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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified
Western Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended April 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alfred A. Plamann, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify 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 as of and for the periods presented in the
Report.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 13, 2005



/s/    ALFRED A. PLAMANNAlfred A. PlamannPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2020

1. Modify physical and chemical soil properties through 

leaching, drainage, and/or plant management

Salinity and Sodic Soil Management (610)

I.2. (+) Plant productivity 

and vigor (crops and/or 

forage species)

Initial setting: All land uses 

requiring management to control 

harmful accumulations of salts 

and sodium

D.2 (-) Accumulation of 

harmful salts and sodium at 

soil surface and in root zone

I.1 (+) Potential to 

increase land in 

agricultural production

C.2 (+) Environmental quality

I. 4 (+) Potential for salinity, 

pathogens, and other contaminants 

leaching to ground and surface waters

I.3 (+) Quality and 

palatability of adapted 

forage species 

I.7. (+) Surface and 

ground water quality 

Irrigation Water Management (449)

I.5. (+) Crop production 

and forage for livestock 

I.9 (+) Water use 

efficiency on irrigated 

and nonirrigated lands 

I.8 (+) Net return to producer 

C.1 (+) Farm/ranch profitability

D.1 (+) 

Implementation 

and maintenance 

costs

C.3 (+) Income stability for community

Nutrient Management (590)

I.6. (+) Soil quality 

Start

pathway

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

LEGEND

Note: 

Effects are qualified with a plus (+) 

or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon the 

resource, not whether the effect is 

beneficial or adverse.

Mitigating practice 

Associated practice
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02605]



[[Page 7420]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: February 11, 2015, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD.

STATUS: Commission Meeting (Briefing)--Open to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: Briefing Matter: Final Regulation: Safety 
Standard for Frame Child Carriers.
    The staff will brief the Commission on establishing a mandatory 
safety standard for frame child carriers pursuant to section 104 of the 
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This would incorporate 
the applicable voluntary standard without any modifications. The 
Commission's regulations for Requirements Pertaining to Third Party 
Conformity Assessment Bodies would also change to include the mandatory 
safety standard for frame child carriers in the list of Commission-
issued Notice of Requirements.
    A live webcast of the meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Rockelle Hammond, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02605 Filed 2-6-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
# C_2005093EN.01002301.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/23

---

Removal from the register of Case C-165/02 (1)

1

(2005/C 93/43)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

By order of 7 December 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-165/02: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.

1

---
I 

,, /1:·· 

f 

I 

I 

r 1 1 I I '.-.I 1 ·-'--' 1--'-f..J...J.J.f / ////////,I I I I ,r ,r ,r ,r I Tl 4f I .1 ....... 1# a. 

·"- Approved for Release: 2017 /01 /25 C05096390 \:/I 

TOP SEGRECJ? 

OXCART VAN 11AS SEEN:: 

\"' 

CENTRAL INTEl(2IGENCE AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 28, D. C:~ 

( 

',1 • • . 

. ' ,: . " r r • ... ,j ;''"·"· 

\ 

OFFICE OF THE OIRECfOR . I ·J ' .. · ... ~' ! 1 . '. !. ' 

The Honorable Charles L. Schultze 

Director, Bureau of the Budget 

Washington, D. C. 20503 

Dear Charlie: 

2 0 DEC 1966 

·.· BYE 29Zl-66 

Cop 

Following our 12 December meeting and after examination 

of the draft memorandum .to the President which you handed me 

on 16 Dece1nber, I asked my staff to review the problems involved 

in making the transition from the A-12 to the SR-71. In the process 

·' 

of this review, which is still in progress, new information of 

considerable significance has been brought to my attention. In 

particular, this involved data pertaining to SR-71 altitude and range 

performance which, when compared to the proven capability of the 

A-12, is of real concern to me in attempting to relate the performance 

of the SR-71 to my missions. In addition, as you know, I have misgivings about the electronic warfare systems situation. In view of the 

above, I am reconsidering my previous position and feel that I need 

additional time to sort out and further verify the facts and examine in 

detail comparative mission performance characteristics of the two 

aircraft. 

I appreciate the urgency in getting this problem resolved 

but I am impelled to reassure myself on all aspects of the matter 

before firming my views. I, therefore, propose that we meet after 

1 January to review the pertinent facts and.request you not forward a 

:plemorandum to the President until after our meeting. . I . 

<' 

·.·t, 

... ,·.' 

... ,,• ' • • f ~,. , -~ ', •• 

Sincerely, 

7ri7 Ricnard Helm~ 

Richard Helms 

/. 

OXCART 

. 'f'OP S:SORE':P · 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

~ .' . '(' 

•' · · . Approved for Releas.e: 2017 /01 /25 C05096390 

I" 

. i ',.: : 

.,_.' ;' 

.. 

•' '. '. 

~ " . 

. ,-,• l'. 'l' 

. ;· '.,· ,;-

'1 • . < ,. 

. ) 

, ",• 

( . ~ 

'!., '.
#### C. F. LOWE and wife and others *v.*THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DAVIDSON COUNTY.

When the dissolution of an injunction would be equivalent to a dismissal of the action, if a reasonable doubt exists in the mind of the •Court, whether the equity of the complaint be sufficiently negatived :by the answer, the Court will not dissolve the injunction but continue it to the hearing.

*• (James v. Lemley,*2 Ired. Eq. 278; *Miller*v. Wasliburne, 3 Ired. Eq. cited and approved.)

Civil ACTION, motion to dissolve an injunction, board by his 'Honor, *Gloud, J.,*at the Spring Term, 1873, of DavidsoN •Superior Court.

'Upon the application of the plaintiffs to his Honor, *Judge !Cloud,*at Chambers, an injunction issued to defendants on the -22d of April, 1873, restraining them from selling certain lots *533belonging to the comity, situate in the town of Lexington, and which the Board had ordered to be sold for certain purposes.

The defendants, after due notice, moved, on the 5th of May following, to vacate the order of injunction, which motion liis Honor refused, and continued the restraining order to the hearing. From this decision of his Honor, defendants appealed.

*McCorlcle,*for appellants.

Bailey, contra.

Bysum, J.

The injunctive relief, sought in this action, is not auxiliary to another and main relief, but is the main relief itself, and the object of the action, therefore, the dissolution of the injunction would be equivalent to a dismissal of the action. In such cases where a reasonable doubt exists in the mind of the Court, whether the equity of the complaint is sufficiently negatived by the answer, the Court will not dissolve the injunction, but continue to the hearing. Much must depend upon the sound discretion of the Court to whom the question of dissolution is preferred. *James*v. Lemley, 2 Ired. Eq. 278; *Miller*v. *Washburne,*3 Ired. Eq. 161. In this case the answer does not remove such reasonable doubt, created by the complaint and affidavit, without which removal, according to the principles of this Court, the injunction ought not to be dissolved before the hearing. The novel and important questions raised by the pleadings and ably discussed before ns, do not come up for decision now.

Per CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 9033]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo in Detroit,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan, from on or about March 15, 2015, until on or about July 12, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: February 4, 2015.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-02699 Filed 2-9-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 2427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00538]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Meeting; Sunshine Act

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, January 24, 2014.

PLACE: Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations 
matters. In the event that the times, dates or locations of this or any 
future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along with the 
new time, date and location of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melissa D. Jurgens, 202-418-5516.

Christopher J. Kirkpatrick,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-00538 Filed 1-9-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
IB 

Union Calendar No. 718 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2278 

[Report No. 115–925] 

To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailing Radiation Control 

Act of 1978 relating to the disposal site in Mesa County, Colorado. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2017 

Mr. TIPTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 

Additional sponsor: Ms. DEGETTE

SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on May 1, 2017] 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2278 RH

A BILL 

To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailing 

Radiation Control Act of 1978 relating to the disposal 

site in Mesa County, Colorado. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2278 RH

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 ‘‘Responsible Disposal 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

7 Section 112(a)(1)(B) of the Uranium Mill Tailings 

8 Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7922(a)(1)(B)) 

9 is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2023’’ and inserting 

10 ‘‘September 30, 2048’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to extend the 

authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978 relating to the disposal site in Mesa 

County, Colorado.’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 718 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2278 

[Report No. 115–925] 

A BILL 

To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill 

the disposal site in Mesa County, Colorado. Tailing Radiation Control Act of 1978 relating to 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee 

dered to be printed of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and orVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:56 Sep 07, 2018 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6651 Sfmt 6651 E:\BILLS\H2278.RH H2278

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Anonymous.

A writ cannot be altered from covenant to debt except *by*consent of parties: but it-is usual among practitioners to permit the amendment, when the mistake was occasioned by tlie cleric.

This was an action upon a bond, with condition for the delivery of a specific article. The clerk bad issued the writ in covenant instead of debt, and now *Mr. JYbrwood*moved 'o be at liberty to amend the writ.

*Per curiam*

It has. been the constant rule amongst all1 the practitioners in this State, to amend writs improperly issued by the clerk j but there is no rule of law giving us power to «mend in such cases, without the consent, of’ the party. There is nothing to amend by,, ami the amendment asked for is a very material one — it is to alter the most substantial part of the writ. There is no preceding-act to resort to for proof, that the writs were not intended to be issued in covenant An amendment of this sort *462was once made by Judge Ashe, in Morgan Court, in the case, of *McDaniel*v. *Tate ;*but he declared it should not be drawn into precedent, but that lie allowed the amendment to attain the justice which seemed in that instance most powerfully to demand it. A similar motion was made at Halifax, some terms ago, in the case of v. the executors of *Webb,*arid Judge Mac ay said he could not permit the amendment to be made- The motion was to alter the word “executor” in the writ, and to substitute “administrator of all,” ¡kc.; and he said if the rple prevailed that writs might, be altered in this manner, it might tend to entrap the bail, who perhaps agreed to become bail fiom the circumstance of being apprized that the writ in that form was not maintainable. "We cannot allow of the motion in the present case, but we recommend it to the opposite counsel to agree to the amendment, as it is agreeable to the course of practice for the Defendant’s counsel to agree to such amendments, and as the amendment proposed will put the Defendant under no difficulties with respect to his defence, it being the very same after the amendment as now. Prior to the late decision on sealed instruments without a w it ness, many actions had been brought in case upon them ; and upon the recommendation of the court they were altered bj consent to debt. The Defendant’s counsel would not consent to the amendment, and the suits were dismissed:

*Note.*— Vide note to *Cowper v. Edwards, ante*19.
3091 County Center Drive, Suite 240, Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 745-2330 Fax (530) 745-2373

www.placer.ca.gov/apcd Thomas J. Christofk, Air Pollution Control Officer

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Board of Directors, Placer County Air Pollution Control District

FROM: John Finnell, Senior Air Pollution Control Engineer

AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2009

SUBJECT: Change to Staff Report for Rule 233, Biomass Boilers

EPA has suggested that the staff report include the temperature at which steam flow goes to zero 

and the duration of time needed for this to happen.

The temperature is approximately 750 degrees F. This information is in the staff report. The 

time to drop from normal operating temperature to this level and for steam flow to go to zero is 

approximately 2 to 5 hours. 

Page 3, paragraph 3 of the Staff Report should be amended to read as follows with the additional 

wording underlined:

The steam flow was chosen instead of temperature because steam flow is more indicative of the 

operational condition of the boilers with regard to the end of a shutdown versus a temperature 

measurement. In addition, because steam flow is likely to cease, within 2 to 5 hours, and before 

any likely temperature threshold that might be used to indicate a shutdown condition such as 150 

degrees Fahrenheit or a “cold” shutdown at ambient temperature, the period of time defined as a 

shutdown using a zero steam flow threshold versus a temperature threshold is shortened. For 

example, Rio Bravo indicates that steam flow goes to zero at a boiler temperature of 

approximately 750 degrees F. At that time the biomass fuel is completely consumed and 

emissions are negligible. (See Attachment #4: Memo from Rio Bravo.) Therefore using zero 

steam flow to denote the end of a shutdown effectively reduces the possible period of time 

during which alternative emission limits for shutdown may be used. In addition, the alternative 

emission limits proposed for shutdowns are only effective when the CO2 level is reduced to 

below 10% due to the shutdown conditions of reduced combustion.
SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE

                           UNITED MERIDIAN CORPORATION

                       1987 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN

         WHEREAS, OCEAN ENERGY, INC. (the "Company"), as successor to UNITED
MERIDIAN CORPORATION, has heretofore adopted the UNITED MERIDIAN
CORPORATION 1987 NONQUALFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN (the "Plan"); and

         WHEREAS,  Section 7 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of
the Company may amend the Plan at any time;

         NOW, THEREFORE,  the Plan shall be amended as follows,  effective as of
February 1, 1999:

         1. Section 4(f)(1) of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall
be substituted therefor:

                  "(1) In the event that  optionee  terminates  or is terminated
         from his  relationship  with the  Company and its  Affiliates,  and the
         provisions  of Sections  4(f)(2),  4(f)(3)  and 4(i) do not apply,  the
         options  granted to optionee  pursuant to this Plan may be exercised to
         the extent the optionee was entitled to exercise the option immediately
         prior to such  termination,  at any time  within  ninety  days (or such
         greater period as the Committee may  determine)  after the date of such
         termination (if otherwise within the option period)."

         2. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

         EXECUTED this               day of                            , 1999.

                               OCEAN ENERGY, INC.

                                                     By:
                                                     Name:

                                     Title:

                                 SIXTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE

                           UNITED MERIDIAN CORPORATION
                       1987 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN

                  WHEREAS,  there is reserved to the Board of  Directors  of the
Company in Section 7 of the United Meridian  Corporation 1987 Nonqualified Stock
Option Plan (the "Plan") the right to amend the Plan;

                  NOW, THEREFORE,  as of the effective date of the Ocean Energy,
Inc. 1998 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

         1.       Section 2 is amended to read as follows:

                  "Notwithstanding  anything  in the  Plan to the  contrary,  no
                  options or other  awards  may be granted  under the Plan on or
                  after the effective date of this Sixth Amendment."

                  Except as  amended  by this  Sixth  Amendment,  the Plan shall
                  continue without interruption or change.

                  Dated: March 27, 1998