alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Buying local made easy - Yellowstone Valley Food Hub   

Copied to clipboard

02.08.2023

The Yellowstone Valley Food Hub (YVFH) is a cooperative of farmers and ranchers that came together three years ago to increase the community's access to local food. It started as an online ordering platform and quickly grew into an enduring business. Today it provides the communities of central and eastern Montana with quality food with delivery and pickup options.  

"We didn't have a warehouse. We didn't even have an office," said Annika Charter-Williams, YVFH founding member as she spoke of the early beginnings of the YVFH. "We would just weekly gather our products at another farm and put people's orders together, and then we'd have drops around Billings."  

At the start of this small business, it used coolers at drop-offs around the local area to store produce. As they grew, they began setting up refrigerators inside businesses, and eventually opened a rented warehouse space. With the help of a USDA Rural Development $36,000 Value-Added Producer Grant, the cooperative was able to lease a bigger space to store their products.  

"Rural Development helped the YVFH to not only expand into a larger warehouse space, but the grant also enabled us to expand our marketing reach and meet demand during our busiest time in the Summer of 2022." Charter-Williams added, "RD also helped the local producers from surrounding rural areas increase their product sales through YFVH."  

The Value-Added Producer Grant program aims to help agricultural producers generate new products, create, expand marketing opportunities, and increase producer income. The grant helped YVFH to explore new marketing opportunities like running an ad on television. YVFH’s motto is “Buying local made easy” and Charter-Williams hopes the future expansions will bring more customers to the cooperative.  

“We really would want to be the first choice of people trying to go out and buy,” she said. “It's just as easy as going to a different chain grocery store as it would be to coming to the food hub.”    

Obligation Amount: 

Year(s) of Obligation: 
2021

Congressional District: 

## Related Story

Browse All Stories →

### Rural Co-op Shines a Light on the Benefits of Solar Energy

[Read More]

06.03.2021

CooperativesRenewable EnergySolar Energy
# C_2010148EN.01005108.xml

| 5.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/51

---

Order of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)

(Case T-26/10) (1)

1

2010/C 148/90

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
### §4304. Disclosure requirements for certain accounts

The Bureau shall require, in regulations which the Bureau shall prescribe, such modification in the disclosure requirements under this chapter relating to annual percentage yield as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter in the case of—

(1) accounts with respect to which determination of annual percentage yield is based on an annual rate of interest that is guaranteed for a period of less than 1 year;

(2) variable rate accounts;

(3) accounts which, pursuant to law, do not guarantee payment of a stated rate;

(4) multiple rate accounts; and

(5) accounts with respect to which determination of annual percentage yield is based on an annual rate of interest that is guaranteed for a stated term.

(Pub. L. 102–242, title II, §265, Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2336; Pub. L. 102–550, title XVI, §1604(e)(2)(A), Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4084; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1100B(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2109.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–203 substituted "Bureau" for "Board" in two places in introductory provisions.

1992—Pub. L. 102–550 made technical amendment to references to "this chapter" wherever appearing to reflect correction of corresponding provision of original act.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–550 effective as if included in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102–242, as of Dec. 19, 1991, see section 1609(a) of Pub. L. 102–550, set out as a note under section 191 of this title.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Exactech, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Joel C. Phillips, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Joel C. Phillips                    
|Joel C. Phillips Chief Financial Officer
|March 15, 2011
#### § 381.98 Official seal.

The official mark for use in sealing means of conveyance used in transporting poultry products under any requirement in this part shall be the inscription and a serial number as shown below, and any seals approved by the Administrator for applying such mark shall be an official device.

[![](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC11SE91.038/EC11SE91.038_large.png)](https://img.federalregister.gov/EC11SE91.038/EC11SE91.038_original_size.png)
§ 590.402 Egg products inspection certificates. ( a ) Upon request of the applicant or the Service, any inspector is authorized to issue an egg products inspection certificate with respect to any lot of egg products inspected by him. In addition, an inspector is authorized to issue an inspection certificate covering product inspected in whole or in part by another inspector when the inspector has knowledge that the product is eligible for certification based on personal examination of the product or official inspection records.
( b ) Each egg products inspection certificate shall show the name and address of the processor, the class and quantity of the egg products covered by such certificate, such shipping marks as are necessary to identify such products, all pertinent information concerning the wholesomeness thereof, and such other information as the Administrator may prescribe or approve.
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**SUBSECTIONS(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE**

Pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers ofCorgenix Medical Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB forthe quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities an ExchangeCommission (the “10-QSB Report”) that:

i.      the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

ii.   the information contained in the10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:    November 19, 2007

**ThisCertification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject tothe knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.**

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request. This written statement shall not be deemed to be “filed” as partof the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB that it accompanies.**
| /s/ Douglass T. Simpson                           |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| President and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                                              |
| /s/ William H. Critchfield                        |   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7366

EZEKIEL C. CROSS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DOMINIC GUTIERREZ; BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CA-04-218)

Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 19, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ezekiel C. Cross, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ezekiel C. Cross, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny as unnecessary Cross’

motion for a certificate of appealability, and we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Cross v. Gutierrez, No. CA04-218 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 18, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 30, 2020

a0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2020

160325

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 160325

COA: 350200

Oakland CC: 2011

- 239290

- FC

MEGAEL T.J. CLEMONS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2019

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors of Solectron Corporation

We consent to incorporation herein by reference our
report dated September 15, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Solectron Corporation and subsidiaries as of August 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, comprehensive income
and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended August 31, 2000, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the August 31, 2000, annual report on
Form 10-K of Solectron Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 2, 2001

---
# C_2007049EN.01000102.xml

| 3.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4343 — Kraft Foods/United Biscuits)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 49/02)

On 25 August 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4343. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4343. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
# C_2010301EN.01006402.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/64

---

Action brought on 10 September 2010 — Colart and Others v Parliament

(Case F-76/10)

()

2010/C 301/104

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philippe Colart (Bastogne, Belgium) and Others (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicants’ correcting pay slips for the period from July to December 2009 and the pay slips issued after 1 January 2010 in the context of the annual adjustment of remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicants’ RG 2009 pay slips (adjustment arrears from July to December 2009), their pay slips of January 2010 and their subsequent pay slips, since those pay slips apply an adjustment rate of 1,85 % instead of 3,70 %, on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, while preserving the effect of those pay slips until the adoption of fresh pay slips which apply correctly Articles 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations (2010 version) |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicants’ RG 2009 pay slips (adjustment arrears from July to December 2009), their pay slips of January 2010 and their subsequent pay slips, since those pay slips apply an adjustment rate of 1,85 % instead of 3,70 %, on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009, while preserving the effect of those pay slips until the adoption of fresh pay slips which apply correctly Articles 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations (2010 version)

| — | Order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7581

ROBERT MILLER LATTIMORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL A. GARRETT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:12-ct-03146-F)

Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Miller Lattimore, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Miller Lattimore appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Following a 

bench trial, this court may reverse a district court’s factual 

findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Roanoke Cement Co. v. 

Falk Corp., 413 F.3d 431, 433 (4th Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a district 

court’s factual finding in a bench trial is based upon assessments 

of witness credibility, such finding is deserving of the highest 

degree of appellate deference.” Evergreen Int’l, S.A. v. Norfolk 

Dredging Co., 531 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court’s 

factual findings, made based on its assessement of the credibility 

of the witnesses, are not clearly erroneous, we affirm those 

findings and the judgment in favor of the defendant.

Accordingly, we deny Lattimore’s motions for appointment of 

counsel and to review the transcript, and his motion to show the 

North Carolina Department of Public Safety violated the sexual 

violence elimination policy. We affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the material before 

this court and argument will not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (ANOPR)

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD):

Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

February 19, 2008

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Program

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards

Washington, DC 20585
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy

by staff members of

Navigant Consulting, Inc., and Lighting Research Center
# C_2013164EN.01002501.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/25

---

Order of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

(Case T-520/10) (1)

1

2013/C 164/42

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.

1

---
§ 310.16 Disposition of lungs. ( a ) Livestock lungs shall not be saved for use as human food.
( b ) Lungs found to be affected with disease or pathology and lungs found to be adulterated with chemical or biological residue shall be condemned and identified as “U.S. Inspected and Condemned.” Condemned lungs may not be saved for pet food or other nonhuman food purposes. They shall be maintained under inspectional control and disposed of in accordance with §§ 314.1 and 314.3 of this subchapter.
( c ) Lungs not condemned under paragraph (b) of this section may be used in the preparation of pet food or for other nonhuman food purposes at the official establishment, provided they are handled in the manner prescribed in § 318.12 of this subchapter, or they may be distributed from the establishment in commerce, or otherwise, in accordance with the conditions prescribed in § 325.8 of this subchapter for nonhuman food purposes or they may be so distributed to pharmaceutical manufacturers for pharmaceutical use in accordance with §§ 314.9 and 325.19(b) of this subchapter, if they are labeled as “Inedible [SPECIES] Lungs—for Pharmaceutical Use Only.” Otherwise, they shall be disposed of at the official establishment, in accordance with §§ 314.1 and 314.3 of this subchapter.
[36 FR 11639, June 17, 1971]
[No. 7918.]

#### ARNOLD, AS MAYOR, V. CAREY.

*Error to Denver District Court.*Hon. Greeley W. Whitford, Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Mr. W. H. Bryant, Mr. J. A. Marsh, and Mr. W. R. Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Henry A. Lindsley, and Mr. Walter E. Schwed, for defendant in error.

*Per Curiam*

En *Banc-.*

The judgment of this court determining the respective questions presented in each of the above causes could not affect the rights of either of the parties thereto at this time, for the reason that the subject matter of controversy in each has long since ceased to exist. An aetual controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction. It is not within the province of an appellate court to decide abstract or hypothetical questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief, or from the determination of which no practical result can follow. *City and County of Denver v. Brown,*47 Colo. 513; *Agricultural Ditch Co. v. Rollins,*42 Colo. 267; *Northern Colorado Co. v. Pouppirt,*47 Colo. 490; *People v. Hall,*45 Colo. 303. Each of the cases fall within this rule, and they are theerfore dismissed.

In causes Nos. 7780 and 7781 the costs in this court and the District Court are taxed to defendants in error.
§ 109.33 May a political party committee assign its coordinated party expenditure authority to another political party committee? ( a ) *Assignment.* The national committee of a political party and a State committee of a political party, including any subordinate committee of a State committee, may assign its authority to make coordinated party expenditures authorized by 11 CFR 109.32 to another political party committee. Such an assignment must be made in writing, must state the amount of the authority assigned, and must be received by the assignee committee before any coordinated party expenditure is made pursuant to the assignment.
( b ) *Compliance.* For purposes of the coordinated party expenditure limits, *State committee* includes a subordinate committee of a State committee and includes a district or local committee to which coordinated party expenditure authority has been assigned. State committees and subordinate State committees and such district or local committees combined shall not exceed the coordinated party expenditure limits set forth in 11 CFR 109.32. The State committee shall administer the limitation in one of the following ways: ( 1 ) The State committee shall be responsible for insuring that the coordinated party expenditures of the entire party organization are within the coordinated party expenditure limits, including receiving reports from any subordinate committee of a State committee or district or local committee making coordinated party expenditures under 11 CFR 109.32, and filing consolidated reports showing all coordinated party expenditures in the State with the Commission; or
( 2 ) Any other method, submitted in advance and approved by the Commission, that permits control over coordinated party expenditures.
( c ) *Recordkeeping.* ( 1 ) A political party committee that assigns its authority to make coordinated party expenditures under this section must maintain the written assignment for at least three years in accordance with 11 CFR 104.14.
( 2 ) A political party committee that is assigned authority to make coordinated party expenditures under this section must maintain the written assignment for at least three years in accordance with 11 CFR 104.14.
[68 FR 451, Jan. 3, 2003, as amended at 69 FR 63920, Nov. 3, 2004]