alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
South Dakota State University & 

North Dakota State University

Evidence-Based Falls Prevention Program Grantee

1 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2019, effective May 1, 2019

Goals, Strategies, and Activities

The overall purposes of this three-year capacitybuilding grant are to do the following:

• Develop capacity in areas with no or 

limited evidence-based program 

infrastructure to introduce and deliver 

evidence-based falls prevention 

programs within underserved geographic 

areas and/or populations; and

• Develop sustainability strategies to 

support the proposed programs during 

and beyond the grant period.

The South Dakota State University (SDSU) & 

North Dakota State University (NDSU) and their 

partners will do the following: 

• Collaboratively work across two state’s 

university extension programs to increase 

capacity for evidence-based falls 

prevention programs in rural regions of 

SD and ND;

• Implement the Fit & Strong! program to 

promote physical activity and address the 

pre-cursors to falls; and 

• Develop an advisory council of partners 

to guide the implementation, expansion, 

and sustainability of evidence-based 

programs.

Proposed Interventions

• Fit & Strong!

Partnerships

To achieve the goals of the grant, SDSU & NDSU

will collaborate with the following key partners:

• North Dakota State Unit of Aging

• South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks

• South Dakota Department of Health

• South Dakota Department of Human 

Services, Division of Long-Term Services 

and Supports

• Center for Research in Health and Aging 

at the University of Illinois, Chicago

• Community partners including 

community centers, health care clinics, 

and chambers of commerce, among 

others
2 of 2

Prevention and Public Health Fund 2019, effective May 1, 2019

Anticipated Results 

SDSU, NDSU and their partners propose to 

achieve the following results: 

• Engage 300 participants in Fit & Strong! 

classes;

• Achieve a 75% participant completion 

rate;

• Train 4 Fit & Strong! Master Trainers and 

18 Fit & Strong Instructors; and

• Show significant change following 

participation in evidence-based 

programs, including a decrease in lowerextremity pain and lower-extremity 

stiffness, an increase in energy, and an 

increase self-efficacy for exercise.

Contact:

Leacey Brown 

South Dakota State University

Email: leacey.brown@sdstate.edu

For more information: 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

http://www.acl.gov
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.1417 Safety Zone; Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, CNMI. ( a ) *Location.* The following area, within the U.S. Coast Guard Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters within a 100-yard radius of race participants for Escape for Managaha Swim in Tanapag Harbor, Saipan. Race participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt from the safety zone.
( b ) *Definitions.* As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) U.S. Coast Guard Forces Micronesia/Sector Guam in the enforcement of the safety zone.
( c ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) In accordance with the general regulations in section § 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated on-scene representative.
( 2 ) This safety zone is closed to all persons and vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated on-scene representative.
( 3 ) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
( 4 ) Persons and Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or an on-scene representative.
( d ) *Enforcement period.* This safety zone will be enforced at a specified date between February and April. The Coast Guard will provide advance notice of enforcement and a broadcast notice to mariners to inform public of specific date.
[USCG-2020-0459, 86 FR 6248, Jan. 21, 2021, as amended by USCG-2022-0429, 87 FR 48446, Aug. 9, 2022]
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Akorn, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350) and Rule 13a-14(b) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.13a-14(b)), that to 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.




Date: November 9, 2010


/s/ TIMOTHY A. DICKTimothy A. DickChief Financial Officer
1 

### Stout, Alan

From: Stout, Alan Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:32 AM To: Julia Rege (jrege@globalautomakers.org); 'gambrozai tis@autoalliance.org'; 'Carter, Sarah@ARB' Cc: Antonio Fernandez; Olechiw, Michael Subject: Updated Tier 3 amendments Attachments: Tier 3 amendment adds 09 19 2014.docx

Julia, Giedrius, and Sarah, The attached file includes updated regulatory langu age for our direct final rulemaking. Additional ed its since our July 7 version are noted. The change in §600.117 probably warrants some extra attention, but most of the oth er changes are not especially n oteworthy; in any case, we wanted to get a complete set out to you to make sure we don’t find ourselve s with any surprises later. I’m not sure this would need the full-scale distribution for review, but I will leave that to your collective judgment.

This doesn’t address the coastdown issue, which I u nderstand is still something to figure out.

There is no real deadline for responding. We’ll mo ve ahead with what we have. If you find something that needs attention along the way, let us know and we’ll do o ur best to work things out. There have been some m inor complications in other parts of the direct final ru le, and we still need to go through the bureaucrati c stages of review as we work our way toward signature. At this point, I ’m expecting to get the rule signed in February, th ough I could be off by a month or two in either direction.

Alan
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 
**@ALa c.**  **MANN**

**, “U..**  **..**.A&**
Eon. E.G. Towle, Opt. D.

3tut.e DoarC 0r XXminers in Optoxiietry Auatic, Texas Dear Lr. Toxfle:

Se are in **re** etter

## 0r June lath, requestLq an op epurtrnent,rogwdingthe aiithorlty o d 0r acarniners 

## 0r optomtry **to** 

### rer 

## ror exednation on the gro



## or the **ROVES** ed civil St

sbil bc entirely fair recb&zed school of cjptom3try.All Q>- -Jlicazts

exaeinod ot the mm time silall be c:vm lCier:tlc;~l cLtiesticr,s.

The **board** cay rerkze to a&At ycrsonsto its exacinatlou or to issue liox~~es

## for 3ny 

## or tte 

## r0iio;eg r;3as03szHon. H.C. Towle, Puce 2
*I. The preae::tation to the **board of**  any untrue atatment or any dooumht or toat&my uhiob was illegally**or** traudulently obtalsed,or when fraud or deoelthna been pmotloed in pesalngthe exanlnatlon. "2. ConvictionOS a relony, or 

## or a mface=eanorwhloh lr,volvoa noral turpitude. "3. Other ,gosaly unprofessionalor dishonorableconduct of a oharaoter likely to deceive or defraudthe p&bllo,or ror habits of 1ntc;;zparsnc.e or drug addlotlon. my appllaant who may be rzruaedan oxaminatlon or a Ucense, after legalnotloe **and** a full and lmpsrtialhoarlag, shall have his ri@t or action to have suoh issue triad in the district court or any ocmnty ln zrhloh

one of the &embers of the **board** shall rus:de." AS we intarpretthis statute,the bomd nay by fair and reasonable exerciseof dlscretlon, 

## r;akerhdhgt3 rc~ardine the 

## fpduriOtlti00a Ofthe appllcant. It 1s stated In your inquirythat the bonrd has found the a?pllcsnt hna heretororenlarepreaented iocta re+rdine his prior expcrI.enoe snd train-. Tho board has rwther round

## rr03 its observation

## 0r the agplloant,that by reason of said untrue staterents **and** other oocduot, he has baen guilty of g.ro+sly unproiesalonalor dishonest oonductof a ohmacter likely to deceive or defraud the public.

The rlndi.h@ oi your board are preauolptlvely car;-eot

according to the principleobtaining in respect to adrnlnlstr:~tlve bosrde gonerally.
see Shap~e v. kailroad Coztisalon 13 Tes. 521, '73

S.?;.(26) 305. It is our opinion, therdore, that your boardmy refuse to atit a person to its exazilnation or to 13jliue

a license to subh psrsm in the race oflion . H.C. Towls, P-&e 3 fFn$lnG~ on the part ai the bobwd as **to** prevlou8untrue etatezxents

and unprof~salonalor dlshonorable oonduot or a oharaoter likely to deceive or dafraud the ?i;bllo. Your8 vary truly ATTCRX~ GIZNZRAL **OF** TQAS

APPROVEDJUkl

22, 19%

ATTORNEY.

GENF3A.L

Oi TEXAS
Hampton District Court

No. 7203

#### State of New Hampshire v. Jack Goodwin

January 31, 1976

*Warren B. Rudman,*attorney general, and *Peter W. Heed,*attorney appearing pursuant to Rule 23 *(Mr. Heed*orally), for the State.

*Junkins & Gillis (Mr. Laurence J. Gillis*orally) for the defendant.

*38Lampron, J.

The issue presented here is whether an individual is placed in double jeopardy when he is charged with multiple offenses arising out of the same act and prosecuted for those offenses in a consolidated action.

While operating a motor vehicle near Seabrook, New Hampshire, the defendant, Jack Goodwin, was stopped, arrested, and charged with violations of RSA 262-A:62 (Supp. 1975) (driving while intoxicated); RSA 318-B:26 I (b) (2) (Supp. 1975) (possession of marijuana); and RSA 262-A:62-a (Supp. 1975) (operating a motor vehicle while knowingly having in possession or in any part of the vehicle a controlled drug). A separate complaint was drawn for each alleged violation. The prosecutor chose to prosecute all violations charged. At Hampton District Court, in advance of trial, the defendant moved to dismiss either of the drug-related charges on the grounds of double jeopardy. He maintained that the possession charged was necessarily incidental to the transportation offense. *Gray,*J., reserved and transferred the case without a hearing or ruling on the merits of the question presented. The court proceeded on the DWI charge and found the defendant not guilty.

Defendant’s motion is based upon a misconception of the protection afforded by the double jeopardy clauses of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the States through the fourteenth amendment, and by part I, article 16 of the New Hampshire constitution. It is clear that double jeopardy does not prevent the threat of twice being punished for the same act, but instead it forbids twice being tried and convicted for the same offense. *State v. Collins,*115 N.H. 499, 345 A.2d 162, 164 (1975); *State v. Smith,*98 N.H. 149, 150, 95 A.2d 789, 791 (1953); *see Breed v. Jones,*421 U.S. 519, 532 (1975). The defendant here has been merely charged with two drug-related offenses arising from the same act and both are being prosecuted. This does not constitute double jeopardy. *State v. Collins supra.*

The issue of duplicity or multiplicity of charges in this case was answered in our recent decision of *State v. Bergeron,*115 N.H. 70, 333 A.2d 721 (1975). Broad discretion must be given to the prosecutor in drawing charges. Any errors that might be made in the exercise of that discretion may be properly corrected by the trial court. *Id.*at 72, 333 A.2d at 723.

*Motion to dismiss denied.*

All concurred.
79–006 

111TH CONGRESS REPT. 111–86 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session Part 2 

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION 

ACT OF 2009 

APRIL 28, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

[To accompany H.R. 1913] 

On April 27, 2009, the Committee on the Judiciary filed House 

Report 111–86, Part 1, relating to H.R. 1913, to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute 

hate crimes, and for other purposes. In the report, a clerical error 

appears under the heading ‘‘Committee Consideration’’ relating to 

the favorable reporting of the bill by the Committee. The sentence 

under that heading should read as follows: 

‘‘On April 22 and 23, 2009, the Committee met in open session 

and on April 23, 2009, ordered the bill H.R. 1913 favorably reported with amendment, by a roll call vote of 15 to 12, a quorum 

being present.’’ 

WWOODS2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Michael Tokarz, in the capacity of the officer who performs the
functions of Principal Executive Officer of MVC Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Registrant), certifies that:

1. The Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2011 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

In the capacity of the officer who performs the
functions

|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|of Principal Executive Officer for MVC Capital, Inc.
|                                                    
|/s/ Michael Tokarz                                  
|Michael Tokarz                                      

Date: January 12, 2012

Peter Seidenberg, in the capacity of the officer who performs the functions of Principal Financial Officer, of MVC Capital, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Registrant), certifies that:

1. The Registrants Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2011 (the Form 10-K)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant.

In the capacity of the officer who performs the functions

|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|of Principal Financial Officer for MVC Capital, Inc.
|                                                    
|/s/ Peter Seidenberg                                
|Peter Seidenberg                                    

Date: January 12, 2012
Order entered October 17 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00837
- CR
MICHAEL WAYNE LEWIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 50889
- X 

### O RDER On May 28, 2013, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. However, the detailed itemization of costs included in the supplemental record does not comply with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 103.001, 103.006 (West 20 06). Accordingly, on September 27, 2013, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within seven days of that order a second supplemental clerk’s record that contains a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case that complies with a rticles 103.001 and 103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See id . art. 103.001 (“A cost is not payable by the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced or is ready to beproduced, containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost .”) (emphasis added); art. 103.006 (“If a criminal action or proceeding . . . is appealed, an officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the bill of cost to the court to which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed.”) (emphasis added). On October 8, 2013, the Dallas County District Clerk filed a second supplemental clerk’s record . However, that second supplemental clerk’s record does not contain a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case that complies with articles 103.001 and 103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

. Accordingly, we ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons, the Dallas County Dis trict Clerk, to file within SEVEN DAYS of the date of this order a supplemental clerk’s record signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost .”) (emphasis added); art. 103.006 (“If a criminal actio n or proceeding . . . is appealed, an officer of the court shall certify and sign a bill of costs stating the costs that have accrued and send the bill of cost to the court to which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed.”) (emphasis added) and that co ntains a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case that complies with articles 103.001 and 103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
Fw: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EPA's EGU MACT Rule 

 RobertJ Wayland 

 to: Bill Maxwell 

 03/15/2011 09:19 PM 

Mar8_2011_Handout1.pdf Mar8_2011_Handout2.pdf 

Mar8_2011_Handout3.pdf Mar8_2011_Handout4.pdf 

Sent from Blackberry Wireless Device 

********************************************* 

Dr. Robert J. Wayland 

U.S. EPA 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, MC D243-01 

RTP, NC 27709 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

 From: "Higgins, Cortney" [Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

 Sent: 03/15/2011 08:57 PM AST 

 To: Robertj Wayland 

 Cc: Charlotte Bertrand; Karen Thundiyil; Thomas Gillis; Mary Johnson 

 Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EPA's EGU MACT Rule 

Hi Bob, 

Consistent with our EO, the handouts from this meeting are attached. 

 

Regards, 

Cortney 

 

 

When: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:00 PM-1:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time 

(US & Canada). 

Where: 10103 NEOB 

 

Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time 

adjustments. 

 

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* 

 

Paul Billings, American Lung Association has requested this meeting.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

I, James H.
Morgan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the accompanying Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (the Company) for the
fiscal year ended February 1, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ James H. MorganJames H.
      MorganChief Executive
      Officer


Date: April 17, 2009

This
certification shall not be deemed to be filed for the purpose of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
therein by reference.

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. and will be retained by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
#### EDWARD MATTHEWS, Respondent, *v.*BENEDICT MEYBERG and others, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on a verdict.

The action was brought to recover rent alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendants. The defendants set up in their answer an eviction from the premises, and damage to their goods by water and exposure, from acts of plaintiff in making certain changes in the premises. The court was of opinion, as it was expressly provided in the lease that such changes and alterations in the premises might be made, and there was no negligence shown in making the same, that the defense had failed, and that judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff. '■

*Lewis Sanders,*for the appellants.

*E. Delafield Smith,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Davis, P. J.

Daniels and Brady, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
CREATES
QGoutribute
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0695 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 1 -NM - 264 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**