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

Senior nutrition program services are proven to 

make a difference in the lives of the homebound 

elderly and persons with disabilities. Yet, senior 

nutrition programs are being faced with challenges 

that prevent them from serving seniors who are in 

most need of these services. Recent reports suggest 

that funding limitations and rising operations costs 

result in senior nutrition programs modifying the 

services they offer and reducing staffing, operating 

timeframes and meal delivery modalities. 

Several key factors challenge the 

smooth operation of senior nutrition 

programs. These include: 

1. Decreased revenues from donations

2. Decreased funding from federal and state 

 governments

3. Increased food costs

4. Competition from for-profit meal delivery 

 programs

Opportunity: Shared use kitchens

Local senior nutrition programs are encouraged 

to pursue entrepreneurial enterprises to build 

diverse and sustainable funding sources. Senior 

nutrition programs can rent their cooking facilities 

on a part-time basis when kitchens are not in use 

(during the kitchen’s off days, on weekends and 

during off-hours) to food entrepreneurs needing 

a place to prepare food products. 

What are shared use kitchens?

Shared kitchens or food incubators are legally 

licensed commercial kitchens used by local food 

entrepreneurs, caterers, food truck operators, 

and others who produce value-added food 

products without having to invest in owning and 

operating a commercial kitchen. The popularity 

of these ventures is the result of an increased 

interest in locally sourced and produced food 

products, the growing shared economy, and the 

popularity of entrepreneurship.

Benefits of shared kitchens

In addition to providing a source of revenue, 

shared kitchens provide benefits to the 

community and may also increase the 

visibility of a senior nutrition program. Shared 

kitchens support local farms, assist community 

entrepreneurs, build economic opportunities, 

create jobs, and can assist in revitalizing 

communities. Providing space for food 

entrepreneurs is an especially valuable resource 

in rural areas that have limited commercial food 

preparation facilities. 

A word to the wise

Prior to embarking on a shared kitchen endeavor, 

senior nutrition programs need to research the 

needs of local food businesses in their local area 

looking for rental space. To gain more insight 

into the advantages of shared kitchens and 

critical business planning steps that all senior 

nutrition programs need to keep in mind, visit 

https://nutritionandaging.org/briefs/ to access the 

Extended Brief.

Maximizing the Use of Commercial Kitchens for 

Senior Nutrition Programs

The National

Resource Center on

Nutrition & Aging

1

Summary Brief

Written by: BJ Friedman, PhD, RDN, LD. Commissioned by the NRCNA.

Reference: Colpaart, Ashley M., Grahn, Wendy, & Seymour, Devon. (2017). Shared-use Kitchens: A Policy Landscape Report. 

Fort Collins, CO: The Food Corridor. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6KNb3JpFJl8TlY1dmZMd0haNzg/view.

Accessed 3/12/2019.
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 of MotivNation Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George Lefevre,
      CEO of the Company, 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
      the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:




(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 result of operations of the Company.









Dated:
      November 3, 2006     By:
      ____________________________________


George
      Lefevre CEO
**EXHIBIT 10.2****AKORN, INC. DIRECTOR COMPENSATION AGREEMENT**     On October 24, 2006, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”), votedunanimously by means of a written consent effective as of October 26, 2006: (i) that effectiveJanuary 1, 2007 Akorn award 20,000 stock options to each then-serving director of Akorn, other thanthe Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Akorn, in recognition of their service in 2006, with2/3 of such options vesting at issuance (January 1, 2007) and the remainder vesting on January 1,2008; (ii) effective as of January 1, 2007 and for the 2007 calendar year only, to compensatethen-serving members of the Board, other than the CEO and Chairman, as follows: (a) $18,000 peryear to each director as an annual retainer; (b) $5,000 per year to each committee chair as anannual retainer; (c) $1,500 to each director for each Board meeting attended in person; (d) $500 toeach director for each committee meeting attended (other than such a meeting held on the same dayas a Board meeting attended in person); (e) $500 to each director for each Board meeting attendedby telephone; and (f) 30,000 stock options to each director with 1/3 of the stock options vestingat issuance (January 1, 2007) and 1/3 of the stock options vesting annually for two years afterissuance; and (iii) to compensate the Chairman for his services at the rate of $50,000 per year,payable quarterly.     The current members of the Board of Akorn are Dr. John Kapoor, who serves as Chairman ofAkorn, Arthur Przybyl, who serves as Chief Executive Officer of Akorn, Ron Johnson, Jerry Treppeland Jerry Ellis.     All stock option grants to be made as referenced above are subject to the Amended and RestatedAkorn, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 68 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 68

     Commending the Miss America Organization for its longstanding 
   commitment to quality education and the character of women in the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

  Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Isakson) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Commending the Miss America Organization for its longstanding 
   commitment to quality education and the character of women in the 
                             United States.

Whereas the Miss America Organization was formed in 1921;
Whereas, in 1945, the organization established a scholarship program to assist 
        young women achieve their personal and professional goals;
Whereas contestants in the Miss America Pageant must first succeed in local and 
        State pageants;
Whereas the 52 young women who participated in the Miss America Pageant showed 
        great poise and accomplishment;
Whereas Lauren Nelson, of Lawton, Oklahoma, was crowned Miss America 2007, the 
        sixth Oklahoman in history and the second in a row;
Whereas Oklahoma now joins only 2 other States in boasting 6 Miss America crowns 
        and 3 other States in holding consecutive crowns; and
Whereas the Senate family is also proud of Kate Michael of Senator Johnny 
        Isakson's office, who represented the District of Columbia in the Miss 
        America Pageant: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) commends the Miss America Organization for its 
        longstanding commitment to quality education and the character 
        of women in the United States;
            (2) congratulates Miss America 2007, Lauren Nelson of 
        Lawton, Oklahoma, the 80th woman crowned Miss America; and
            (3) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit a copy 
        of this resolution to Lauren Nelson in care of the Miss America 
        Organization.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 

31.1 

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

 

I, George Lefevre, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MotivNation Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006.

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the quarterly report; and 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the quarterly report. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in the quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in the quarterly report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions); 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

 

 

| Dated: 			May 19, 2006 | By:/s/			George LeFevre                        			

      George Lefevre CEO |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 52671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Clinical Center; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH 
Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended 
to discuss personnel matters, the disclosure of which would constitute 
a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research
    Date: October 3, 2011
    Open: 10 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
    Agenda: To discuss intramural clinical research operational and 
funding issues.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center 
Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: 1:15 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To discuss personnel matters.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center 
Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Maureen E Gormley, Executive Secretary, Mark O. 
Hatfield Clinical Research Center, National Institutes of Health, 
Building 10, Room 6-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2897.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.

    Dated: August 17, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-21509 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 162.138 Connecting waters from Lake Huron to Lake Erie; speed rules. ( a ) *Maximum speed limit for vessels in normal displacement mode.* ( 1 ) Except when required for the safety of the vessel or any other vessel, vessels of 20 meters or more in length operating in normal displacement mode shall proceed at a speed not greater than— ( i ) 12 statute miles per hour (10.4 knots) between Fort Gratiot Light and St. Clair Flats Canal Light 2;
( ii ) 12 statute miles per hour (10.4 knots) between Peche Island Light and D33 stationary light in the Detroit River entrance; and
( iii ) 4 statute miles per hour (3.5 knots) in the River Rouge.
( 2 ) The maximum speed limit is 5.8 statute miles per hour (5 knots) in the navigable channel south of Peche Island (under Canadian jurisdiction).
( b ) *Maximum speed limit for vessels operating in nondisplacement mode.* ( 1 ) Except when required for the safety of the vessel or any other vessel, vessels 20 meters or more in length but under 100 gross tons operating in the nondisplacement mode and meeting the requirements set out in paragraph (c) of this section, may operate at a speed not exceeding 40 miles per hour (34.8 knots)— ( i ) During daylight hours (sunrise to sunset);
( ii ) When conditions otherwise safely allow; and
( iii ) When approval has been granted by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Detroit or Commander of the Ninth Coast Guard District prior to each transit of the area.
( 2 ) In this section, “nondisplacement mode” means a mode of operation in which the vessel is supported by hydrodynamic forces, rather than displacement of its weight in the water, to an extent such that the wake which would otherwise be generated by the vessel is significantly reduced.
( c ) *Unsafe vessels.* The Captain of the Port or the District Commander may deny approval for operations under paragraph (b) of this section if it appears that the design and operating characteristics of the vessels in question are not safe for the designated waterways, or if it appears that operations under this section have become unsafe for any reason.
( d ) *Temporary speed limits.* The District Commander may temporarily establish speed limits or temporarily amend existing speed limit regulations on the waters described in § 162.130(a).
[CGD 09-95-002, 60 FR 35702, July 11, 1995, as amended by USCG-2011-1086, 77 FR 62437, Oct. 15, 2012]
Grafton

No. 7767

#### The State of New Hampshire v. George E. Dunbar

October 31, 1977

*David M. Souter,*attorney general, and *Edward A. Haffer,*assistant attorney general, by brief, for the state.

*Luigi J. Costello*and *Timothy J. Vaughan,*of Woodsville *(Mr. Vaughan*by brief), for the defendant.

Per curiam.

This is an appeal from a conviction of robbery on May 15, 1976, under RSA 636:1. There was a trial by jury resulting in a verdict of guilty, and the case was reserved and transferred by *Batchelder,*J. The two questions before us are whether the court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s request for voir dire questions directed specifically to the defendant’s alleged intoxication as a defense under RSA 626:4, and whether the court rightly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of bills obtained from a wallet in possession of the defendant.

We find the court’s action in both instances was proper and we overrule the defendant’s exceptions.

It appears that the defendant and the complainant Edward Pratte had been drinking together on the morning of May 15, *9051976. About one o’clock in the afternoon Pratte, the defendant, and the latter’s brother were walking across a trestle over the Connecticut River which connects White River Junction with West Lebanon. Shortly after they reached a point on the trestle on the New Hampshire side, the defendant seized Pratte and threatened to throw him off the trestle, which was some thirty to forty feet above the water, unless Pratte gave him his money. Pratte delivered his wallet, containing $350 in bills, to the defendant, who was arrested later that day. The defendant voluntarily gave the wallet to the police, but insisted that they should not examine the contents without a search warrant.

 As to the question raised on voir dire, the defendant claims that the court’s discretion is narrower in criminal cases than in civil. This is not so. In both criminal and civil cases, it is firmly established that the court has wide discretion. *Ristaino v. Ross,*424 U.S. 589, 594 (1976); *State v. Colby,*116 N.H. 790, 793, 368 A.2d 587, 590 (1976); *Patterson v. Corliss,*112 N.H. 480, 486, 298 A.2d 586, 590 (1972). This discretion “will not be disturbed unless it is manifestly against the law and the evidence.” *State v. Conklin,*115 N.H. 331, 337, 341 A.2d 770, 775 (1975); *State v. Comery,*78 N.H. 6, 12, 95 A. 670, 673 (1915). We find no abuse here.

 The defendant’s contention that, although the arrest was lawful, it was improper to admit evidence of the contents of the wallet without obtaining a search warrant, has no merit. It is well settled that a search incident to such an arrest is reasonable and legal, and it follows that the admission of the contents of the wallet was proper. *United States v. Robinson,*414 U.S. 218, 224-25 (1973); *United States v. Gardner,*480 F.2d 929 (10th Cir. 1973). *See also Westberry v. Mullaney,*406 F. Supp. 407 (D.C. Me. 1976).

An examination of the entire record discloses no error, and the order is

*Exceptions overruled.*
Order entered December 11 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00982 - CV DONALD O. OZUMBA, M. D., ET AL. , Appellant s V. JANE DOE NO. 6 , Appellee On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380
- 03960 - 2018



### O RDER Before the Court is appellants’ December 9, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and exte nd the time to December 30, 2019

.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 159 appear by USCG-2008-0179, 73 FR 35015, June 19, 2008.

#### § 159.83 Level indicator.

Each sewage retention device must have a means of indicating when the device is more than 3⁄4 full by volume.
#### Henry & McGurk *vs*Commonwealth.

Appear prom the Fayette. Circuit.

*Indictments. Disorderly houses. Nuisances.*

Indictment. *Case*76.

*June*5.

Case si‘atetL

The iaet that a defendant might have been indicted or presented fox a different offence, does not show thathemaynotbe indicted for an offence which •consists in so frequent a repetition thereof as to amount to another offence more highly penal.

Selling spiritous liquor to slaves, and their remaining *about the house*of the seller and behaving disorderly, is keeping a disorderly house.

Judoe Simpson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an indictment against the plaintiffs in error, for keeping a disorderly house, which is alleged to have been a common nuisance to the neighborhood where it was located.

They were found guilty, and a fine of one hundred -dollars assessed against them by the jury.

The proof was, that a number of slaves had, dus occasions, assembled in and around the plaintiffs in error., within the time all eg ■dictment, and had been furnished 'by them •and were seen on several occasions upon tj ■day, in considerable numbers, playing can Joining lot in their possession. That the ci^gard, was frequently so great -on the public highway near the dohr <of the house, that it was difficult to pass along it.

'This evidence, we think, fully sustained the indictment. The fact that the defendants in the indictment might have been proceeded against and punished .for •selling liquor to slaves, if it was done without the permission of their owners, or for permitting unlawful assemblies of slaves on their premises, under the statute, -does not change the nature of the offence committed, or prevent a prosecution against them for keeping a disorderly house, when the acts alleged and proved constituted them guilty of this offence.

And if 'by selling spiritous liquors to slaves, they induced them to congregate in and around their house, and to behave disorderly on the road or lots adjoining, -the public mischief was the same, as if the disorder had •actually occurred in the house, and such disorder being the result of the liquor furnished in the house, ¡must be regarded as amounting in -effect, and substan*362tially to the offence charged against them in the indictment.

*E. W. Hunt*for appellants ; *Johnson, Attorney General,*for Commonwealth.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.