 141 million

Intensity

For eligible organisers, a grant of up to 95 % of unavoidable costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021.

For eligible subcontractors, a grant of up to 50 % of loss of income and additional costs related to cancelled, closed or downscaled eligible events in the period 1 January to 30 June 2021.

Duration

26 May – 31 December 2021

Economic sectors

Cultural sector

Name and address of the granting authority

Arts Council Norway

P.O. Box 4808 Nydalen

N-0422 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
**Exhibit 10.2**

Description of Changes to Non-Employee Director Compensationand Stock Ownership Guidelines

On November 3, 2008, the Board of Directors approved changes in the non-employee Directors Compensation effective May 1, 2009.  The change gives a Director an option to receive the annual deferred share grant of $80,000, witha limit of 15,000 shares, in cash in lieu of shares. Share grants vest immediately, but distribution of shares may be deferred by the Director.

Before being allowed to make an election to receive cash, Directors would be required to hold 4x their current annual retainer ($25,000) or $100,000 in TWE stock. To be considered as held by the Director, shares would haveto be either directly held or vested deferred shares. 

Once the guideline was met, a board member could elect to receive any percentage of the annual $80,000 equity grant as cash. The 15,000 share limit would be eliminated. These changes are intended to keep the directors’compensation competitive.  Total compensation and other elements of the directors’ compensation remain unchanged. 

 

 

 

 

----
42713.

#### ADDIS v. THE STATE.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. In appealing his conviction for transporting illegal liquor, the appellant separately enumerates error on the admission in evidence of three photographs offered by the State. Each contention is that the photograph was not properly identified.

With respect to these photographs, the transcript reveals that one was a picture of “the 1957 black Ford” that the defendant was driving when he was apprehended after a high speed chase in which the F'ord “blew the engine” together with cases and jars of whiskey which were taken from the trunk and back floorboard of this 1957 Ford (Exhibit 3). Another (Exhibit 2) was a picture of the location where the 1957 Ford went off the road after it had blown its engine and where the pursuing officers had come alongside it and discovered the illegal whiskey inside. The location was identified by testimony as to route number and general features and the photograph was described as fairly and correctly representing and portraying the scene. The other (Exhibit 1) was a picture of an automobile motor which was identified as looking “like the motor of the 1957 Ford.”

“The question of the sufficiency of the preliminary proofs to identify photographs, or to show that it is a fair or accurate representation of the objects which it purports to portray, *804is a question committed to the discretion of the trial judge.” *Johnson v. State,*158 Ga. 192, 198 (123 SE 120); *Rosenthal v. O’Neal,*108 Ga. App. 54 (2) (132 SE2d 150). “From early times the Georgia Supreme Court has followed a liberal policy toward the allowance of photographic evidence.” *Cagle Poultry & Egg Co. v. Busick,*110 Ga. App. 551, 552 (139 SE2d 461). The photographs were sufficiently identified and no error occurred in their admission.

*Jordan and Pannell, JJ., concur.*

Submitted April 4, 1967 —

Decided May 30, 1967.

*Oliver, Oliver & Rea, Robert F. Oliver,*for appellant.

*Reid Merritt, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

2. It is contended that the trial judge refused to allow the defendant’s attorney to cross examine the State’s witness in reference to the photographs but this is directly refuted by the transcript. It is shown that the court informed defendant’s counsel that “you will have an opportunity to do so [cross examine]” and shortly thereafter informed counsel “if you wish to question the witness on them [photographs], you may do so.” And counsel did cross examine.

3. The evidence having supported the verdict and the only other enumeration of error having been abandoned, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 1277.26 Redemption and repurchase of capital stock. ( a ) *Redemption.* ( 1 ) A member or former member may have its stock in a Bank redeemed by providing written notice to the Bank in accordance with this section. A member or former member shall provide six-months written notice for Class A stock and five-years written notice for Class B stock. The notice shall indicate the number of shares of Bank stock that are to be redeemed. No more than one notice of redemption may be outstanding at one time for the same shares of Bank stock. At the expiration of the applicable notice period, the Bank shall pay to the member or other institution holding the stock the stated par value of that stock in cash.
( 2 ) A member may cancel a notice of redemption by so informing the Bank in writing, and the Bank may impose a fee (to be specified in its capital plan) with respect to any cancellation of a pending notice of redemption. A request by a member (whose membership has not been terminated) to redeem specific shares of stock shall automatically be cancelled if the Bank is prevented from redeeming the member's stock by paragraph (c) of this section within five business days from the end of the expiration of the applicable redemption notice period because the member would fail to maintain its minimum investment in the stock of the Bank after such redemption. The automatic cancellation of a member's redemption request shall have the same effect as if the member had cancelled its notice to redeem stock prior to the end of the redemption notice period, and a Bank may impose a fee (to be specified in its capital plan) for automatic cancellation of a redemption request.
( 3 ) A Bank shall not be obligated to redeem its capital stock other than in accordance with this paragraph.
( b ) *Repurchase.* A Bank, in its discretion and without regard to the applicable redemption periods, may repurchase excess stock in accordance with the capital plan of that Bank. A Bank undertaking such a stock repurchase at its own initiative shall provide reasonable notice prior to repurchasing any excess stock, with the period of such notice to be specified in the Bank's capital plan, and shall pay the stated par value of that stock in cash. A member's submission of a notice of intent to withdraw from membership, or its termination of membership in any other manner, shall not, in and of itself, cause any Bank stock to be deemed excess stock for purposes of this section.
( c ) *Limitation.* In no event may a Bank redeem or repurchase any stock if, following the redemption or repurchase, the Bank would fail to meet its regulatory capital requirements, or if the member or former member would fail to maintain its minimum investment in the stock of the Bank, as required by § 1277.22.