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


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended  December 31, 2004 (the  "Report") of SMI  Products,  Inc.,  as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, James Charuk,  Chief  Executive  Officer of SMI  Products,  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 based on my knowledge:

            (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
Partnership.


Dated: March 28, 2005                        /s/ JAMES CHARUK
                                             ___________________________
                                                 James Charuk
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
Argued and submitted October 8,

affirmed as modified December 10, 1979

#### WILHELMSEN, *Appellant, v.*WILHELMSEN, *Respondent.*

(No. 15,194-L, CA 13229)

603 P2d 1215

D. S. Denning, Jr., Ontario, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Max S. Taggart, II, Ontario, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Joseph, Presiding Judge, and Lee and Richardson, Judges.

RICHARDSON, J.

*581RICHARDSON, J.

Wife appeals an order modifying a decree of divorce by reducing husband’s child support liability.

The parties were divorced in Georgia in 1976. The custody of the two minor children was awarded to the wife and husband was ordered to pay $162.50 per month per child. Just prior to the time the decree was entered husband was earning a gross annual income of $21,000. He then changed jobs and his income was reduced. Husband presently earns $22,500 gross annual income. Shortly after the decree husband married a woman with two children by a previous marriage. Since their marriage they have had one child and are expecting another.

Husband testified that his religion requires him to tithe to the church, and he presently tithes a percentage of his annual income or approximately $225 per month. He has purchased a new automobile for which he pays $225 per month. His present wife receives $200 per month child support from her former husband.

Wife presently earns $640 net per month and pays $220 per month for child care while she works in addition to usual living expenses.

The trial court reduced the child support payment for each child to $125 per month. The court stated that husband had assumed the obligations of a new family and that although his income had increased slightly his real earnings had been reduced by inflation.

If we determine husband’s ability to pay by applying an inflation factor to his income, the same inflationary factor should apply to the amount of money wife receives in support. The purchasing power of the support money is reduced in the same proportion that husband’s income is reduced by inflation.

Husband argues that the court should recognize his strong religious beliefs and consider the amount he *582pays to the church in determining his ability to pay child support. While husband cannot be faulted for his beliefs or the methods he uses in practicing his religion, if sacrifices must be made in order for him to meet the obligations of his belief, the children of his former marriage should not be required to suffer the consequences.

We conclude that the circumstances as to the children’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay, which have existed since entry of the decree, do not justify a reduction in the child support payments. Accordingly the order modifying the decree is reversed insofar as it reduced the child support payments to $125 per month per child.

Affirmed as modified. No costs to either party.
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# Wniteb**~tate~** 

# ([ourtof**§ppeaI~** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI ([ircuit

SANDRA SUTTON, Petitioner, 

### v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

2010·3147 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Boardin case no. CHB44E090B13-I-1. ONMOTION

ORDER Upon consideration of Sandra Sutton's motion for a 14-day extension oftime, until November 19, 2010, to file her reply brief, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted.SUTTON v. MSPB 

## NOV 82010 Date

cc: Sandra Sutton Sara B. Rearden, Esq. s21 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 2



### FILED U.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

## NOV 08 2010

JAN HORBALY CLERK
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1988 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 319
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1988

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2017

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

                           February 15, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Merle Haggard 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MERLE HAGGARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Merle Haggard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Merle 
Haggard Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 319

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1988

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Merle Haggard 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 15, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffRASCAL 4.0: Description of Models and Methods

# RASCAL 4.3: Description of Models and Methods (NUREG-1940, Supplement 1)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1940, Supplement 1 (PDF - 3.30 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** February 2015**Date Published:** May 2015

**Prepared by:** J. V. Ramsdell, Jr.1 G. F. Athey2 J. P. Rishel3

1Ramsdell Environmental Consulting 13106 184th Avenue, NE Redmond, WA 98052-2103

2Athey Consulting P.O. Box 178 Charles Town, WV 25414-0178

3Pacific Northwest National Laboratory P.O. Box 999 Richland, WA 99352

John Tomon, RES Technical Monitor/Contracting Officer’s Representative Anthony Huffert, RES Technical Monitor Jeff Kowalczik, NSIR Technical Monitor

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

RASCAL 4.3 contains a number of new features and revision of several old features in response to the lessons learned by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff during its response to the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants following the March 11, 2011 earthquake off the coast of Japan and the tsunami that it triggered. This document is a supplement to NUREG-1940, “RASCAL 4: Description of Models and Methods,” which is the technical basis for the models and methods used in the RASCAL computer code versions 4.0, 4.1 and 4.2. This supplement contains the technical basis for changes and additions to RASCAL implemented in versions RASCAL 4.3 and 4.3.1. Additionally, Appendix A provides errata information for NUREG-1940.

RASCAL 4.3 adds a long-term station blackout source term (LTSBO) model based on the results of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequences Analyses (SOARCA) study. It extends the RASCAL domain to 100 miles, increases the allowed calculation duration to 96 hours, and it adds a child thyroid dose calculation. RASCAL 4.3 includes new features to acquire meteorological data from the Internet, to calculate custom radionuclide inventories for reactor cores and spent fuel, to display a radionuclide activity balance within the power plant components and atmosphere, and to sort and display the radionuclides released to the atmosphere by importance to dose pathways. RASCAL 4.3 also adds the capability to import, merge, and export source terms. Improvements include revision of the pressure-hole size method of calculating the leak rate from containment and revision of the calculation of spent fuel source terms.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
# C_2004218EN.01000201.xml

| 31.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/2

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3530 — TELIASONERA AB/ORANGE A/S)

(2004/C 218/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 20 August 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking TeliaSonera AB (‘TeliaSonera’, Sweden) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Orange A/S (‘Orange A/S’, Denmark) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 20 August 2004, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking TeliaSonera AB (‘TeliaSonera’, Sweden) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Orange A/S (‘Orange A/S’, Denmark) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for TeliaSonera: telecommunication company active in the Nordic area, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for TeliaSonera: telecommunication company active in the Nordic area,

| — | for Orange A/S: mobile telecommunication in Denmark. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Orange A/S: mobile telecommunication in Denmark.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No +32/2/2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3530 — TeliaSonera AB/Orange A/S, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No +32/2/2964301 or 2967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3530 — TeliaSonera AB/Orange A/S, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2086 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive the individual mandate 

in areas with no Exchange plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2017 

Mrs. BLACKBURN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to waive 

the individual mandate in areas with no Exchange plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Coverage, No Pen5 alty Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IN AREAS WITH 

7 NO EXCHANGE PLANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5000A(d)(1) of the Inter9 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or (4)’’ 

10 and inserting ‘‘(4), or (5)’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2086 IH

1 (b) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN EXEMPTED AREAS.— 

2 Section 5000A(d) of such Code is amended by adding at 

3 the end the following new paragraph: 

4 ‘‘(5) INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN EXEMPTED

5 AREAS.—For purposes of months beginning after 

6 December 31, 2017, such term shall not include an 

7 individual who resides in a rating area or county in 

8 which the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

9 certifies for purposes of this section that no qualified 

10 health plans are offered through an Exchange estab11 lished under Section 1311 of the Patient Protection 

12 and Affordable Care Act.’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to taxable and plan years begin15 ning after December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23



Consent of KPMG LLP





The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Fresh Brands,  Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form S-4 (No. 333-56222), Form S-8 (No. 333-83960) and Form S-3 (No. 333-84230),
of Fresh Brands, Inc. (the "Company") of our reports dated February 24, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of December
29, 2001, December 30, 2000 and January 1, 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, shareholders' investment, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2001, and the related
financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 29, 2001,
annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company.

Our report dated February 24, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that refers
to a restatement of these consolidated financial statements.


/s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
March 27, 2003
Exhibit 11

                                             LCA-VISION INC.
                               Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                                For the Three and Nine Months Ended
                                    September 30, 1996 and 1995
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>                                  

                                                      1996           1995
<S>                                                <C>           <C>
For the Three Months Ended September 30,
Primary Earnings:
     Net income (loss)                             $(1,091,166)  $  337,990
     Pro forma income tax expense                                $  224,227

     Pro forma net income (loss)                   $(1,091,166)  $  113,763

Shares:
     Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                           19,617,821    1,066,837
     Additional shares assuming exercise
       of stock options                                     (a)

     Average common shares and equivalents
       as adjusted                                  19,617,821    1,066,837

     Earnings (loss) per share                     $     (0.06)  $     0.09

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,
Primary Earnings:
     Net income (loss)                             $(2,567,839)  $  750,120
     Pro forma income tax expense                                $  380,836

     Pro forma net income (loss)                   $(2,567,839)  $  369,284

Shares:
     Weighted average number of common shares
       outstanding                                  19,617,821    1,066,837
     Additional shares assuming exercise of 
       stock options                                        (a)

     Average common shares and equivalents 
       as adjusted                                  19,617,821    1,066,837

     Earnings (loss) per share                     $     (0.13)  $     0.35

<FN>
(a)     Net loss per share is based on outstanding common shares.
Assuming exercise of options would be anti-dilutive since
an increase in the number of shares assumed to be outstanding
would reduce the amount of the loss per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>
# C_2004218EN.01000101.xml

| 31.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 218/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 August 2004

(2004/C 218/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2047 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,37 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4358 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6726 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1222 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5409 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,24 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,355 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5774 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,835 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,33 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6554 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4261 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4628 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 968 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,95 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,218 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 825 300 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7187 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5845 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3966 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8496 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0648 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 388,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0772 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2047

JPY

Japanese yen

132,37

DKK

Danish krone

7,4358

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6726

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1222

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5409

ISK

Iceland króna

87,24

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,355

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5774

CZK

Czech koruna

31,835

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,33

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6554

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4261

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4628

ROL

Romanian leu

40 968

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,95

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,218

TRL

Turkish lira

1 825 300

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7187

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5845

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3966

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8496

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0648

KRW

South Korean won

1 388,24

ZAR

South African rand

8,0772

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Argued and submitted August 4,

obligation to pay restitution and attorney fees vacated, remanded for resentencing August 24,

reconsideration denied October 14, petition for review allowed November 8, 1983 (296 Or 56)

See 297 Or 248, 683 P2d 1368 (1984)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RODNEY KEITH ELWOOD, *Appellant.*

(8210 2424; CA A27236)

668 P2d 474

Reían Colley, Corvallis, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Colley & Colley, Corvallis.

Sally Leisure, Special Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*423PER CURIAM

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal mischief. He assigns error to the trial court’s subsequent refusal to permit him to withdraw his guilty pleas. This court has no authority to consider defendant’s contentions in this regard on direct appeal. ORS 138.050; *State v. Clevenger,*64 Or App 183, 667 P2d 9 (1983); *see also State v. Lugo,*48 Or App 919, 618 P2d 986 (1980); *State v. Slopak,*3 Or App 532, 475 P2d 421 (1970); *but see State v. Cornelius,*249 Or 454, 438 P2d 1020 (1968). Defendant’s remedy, if any, lies in post-conviction relief.

Defendant contends, in the alternative, that the trial court erred in imposing requirements of restitution and repayment of the cost of court-appointed counsel, without determining defendant’s present or future ability to pay. The state concedes that the record in this case is not adequate to support a finding that defendant is or will be able to pay restitution and costs. ORS 137.106(2)(a)(b); ORS 161.665(2); *see State v. Smith,*60 Or App 139, 652 P2d 882 (1982).

The part of the judgment imposing on defendant the obligation to pay restitution and attorney fees is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
# Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453) (7/2022) Standard Document(110.22 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453) Overview(358.18 KB)

Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453) CPPE(25.03 KB)

Land Reclamation, Landslide Treatment (No. and Ac) (453) Network Diagram(90.03 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More