alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 21


                                  SUBSIDIARIES

A.       DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES
                                                             Jurisdiction of
Name                                                          Incorporation
----                                                          -------------

(1)      Simmons International Holding Company, Inc.         New York

(2)      Gallery Corp.                                       Delaware

B.       FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES

                                                             Jurisdiction of
Name                                                          Incorporation
----                                                          -------------

(1)      Simmons Caribbean Bedding, Inc.                     Puerto Rico

(2)      INFO Establishment                                  Liechtenstein

(3)      Simmons I.P., Inc.                                  Ontario

(4)      688363 Ontario Limited                              Ontario

(5)      897701 Ontario Limited                              Ontario

(6)      Simmons International Ltd.                          Bahamas


                                       68
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76

34 36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000
18 12 06 00 07/11 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0508

_________________

B.D., a minor, by and through her parents and

guardians ad litem, JASON and KELLY DEMING

and JASON DEMING and KELLY DEMING, 

Individually,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

MARK HIRAM DEMING,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to Mark Hiram Deming, to all counsel 

of record, and to the Honorable Olivia C. Rieger, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 1 2020

07/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0508
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS OF LTI HOLDINGS, INC., AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          70,903
<SECURITIES>                                 1,695,778
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,774,911
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,774,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          178,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        27,751
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,569,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,774,911
<SALES>                                        553,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               553,002
<CGS>                                          399,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               951,432
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,040,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,040,291)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.37)


</TABLE>
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Composting Facility, Heavy Use Area Protection, Waste Storage Facility.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Model Abstraction Techniques for Soil-Water Flow and Transport (NUREG/CR-6884)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6884 (PDF - 7.04 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**September 2005**Date Published:**December 2006

**Prepared by:** Y.A. Pachepsky Environmental Microbial Safety Laboratory Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Beltsville, Maryland 20705

M.T. Van Genuchten George E. Brown Jr. Salinity Laboratory Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Riverside, California 92705

A.K. Guber, J. Simunek, M.G. Schaap Department of Environmental Sciences University of California Riverside Riverside, California 92521 

T.J. Nicholson, R.E Cady Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission****Washington, DC 20555-0001

T.J. Nicholson, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6724 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report describes the methodology of model abstraction in subsurface hydrology. Model abstraction is defined as the methodology for reducing the complexity of a simulation model while maintaining the validity of the simulation results with respect to the question that the simulation is being used to address. The need in model abstraction may stem from the need to improve the reliability and reduce uncertainty of simulations, to make the modeling and its results more explicable and transparent to the end users, and to enable more efficient use of available resources in data collection and computations. A comprehensive review of model simplification techniques developed in subsurface hydrology is included. Abstractions of both model structure and model parameter determination are described. A systematic and objective approach to model abstraction is outlined. A case study is presented that is designed to illustrate how model abstraction can affect performance assessment of contaminant migration at a relatively humid site. Although the model abstraction methodology is generic, it is designed to be of practical use to NRC licensing staff in their review of the performance assessment of decommissioning sites and waste disposal facilities. The model abstraction process provides a systematic approach to understand the adequacy of model simplification, and facilitates communication and transparency of the model to regulators, stakeholders, and the general public.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
First Amendment to  Fifth Amended and Restated Key Employee Protection Plan
 Whereas Corporation Existing Plan
 Whereas Board
 Whereas Amendment
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Section 2.02 of the Existing Plan
 x plus y plus z Payment
Date Severance Amount times provided, however x y




---



##### 



z
 Further Amendment of Section 2.02 of the Existing Plan
 x y z
 Amendment of Section 2.03 of the Existing Plan
 provided, however
 Amendment of Section 2.05 of the Existing Plan
  -2-




---



##### 



Amendment of Article II of the Existing Plan
 Compliance With Section 409A of the Code Termination of
Employment separation from service specified employee
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect
 Severability
 Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The
United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance
 -3-




---



##### 



With, and
the Rights of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of Texas, Without
Reference to Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc.Printed Name:Title: -4-
# Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374).

## 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)

Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374) (7/2021) Standard Document(763.73 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374) Overview(429.21 KB)

Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374) CPPE(24.19 KB)

Energy Efficient Agricultural Operation (No.) (374) Network Diagram(80.95 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
# C_2004284EN.01000302.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 23 September 2004

in Case C-107/03 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Three-dimensional soap-bar shape - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Distinctiveness)

(2004/C 284/06)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-107/03 P: appeal brought on 27 February 2003 under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati (United States), (lawyer: T. van Innis) the other party to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and I. de Medrano Caballero) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21 June 2003.

1

---
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-1459 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
v . ADAM A. STONE, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on August 5, 2009, is amended as follows: On page 13, footnote 7, line 6, delete the quotation mark between "15" and "and".
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter
63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of SRI on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of SRI.



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 24, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher S. Carlton           
|                     |  |     |  | Christopher A. Carlton               
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |     |  |                                               
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: March 24, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz                           
|                     |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz                               
|                     |  |     |  | Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
----

Appeal brought on 10 August 2004 by the Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V., Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG and Geschäftsführer Jürgen Schmoldt against the order made on 25 May 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/03 between (i) Jürgen Schmoldt, Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V. and (ii) the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-342/04 P)

(2004/C 262/30)

An appeal against the order made on 25 May 2004 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/03 between (i) Jürgen Schmoldt, Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V. and (ii) the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 August 2004 by the Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V., Kaefer Isoliertechnik GmbH & Co. KG and Geschäftsführer [manager] Jürgen Schmoldt, represented by Prof. Hans-Peter Schneider, Rominteweg 3, D-30559 Hanover.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance, the appellants are individually concerned by the Commission decision contested in the main proceedings.

The appellants put forward eight grounds of appeal.

----
#### Archibald McEachin et al. *v.*William C. McFarland et al.

From Richmond,

A levy upon land under a Justice’s judgment, mad? more than three months after the date of the execution, being void, *&sd. fa.*against heirs founded on it was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the executors of *Duncan McFarland,*before a Magistrate, who found the plea of fully administered, in favor of the Defendants. An execution on this judgment issued on the 6th of February, 1826, which was renewed on the 8th of July following. On the 15th of January, 1827, the renewed execution was levied upon the land which had descended to the heirs of *Duncan McFarland,*(the present Defendants,) who were brought into Court by writ of *scire facias,*under the act of 1791, *fRev. ch.*352. J On the last circuit, his honor Judge Norwood dismissed the *sci.fa.*on account of the irregularity in the levy, and the Plaintiffs appealed.

No Counsel appeared for either party in this Court.

Hard, Judge.

The act of 1803, *(Rev. ch. 627,J*directs that all executions issued by a Justice of the Peace, shall be made returnable within three months, and that in case it is not discharged, another execution shall be issued for what appears to be due. The execution in this case was renewed on the 8th of July, 1826,* but it was not only not returned in three months, but it was executed after their expiration, viz. on the 15th day of January, 1827, more than six months after it had issued. I therefore think the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.

Per Curiam, — Judgment affirmed'.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02736]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-6-2015]


Foreign-Trade Zone 27; Boston, Massachusetts; Application for 
Subzone Spectro Coating Corporation d/b/a Claremont Flock, LLC; 
Leominster, Massachusetts

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Massachusetts Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 27, 
requesting subzone status for the facility of Spectro Coating 
Corporation d/b/a Claremont Flock, LLC, located in Leominster, 
Massachusetts. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions 
of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the 
regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally 
docketed on February 3, 2015.
    The proposed subzone (14.45 acres) is located at 107 Scott Drive, 
Leominster, Massachusetts. A notification of proposed production 
activity has been submitted and will be published separately for public 
comment.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the FTZ Board.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is March 23, 2015. 
Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to April 6, 2015.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3873594c50545d5d56167a57415b5d784c4a595c5d165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5912382d31353c3c37771b36203a3c192d2b383d3c773e362f">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02736 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2004273EN.01001501.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/15

---

Action brought on 30 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-371/04)

(2004/C 273/28)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gérard Rozet and Antonio Aresu, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not taking account of the professional experience and seniority acquired in another Member State by a Community worker employed in the Italian public service, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 EC and 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not taking account of the professional experience and seniority acquired in another Member State by a Community worker employed in the Italian public service, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10 EC and 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1);

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Commission received complaints that, in calculating the appropriate professional remuneration, the relevant Italian authorities refused to take account of the professional experience or seniority which the complainants had acquired in another Member State.

In the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Commission finds that the principle of equal treatment of Community workers laid down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68 must be interpreted as meaning that the earlier periods of comparable occupation, acquired by Community workers in the public sector of another Member State, must be taken into consideration by the Italian administration in calculating the appropriate professional remuneration as if it were experience acquired in the Italian system.

The Commission therefore finds that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68.

The Commission also finds that the fact that the Italian authorities failed to reply to its requests for information has made more difficult the achievement of the Commission's tasks under the Treaty, in breach of the duty of cooperation under Article 10 EC.

---

(1)  OJ, English special edition, Series I 1968(II) p. 475.

1

---
# CA2004184EN.01000101.xml

| 17.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 184/1

---

NOTICE OF VACANCY

NOTICE OF VACANCY

(Ref. A/014)

Ref. A/014

DIRECTOR-GENERAL

DIRECTOR-GENERAL

(2004/C 184 A/01)

The General Secretariat of the Council intends to recruit a Director-General for Directorate-General H — Justice and Home Affairs.

More information (available in English and French) and application forms may be obtained by contacting the Selection and Recruitment Department, by e-mail to: service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int, or on its website at the following address: http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Deadline: 3 September 2004, the postmark serving as proof.

---
#### Stanbury, Respondent, vs. Barbo, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Curran & Sher*of Superior.

For the respondent: *Donald A. Rock,*attorney, and *Dietrich & Daley*of counsel, all of Superior.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.