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

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE er, ~. DECLASSIFIED BY: ,C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

,\ 

. ~' :l3~ . fVDlSrilBUTION 

i 

ZCLCXQA82 66AA 751 

liR_KUXQAA 

J£ ~UXQBAA 353 .2711945 

ZNYXXXXX SS;) 

k 1419.1bZ 

oT 

itHIG 

....... :.;.:.,-.~ .. :;: .... ~ 

~ ~ , ~ i T 14191GZ AUG 12 CITE CHARG~ 439~. 

~H IG 

St: c" . .' FOK~FROM- '. 

1. ~Ii'ING ~ UNDER SEAS TECHiiOLOGY, PA 

JUL Y 72, IS QUOT EO dEL Oil f OR YOUR I NIERE S.T • 2~ "T~IESTE RECOVERS ELECTRONICS PACKAGE FROM 16,40& FT ~INCE OCTOBER 1971, THE 3ATHYSCAPH TrllESTE AND TWO SUPP 

SAFS5 

DrMclvcas 

DrNaka 

$S-l 

55-2 

SS-3 

SS-4 

55-5 

SS-7 

S5-. 

COMP 

SS-l/RF 

RD-21RF 

EllI25. 

-",---'"lOP til' I ,. 

VESSELS HAVEQEEN WORKING AS AN INTEGRATED oPERATING U~IT IN A MA~NEDUNOERWATER SEARCH AND RECOVERY OPERATION TO LOCATE AND 

~ECOVEH A SMALL ELECTRONICS PACKAGE ATA DEPTH Of 16,400 fT~ 4a8 

MILES NORTH Of HA~AII. THE SUPPORT VESSELS ARE THE USS APACHE' 

AN G 'N rl I T E SAN 0 s. 

IN APRtL, ON THE THIRD DIVE, THE TEAM RECOVERED THE PACKAGE. 

THIS IS THE OEEPESTRECOVERY ATTEMPT BY THE U.S. AND THOUGHT TO 

BE TRE DEEPESi OPERATION Of ITS KIND EVER SUCCESSfULLY" . , ~CO~PLISHEO IN THE ~ORLD~ BAD UEATHER FORCED RETURN TO PEARL 

PAGE 2 CHAkGE ~39i & E eRE T 

iiAkdOk ON THREE OCCASIONS IN THE COURSE Of THE EIGHT-MO~TH 

OPERATION. . ON THE SUCCESSFUL GIVE, TRfESTE WAS MANNED BY NAVY HYDRONAUTS 

LeOR. MAL BARTELS, LeDR. PHILLIP STRYKER, AND LT. DICK TAYLOR, 

.ITH leOR. 6AkTELS COMMANDING. LeOR. C.~. HUOl9URGH COMMANDS 

THE WHITE SANDS, ANOLT. M.D. SAKER COMMANDS THE tiss APACHE. 

THE G ROUP \~ORKS 0 I R£ CTL Y fOR COMMA iOER S'UBMAR I NE oEVEL nPME NT, 

GROUP ONE IN SAN DIEGO." ~ 

&E8ftET 

BT 

ICRET 

A 1 

./ 

I 

I 

.",. 

, 

I 

__ I -1 

.-" ' •.... , .. , ;:, 

L 

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-2000
<CASH>                                         25,915
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    26,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               289,425
<PP&E>                                         4,713,301
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,414,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,812,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          335,072
<BONDS>                                        1,073,104
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    50
<COMMON>                                       16,961
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,077,981
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,812,729
<SALES>                                        743,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               743,586
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  401,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,526
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             57,850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                260,949
<INCOME-TAX>                                   114,609
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            146,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   146,340
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.83



</TABLE>
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




[RENEGY LETTERHEAD]




October 1, 2008




Hugh W. Smith

60 E. Rio Salado Parkway

Suite 1012

Tempe, Arizona 85281





	 	Re:  	 	Appointment as President; Amendment of your Employment Agreement dated August 14, 2008




Dear Hugh:




     This letter agreement is intended to formalize your appointment as President of Renegy
Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and amend certain provisions and to clarify and confirm our mutual
understanding concerning certain aspects of your Employment Agreement, dated August 14, 2008,
between you and the Company (your “Employment Agreement”).



     Your appointment as President of the Company shall be effective October 1, 2008. You shall
continue to serve as Chief Operating Officer of the Company in accordance with the terms of your
Employment Agreement.



     Section 1 of your Employment Agreement shall be deemed amended to reflect your employment with
the Company as both the President and Chief Operating Officer. However, you agree and acknowledge
that Section 6(b) of your Employment Agreement shall not be amended by this letter agreement and
the definition of “Good Reason” as defined in such Section shall continue to apply solely with
respect to the position of Chief Operating Officer and the duties associated with such position.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Company’s failure to reappoint you as President, the Company’s
removal of you from such position or any reduction by the Company of your responsibilities
associated with such position in the future shall not constitute Good Reason under your Employment
Agreement.



     Except as described in the above amendments, this letter agreement does not change your
Employment Agreement in any way. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning
ascribed thereto in the Employment Agreement.



     This instrument may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.



[Signature Page Follows]




 









 










     Please confirm you understanding and agreement to the above by signing in the place indicated
below.



Very truly yours,




RENEGY HOLDINGS, INC.





/s/ Robert M. Worsley

Name: Robert M. Worsley

Title: Chief Executive Officer



Agreed and Accepted:



/s/ Hugh W. Smith

Hugh W. Smith
*December 7, 1937.*

#### Estate of Wegner: Thiede, Appellant, vs. Meffert, Administratrix, and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *H. A. Schmidt*of Lake Mills.

For the respondents: *Robert P. Ferry*and *William E. Kiessling,*both of Lake Mills.

*By. the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### Davis and another, Executors, Respondents, vs. Cousins, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Frcmley •& Stolts,*attorneys, and *W. H. Frawley, Jr.,*of counsel, all of Eau Claire.

For the respondents: *Bundy, Beach & Holland*of Eau Claire.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2516

BEULAH R. WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-340) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beulah R. Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hannah Lauck, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Beulah R. Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Watson’s failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge advised Watson that failure to file timely objections to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Watson failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Watson has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
SERVED: March 21,2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CHRISTOPHER McCANN 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0405 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER REASSIGNlNG PROCEEDING 

t· ·." 

"'- . I.: 

. '! .• :~ ~/ ·,_ :_ .. 

L !.:;-.. 

Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin has transferred to the Food and Drug 

Administration. Accordingly, this proceeding is hereby reassigned from Judge Goodwin to 

Administrative Law Judge Douglas M. Rawald. Any dates set for hearing or prehearing 

conference are suspended until further notice. All other orders remain in full force and effect 

absent further order. 

SOOR.DERED. 

Attachment-Service List 
SERVICE LIST - BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Christopher McCann, Respondent 

109 4th Avenue North 

Sartell, MN 56377 

ONE COPY 

Jonathan C. Bringewatt, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel (AGL-7J) 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

DESK: 847-294-7063 

MAIN: 847-294-7313 

·FAX: 847-294-7498 

EMAIL: jonathan.bringewatt@faa.gov 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey A venue, S.E. (E 11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5 I 21 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0405 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W I 000, Washington, 

DC 2059 I; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
--TOP-SECREF

IS* NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

•

OFFICE Or THE DIRECTOR June 27, 1972

Dear Dr. Lukasik:

Since our January 19th meeting, members of our staffs

have been working together to investigate the feasibility

and mechanics of mutual cooperation in those areas of our

research programs which have similar goals. We have

identified several technology areas and specific projects

which are of interest to the NRP. We would encourage ARPA

carrying on work in these areas, with the understanding

that, if proven feasible, the NRO would endeavor to assume

responsibility for further work at an appropriate point

in the development cycle. We would propose that goals and

specifications for each project be established at the outset through coordination between NRO and ARPA, and that

close liaison be maintained throughout the projects.

We realize that security is a potential problem in

undertaking such cooperative efforts. However, we are

convinced that security is a poor argument for two government agencies spending taxpayers' dollars on nearly duplicate

technology efforts. We are also convinced that, with proper

safeguards and the genuine efforts of the people involved,

we can profitably conduct cooperative programs without

breaching necessary security. Accordingly, we propose the

following operating principles to minimize security problems:

ARPA will conduct n antracts, but

will protect projects within norms ty channels as

appropriate.

The general areas of mutual interest are

areas of technology, or are concerned with development of

specific devices.

c. System design and development, sensor integre rdware procurement and similar tasks, which must

b

niiiillifwill be performed by the NRO.

-TOPIECREF--

gaCulOCIO clog 44101/1114

SOS IMIlleCtsvt SEGO 10 0010 got •M.?
d. Liaison and coordinationn between ARPA and

the NRO will be performed b leered personnel.

My Staff has. prepared a list (attached) of projects in

any of which we would welcome ARPA interest. We realize

that notall of the projects can be undertaken at once, but

feel that a good start could be made this year on those

which are of the most interest to ARPA.

Attachment

n . Mt as Delete This li

Dr. Stephen J. Lukasik

Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency

1400 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, Virginia 22209

—TOVSECRET-- 111;11111k.„2„ Co., Min

tacuseta row. weGoatr∎S 09 .... 6

90C 00f Cen I 111C0 I1301C 993 aveo,
# C_2005132EN.01003301.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/33

---

Action brought on 26 March 2005 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-134/05)

(2005/C 132/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 2005 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Jean-Pierre Buyle and Christophe Steyaert, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of 19 January 2005, insofar as it states that ‘former ESF claims’ are not time-barred and, where appropriate, insofar as it states that such claims give rise to default interest calculated on the basis of Article 86 of Regulation No 2342/2202/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of 19 January 2005, insofar as it states that ‘former ESF claims’ are not time-barred and, where appropriate, insofar as it states that such claims give rise to default interest calculated on the basis of Article 86 of Regulation No 2342/2202/EC;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

From 1987 to 1992 the Commission asked the applicant to repay certain sums paid out of the European Social Fund (ESF) and transferred by the Commission directly to various Belgian bodies acting as promoters but not used by them in accordance with the rules relating to the ESF.

In 2004 the Commission set off certain sums payable by the applicant by virtue of its former claims against claims the applicant had against the Commission. Following that setting off, the applicant sent several letters to the Commission to which the Commission replied by the contested decision, stating that the former claims were not time-barred, contrary to the contention of the applicant.

In support of its application the applicant submits that the claims at issue are time-barred pursuant to Article 3.1 of Regulation No 2988/95/EC or, in the alternative, pursuant to the provisions of Belgian law, applicable here pursuant to Article 2.4 of Regulation No 2988/95/EC.

The applicant also disputes the charging by the Commission of default interest. According to the applicant there are specific rules on the subject, namely in Regulation No 1865/90/EEC and Regulation No 448/2001/EC, derogating from Article 86 of 2342/2002/EC which is relied on by the Commission to justify the imposition of default interest. The applicant submits that those specific rules do not provide for the imposition of default interest in respect of ESF action decided on before 6 July 1990 and, therefore, the Commission cannot claim default interest on the claims in question.

---
IN EQUITY.

#### Ashe *v.*Moore et al

From New-Hanover.

.Every order made in the progress of a cause, may be rescinded or modified, upon a proper case being made out.

The bill in this case was filed in 1804, and was demurred to. The demurrer was overruled, and the Defendants ordered to answer by the Supreme Court: and at *384November term, 1806, the records of New-Hanover Court of Equity, stated that the cause was set for hearing, with leave to take testimony : the cause was continued thereafter until April term, 1817, when the record stated that it was set for hearing; and at April term, 1818, it was ordered, “upon reading the affidavit of William Watts Jones Esq. complainant’s solicitor, ordered, that this cause be continued; and that the order setting the same for hearing be set aside, and leave given to take testimony.” From that part of the order giving leave to take testimony, Defendant appealed to this Court.

Tayuor, Chief-Justice.

Every order made in the progress of a cause may be rescinded or modified, upon a proper case being made out. The affidavit laid before the presiding Judge appears to have been sufficient to warrant the order appealed from.
• 1 5

73"

t4e1c-C,. .

-8ed

11 1111 LEfilitill

Sik 102

MICM0111111111111 FIR MI. 116001111

IMIAICIrs Mind Ruttarit sum Wise

•

,* • • • rellsolog 4 ea ow bokedloWslas tliks alassisg seaway

her. Ildstiserips 111111.es awriesallasd Mr 6. ISA, ea the sbovir•

emideole I apse Viet see ray te mho arm eatisliteteep

deemesetry beeisa be As MO. so reeesumerleti by the lunar

Iistall is Ws Mr MA repeat la the Pawkiest. woad he Se add to

Ihe DOWCIA agroessest at May as IOU, pesessisag, issainpossais

solroasse ado 611•814 pasesompi Sam tie dust ember Wed

Is yes d lossary I?.

• I. the Diseetee ell CINISIMI INOMMessise aM the Sherefory

a/ lialmes Wig Ms* Swift pallor aM pefters

arid aumosiolal dIseoloss O W MA The issavvy

Weer" seties ea Illisesabe Aare bet Ohs Depesteeese

lishaa• aM the Csatral UIis. Apo", will seerage.

epeeeht sad saelosh) the easerity et the IIRP is easy/raw

with Or jeiet lesisiesed Ole Meets, et Ceetrud irelliesee

1111111 Ilesesttey d1121aram "

if

•

1 aims AIM skst Oitmes% evandele wo 04 ass tavelish le the Miles

F ilissegs sow eg aidoest Ole &maim as So addest of ear My a.

$%$. sipesommt. This dtioNese le past at dr etesettere reppeetkys

.11; dr IR&

Le pre segjeeteil• it weeld be will It yaw Cianesal Cesseel aM

Mr. Mile Ilsrattio ear utivessir he Orgiugastionsi aM ilseagommiat

Ilibeslet6 jakalr pitapased a aopplamert to do May a. VAL agreerat shish issuld be sospoeire Or Mies Dees*. epees aM

saki we soda nem le is the report ishieh gm sire seqpihred le ilavaiek

Os PeeeMeet sad te Deese by liartarrhor IS, !Mkt

•

lbelsosse

DNA Ilisatike •

111-11101. 414 MHO&

we Dr. Cher*

a,
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2009, 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, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 Company as of and for the
periods presented in the Report.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 11, 2009



/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.
# Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443).

## 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)

Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443) (7/2022) Standard Document(116.71 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443) Overview(330.74 KB)

Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443) CPPE(26.09 KB)

Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (Ac.) (443) Network Diagram(76.89 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