alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32


                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 on Form 10-K of Jaclyn, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the
undersigned each hereby certifies that: (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.

Dated: September 24, 2003                    /s/ ROBERT CHESTNOV
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Robert Chestnov, President
                                             (Chief Executive Officer)


Dated: September 24, 2003                    /s/ ANTHONY CHRISTON
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Anthony Christon, Chief Financial
                                             Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Jaclyn, Inc. and will be retained by Jaclyn, Inc. and forwarded to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105



## MEMO

SUBJECT: 1-hour SO 2 and NO 2 Impacts for the MCU PSD Permit Amendment

FROM: Cleveland Holladay, Air Quality Modeler U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Divisi on, Air Quality Analysis Office

TO: MCU Facility PSD Permit Administrative Record

DATE: October 14, 2014

EPA has reviewed the McElmo Creek Unit Oil and Production Facility (MCU Facility) Gas Plant Air Modeling and the accompanying June 1, 2011 report submitted by the Resolute Natural Resources Company (Resolute). Resolute used the AERMOD model with five years of surface meteorological data (2005-2009) from Canyonlands Airport near Moab, UT and five years of upper air data from Grand Junction, CO. The ap plicant determined the worst case impact
emissions for various heat contents for the Main Flare. The maximum modeled impact
concentrations from AERMOD occurred with a flare heat content of 300 BTU/SCF. The applicant did cumulative SO 2 modeling for all modeled flare h eat input scenarios and presented the results in Tables 6-1 and 6-2. The model pred icted impacts both in flat terrain and elevated terrain. AERMOD predicted a maximum 1-hour SO 2 impact from the main flare and regional background sources to be 26.76  g/m 3 . The maximum SO 2 impact, including a background
monitored concentration of 79  g/m 3 , is 105.76  g/m 3 . This predicted value is below the 1-hr

SO 2 NAAQS of 196  g/m 3 . SCREEN3 model runs predicte d no significant impacts for NO2 emissions, which are considerab ly lower than the proposed SO 2 emissions. To determine NO 2 impacts from the SO 2 AERMOD modeling, EPA ratioed the NO 2 emissions with the SO 2 emissions for various cases, including the worst cas e. EPA compared the ratio with the predicted
SO 2 cumulative impacts from Tables 6-1 and 6-2 fo r conservatism. The highest predicted 1-hour

NO 2 impact is 5.00  g/m 3 , which is less than the mg/m 3 significant impact level. No further NO 2 analysis is required.
EX-23.d
Consent of Independent Auditors

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  2-97351)  pertaining to the Kansas City Life Insurance  Company Savings
and Profit  Sharing Plan of our report  dated  February 18, 2000 with respect to
the financial  statements of the Kansas City Life Insurance  Company Savings and
Profit Sharing Plan as of December 31, 1999 and for each of the two years in the
period then ended  included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


                                                               Ernst & Young LLP


Kansas City, Missouri
March 28, 2001
No. 64840.

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/23126, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photoflash lamps the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 64250, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection withthe Annual Report of K-tel International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip Kives, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| By                                      | /s/ PHILIP KIVES |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------|--------|--------|
| Philip Kives                            |             |   |
| *President and Chief Executive Officer* |             |   |
| November 22, 2006                       |             |   |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRY SEABROOKS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BFI BROWNING FERRIS

INDUSTRIES, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-04-1538 FCD PAN PS

Findings and Recommendation

and Order re Sanctions

—NFN—

For all of the reasons set forth in defendants’ moving

papers, I recommend this action be dismissed.

Within 11 days after service of this order plaintiff

shall show cause in writing why judgment should not be entered

against plaintiff in the sum $3,612 as a sanction for violation

of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b), the specific conduct constituting such

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 19 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

violation having been set forth in detail in defendants’ papers.

Dated: May 16, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01538-FCD-PAN Document 19 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 2
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03625**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03625\03625_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03625\03625_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03625\03625_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03625\03625_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03625\03625_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03625\03625_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03625\03625_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03625\03625_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03625\Certification Statement_03625.pdf Plant certification statement 03625\Supporting Documents\C2-31 Fly Ash.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03625\Supporting Documents\C3-36 diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03625\Supporting Documents\GoogleMap1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03625\Supporting Documents\GoogleMap2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03625\Supporting Documents\SiteDrainageMap.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03625\Supporting Documents\WB1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
# **Publications**Food Recovery and Gleaning Initiative

USDA Gleaning and Food RecoveryHome Page

## **A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO FOOD RECOVERY**

#### **Contents**

Purpose Of  This Guide

- Foreword
- Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture

- I.  An Introduction To Food Recovery 
- Field Gleaning
- Perishable Food Rescue or Salvage Food Rescue
- Nonperishable Food Collection 

- II.  Why Food Recovery Is Necessary
- Fighting Hunger and Poverty
- Ending Food Waste 

- III.  Ongoing Food Recovery Activities
- St. Mary's Food Bank 
- Second Harvest 
- From the Wholesaler to the Hungry
- Foodchain
- Society of St. Andrew
- National Hunger Clearing House--World Hunger Year

- IV.  USDA Food Recovery Activities 
- Cooperative Extension System
- AmeriCorps National Service Program
- Other USDA Activities

- V.  How Americans Can Help Recover Food
- Businesses and Corporations
- Food Service Professionals
- Nonprofit Organizations
- Youth Service Groups and Volunteer Organizations
- Individual Citizens

- VI.  Food Safety Issues
- Foodborne Illness
- Receiving and Storing Donated Food

- VII.  Legal Issues 
- The Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act

- VIII.  Lessons From USDA AmeriCorps Summer Of Gleaning - A Case Study
- How the USDA AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning Worked  Key Issues IdentifiedDuring the Program
- Creating and Implementing Partnerships
- General Donor Indentification Issues
- Indentifying Donors for Farm Gleaning Projects
- Indentifying Donors for Food Rescue Projects
- Indentifying Recipients
- Collecting the Food
- Transporting the Food
- Storing the Food
- Communicating with the Public
- Recruiting and Managing Volunteers

- Conclusion
-  by Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture

**APPENDIX A:** Food Recovery Information on theInternet  **APPENDIX B:** Food Recovery StateResource List **APPENDIX C:** Emerson GoodSamaritan Food Donation Act **APPENDIX D:**State Good Samaritan Laws **APPENDIX E:**AmeriCorps Summer of Gleaning Partners 

**Acknowledgements**

****
****

***NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT**TheUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination  in itsprograms on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status.  (Not allprohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requirealternative means for communication of program information (Braille, largeprint, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at(202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD).*
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4293 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse annex located 

at 310 South Main Street in London, Kentucky, as the 

‘‘Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4293 ES

1 SECTION 1. EUGENE E. SILER, JR. UNITED STATES COURT2 HOUSE ANNEX. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

4 annex located at 310 South Main Street in London, Ken5 tucky, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Eugene E. 

6 Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the United States courthouse annex referred to 

10 in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

11 ‘‘Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United States Courthouse Annex’’. 

Passed the Senate September 25, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4293 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse annex 

States Courthouse Annex’’. Kentucky, as the ‘‘Eugene E. Siler, Jr. United located at 310 South Main Street in London,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARNOLD JUSTICE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0684 GEB PAN P

vs.

JAN SCULLY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The record in this action shows no activity since late 2004 when the United States

Marshal filed returns of service for defendants Wagg and Rall. It appears that plaintiff has not

diligently prosecuted this action.

The court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss an action based on

plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Unreasonable delay by plaintiff

is sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence of actual prejudice to the defendant, see

Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978); Anderson v. Air

West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976), since a presumption of injury arises from the

occurrence of unreasonable delay. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated,

Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978); Anderson, 542 F.2d at 524; Alexander v. Pacific Maritime

Association, 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1009 (1971). Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00684-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 05/18/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

then has the burden of showing justification for the delay and in the absence of such showing the

case is properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Nealey v. Transportation Maritima

Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty days from

the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to respond to this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

DATED: May 17, 2006.

\004

just0684.dlop

Case 2:04-cv-00684-GEB-EFB Document 14 Filed 05/18/06 Page 2 of 2
## *Nephrology*

### Chronic Renal Failure, Disability

May 2000 

----

**Clinical Focus***

- Do the current criteria cited in the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) Listing of Impairments for chronic renal failure (CRF) correlate with an inability to work for 12 consecutive months?
- Do current Listings predict a CRF patient's employment status, self-reported ability to work, and/or functional status over 12 consecutive months?
- What factors are the best predictors of a CRF patient's employment status, self-reported ability to work, and/or functional status over 12 consecutive months?
- Given the assumption that some patients on dialysis can work, what are the best predictors of a dialysis patient's employment status, self-reported ability to work, and functional status over 12 consecutive months?

*Addressed in the summary or evidence report.

----

*Determinants of Disability in Patients with Chronic Renal Failure*Summary (Publication No. 00-E012, May 2000)Evidence Report (Publication No. 00-E013, May 2000)(File Download)Selected Publications

EPC: ECRITopic Nominator: Social Security Administration

----

Return to Quick Menu: Evidence Report TopicsReturn to Evidence-based Practice
LAW OFFICES OF

PORTER, SCOTT,

WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIO N

350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200

P.O. BOX 255428

SACRAMENTO, CA 95865

(916) 929-1481

www.pswdlaw.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

00386369.WPD STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

Michael W. Pott, SBN 186156 

350 University Avenue, Suite 200

Sacramento, California 95825

(916) 929-1481 

(916) 927-3706 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Defendants 

FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE and

FEDERATED LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a wholly owned subsidiary of FEDERATED

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively

erroneously sued as FEDERATED INSURANCE 

COMPANY) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC TRIVEDI,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERATED INSURANCECOMPANY

and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-1345 LKK JFM

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL AND

ORDER

State Court Complaint Filed: 06/14/04

Removal to Federal Court: 07/13/04

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties to this action through their

designated counsel that the above-captioned action be and hereby is dismissed with prejudice as to

all claims and all parties pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1) and (2).

Dated: LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL SHEPHERD

By /signature on original

Michael Shepherd 

Dated: PORTER, SCOTT, WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A Professional Corporation

By /signature on original

Michael W. Pott 

Case 2:04-cv-01345-LKK -JFM Document 22 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 2
LAW OFFICES OF

PORTER, SCOTT,

WEIBERG & DELEHANT

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIO N

350 UNIVERSITY AVE., SUITE 200

P.O. BOX 255428

SACRAMENTO, CA 95865

(916) 929-1481

www.pswdlaw.com

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

00386369.WPD STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and (2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2005. /s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

Lawrence K. Karlton

Senior Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-01345-LKK -JFM Document 22 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorney for Petitioner

ROBERT RAMESES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT RAMESES,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, Warden,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. S-04-1173 GEB GGH P

UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO EXTEND

DEADLINE FOR FILING MEMORANDUM OF

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

OF AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS

Judge: Hon. Gregory G. Hollows

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-142, Petitioner, ROBERT RAMESES, by and

through his counsel, Assistant Federal Defender David M. Porter, 

hereby requests an extension of 30 days in which to file the memorandum

of points and authorities in support of the amended petition for writ

of habeas corpus, which is currently due on October 13, 2005. 

This extension is the first extension requested and it is being

sought because of the undersigned’s deadline for filing a Ninth Circuit

opening brief on October 12, 2005 and the mail delays in securing from

petitioner a declaration to be filed with the memorandum.

This extension is not interposed to unduly delay the proceedings,

to gain unfair advantage, or for any other improper purpose. The

undersigned has contacted respondent's counsel, Deputy Attorney General

Case 2:04-cv-01173-GEB -GGH Document 33 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Mathew K. Chan, who graciously indicated that he has no opposition to

the requested extension. Accordingly, petitioner requests this Court

enter the order being filed simultaneously with, but separately from,

this request.

Dated: October 11, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

QUIN DENVIR

Federal Defender

___/s/ David M. Porter____

DAVID M. PORTER

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Petitioner

ROBERT RAMESES

ORDER

Petitioner incorrectly asserts that this is his first request for extension of time. In fact, an order

filed on September 14, 2005, granted petitioner’s first request to extend the time for filing the

memorandum of points and authorities, which request was made on September 7, 2005. 

Pursuant to the unopposed second request of petitioner, it is hereby ORDERED that the

memorandum of points and authorities in support of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus shall

be filed within thirty days of the date of this order. No further extension of time shall be granted.

DATED: 10/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_______________________________________

THE HONORABLE GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

United States Magistrate Judge

rame1173.po2

Case 2:04-cv-01173-GEB -GGH Document 33 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 60064.

#### J. J. Hayes Co. *v.*United States,

protests 268941-K, 270058-K, and 278292-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel wire rods over 0.20 inch in diameter, cold-drawn, and valued at over 4 cents per pound, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

May 1, 1947

No. 51678.

#### Protest 80472-K of Nippon Dry Goods Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that item “23/4 200 dzs. Emfc’d Rayon Thread Crochet Baby Shoes” consists of footwear with a distinct line of demarcation between the upper and the sole. The Government submitted that this merchandise falls within the provisions of paragraph 1530 (e). Upon the established facts and following *United States*v. *Kahn*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 57, T. D. 40881) the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY W. ENDSLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S- 04-O990 FCD GGH P

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. In response to plaintiff’s August 25, 2005 letter, asking that his case be dismissed until he

is out of prison, the court filed an order on September 12, 2005, presenting plaintiff with

alternatives for proceeding in this action, which will not be repeated here, and informing plaintiff

that his voluntary dismissal of this action would mean that he may only proceed by filing a new

action. In addition to the alternatives for proceeding in this action, the court also informed

plaintiff that if he still sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice of this action in its entirety,

he should so inform the court within 30 days. Plaintiff has once again requested, by filing dated

September 26, 2005, that this action be dismissed. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants notify this court, within

twenty days, whether they have any objection to the dismissal of this action. Should defendants

fail to respond, plaintiff's request will be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

DATED: 10/21/05 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

ends0990.59+

Case 2:04-cv-00990-FCD-GGH Document 26 Filed 10/21/05 Page 2 of 2