alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Adapted from the Shelf Stable Meals List – Maryland Department on Aging 

Local and National Shelf Stable/Frozen Meals Vendor Template

Purpose: To provide clients with a listing of shelf-stable and frozen meal vendors that help meet their nutrition and 

dietary needs.

Instructions: Cut and paste the information below to create as many listings as needed. Fill in the required 

information for each vendor based on the vendors available in your community and/or region. 

Sample Listing: 

Vendor Name: Sunrise Foods 

Website: www.sunrisefoods123.com 

Contact Information: (123) 456-7890 

Located in: Anytown, Anystate, Anyzip 

Jurisdictions/States Served: Springfield County 

Delivery Frequency: Multiple meals delivered once monthly 

Meal types: Kosher, Halal, Diabetic, Low Sodium Meals 

Vendor Name: 

Website: 

Contact Information: 

Located in: 

Jurisdictions/States Served: 

Delivery Frequency: 

Meal types (for example: Kosher, Halal, Diabetic, Low Sodium, etc.):

Vendor Name: 

Website: 

Located in: 

Contact Information: 

Jurisdictions/States Served: 

Delivery Frequency: 

Meal types (for example: Kosher, Halal, Diabetic, Low Sodium, etc.):

FYI: Emergency Food Supplies Guidance

• Department of Homeland Security: https://www.ready.gov/food

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/specific-groups/high-risk-complications.html#Have-supplies-on-hand
526 P.2d 1094

#### Frank A. MIKESELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO TITLE & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 11473.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Sept. 25, 1974.

Alvin Denman, of Denman, Reeves & Ohman, Idaho Falls, for plaintiff-appellant.

John Ferebauer, Idaho Falls, for defendant-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On December 6, 1961, plaintiff-appellant, Frank A. Mikesell sold a parcel of real property to Vira C. Evans for $2,600.00. Mrs. Evans deposited this amount in escrow with defendant-respondent Idaho Title and Trust Company. On December 11, 1961, the respondent title company, after paying taxes and title insurance, sent a check in the amount of $1,066.80 to the appellant; this left in escrow exactly $1,000.-00 of the original $2,600.00. This $1,000.00 remained on deposit from 1961 until 1972, when the respondent paid it to the City of Idaho Falls in partial satisfaction of an assessment of $1,031.00 for improvements to Wabash Avenue, which adjoined the.property sold by the appellant to Mrs. Evans in 1961. The appellant made no demand for these funds until February of 1972, shortly before payment was made by the respondent to the city.

At trial the plaintiff introduced no evidence other than his request for admissions under Rule 36(a), to which the defendant had failed to respond. The trial magistrate’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action was affirmed by the district court, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The appellant admits that at the time of sale he and Mrs. Evans agreed that $1,000.00 was to be retained to pay for the paving and improvement of Wabash Avenue; but the appellant asserts that at the *259time of this agreement, he and Mrs. Evans anticipated that Wabash Avenue would be improved within a year and not some ten years later. The respondent claims that in retaining this $1,000.00 for ten years and paying it to the city in 1972, it was acting pursuant to instructions received by it when the proceeds of sale were deposited in escrow in 1961.

The record before this court contains absolutely no evidence to show that the escrow instructions received by the respondent title company contained any stipulation to the effect that the $1,000.00 to be held by it was to be expended only for improvements made within a year of sale. The appellant’s position is that he personally gave no escrow instructions at all to the respondent. The appellant admits that his attorney may have given the respondent a letter instructing the respondent to do exactly what it did with the $1,000.00 deposit. On this record, the appellant has failed to show any breach of duty on the part of the respondent, and the judgment of dismissal was therefore properly rendered by the district court.

Judgment affirmed. Costs to respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            17161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          3301
<OTHER-SE>                                      (20462)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   218941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (218941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (218941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.23)


</TABLE>
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 1 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 2 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 3 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 4 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 5 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 6 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 7 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 8 of 9
Case 9:22-cv-81337-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/31/2022 Page 9 of 9
#### § 169.140 What information must be included in the report?

Each ship report made to the shore-based authority must follow the standard reporting and format requirements listed in this section in table 169.140. Current email addresses and telex numbers are published annually in the US Coast Pilot.

| Telegraphy | Function | Information required |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Name of system | System identifier | Ship reporting system WHALESNORTH or WHALESSOUTH. |
| M | INMARSAT Number | Vessel INMARSAT number |
| A | Ship | The name, call sign or ship station identity, IMO number, and flag of the vessel. |
| B | Date and time of event | A 6-digit group giving day of month (first two digits), hours and minutes (last four digits). |
| E | True course | A 3-digit group indicating true course. |
| F | Speed in knots and tenths of knots | A 3-digit group. |
| H | Date, time and point of entry into system | Entry time expressed as in (B) and entry position expressed as-(1) a 4-digit group giving latitude in degrees and minutes suffixed with N(north) or S (south) and a 5-digit group giving longitude in degrees and minutes suffixed with E (east) or W (west); or (2) True bearing (first 3 digits) and distance (state distance) in nautical miles from a clearly identified landmark (state landmark) |
| I | Destination and expected time of arrival | Name of port and date time group expressed as in (B) |
| L | Route information | Intended track. |

Table 169.140—Requirements for Ship Reports

[USCG-1999-5525, 66 FR 58070, Nov. 20, 2001]
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4779

To allow certain donations of property and services to the Bureau of Prisons.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 28, 2000

Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri (for herself, Mr. MOORE, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To allow certain donations of property and services to the

Bureau of Prisons.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Director of the Bureau of Prisons may accept

4 donated property and services relating to the operation of

5 the Prison Card Program from a not-for-profit entity

6 which has operated such program in the past, despite the

7 fact such not-for-profit entity furnishes services under

8 contract to the Bureau relating to the operation of
2

•HR 4779 IH

1 prerelease services, halfway houses, or other custodial fa2 cilities.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35064-35065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-294-000]


TransColorado Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

May 25, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 22, 2000, TransColorado Gas Transmission 
Company (TransColorado) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet Nos. 205 and 
206 and Second Revised Sheet No. 206A, to be effective June 1, 2000.
    In Order No. 587-G, in Docket No. RM96-1-007 the Commission 
required that interstate pipeline companies conduct all business 
transactions using internet communication, implementing standards for 
these communications. The original implementation date for these 
requirements was June 1, 1999. However, in Order No. 587-1, the 
Commission deferred the implementation date to June 1, 2000. The 
purpose of this filing was to make changes to TransColorado's tariff 
associated with implementation of internet communications effective 
June 1, 2000.
    TransColorado states that a copy of this filing has been served 
upon TransColorado's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities 
Commission and New Mexico Public Utilities Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public

[[Page 35065]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on 
the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-13630 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### *Avery v. Robinsons.

Argued Monday, March 13th, 1815.

i. Elegit — Quashed—No Entry o( Election. — A writ of elegit, issued in 1812, on a judgment rendered in 1806, (in which year a fieri tacias upon it was returned nulla bona,) ought not to be quashed on the ground that no previous entry had been made, on the record, on the plaintiff’s election to take elegit; nor because it was issued without obtaining the leave of the court; the motion to quash it Tjeing made by the defendant, against whom the judgment was rendered, and not by a purchaser from him.

See Rev. Code, 1st yol. ch. 151, sect.'2, p. 296 ; Eppes *v.*Randolph, 2 Call, 186.

A motion was made to the Superior Court of law of Monongalia County, September 12th, 1812, to quash a writ of elegit, issued by the clerk of that court, on the 6th of January 1812, upon a judgment, bearing date the 16th of May, 1806, in favour of the appellees against the appellant. It appeared, that, on the 4th day of June, 1806, the plaintiffs prosecuted a writ of fieri facias on the said judgment, directed to the sheriff of Wood County, and returnable on the 15th of September 1806 ; that on such writ of fieri facias the sheriff aforesaid returned that the defendant had no goods and chattels to satisfy the same ; and that the writ of elegit in question, was sued out, without the plaintiffs having entered on the record their election to take such writ.

The Superior Court over-ruled the motion ; whereupon the appeal was taken to this court.

Williams, for the appellant.

After taking out the fieri facias in 1806, without entering on the record their election to take the elegit, the plaintiffs could not, in 1812, take out an elegit, without leave of the court. If the issuing an elegit by the clerk, after such lapse of time, could be permitted; intervening purchasers of the land might be injured, when they had no reason to calculate on the debt’s being still due ; the judgment having lain dormant so long.(1)

No counsel appeared for the appellees.

December 8th, 1815,

(1)

 Note. There did not appear to be any purchaser of the land in this case. — Note in Original Edition.

the court affirmed the judgment, over-ruling the motion to quash the elegit.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:22-cv-81347-DMM

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

PANDORA JEWELRY LLC.

a foreign limited liability company,

Defendant.

________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ, by and through his undersigned Counsel, hereby gives 

notice that the parties have reached a settlement and will be executing necessary paperwork 

resolving all claims and matters in the case. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the 

Court provide the parties ten (10) days from the date of filing this Notice to allow the parties to 

finalize the settlement agreement and file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice.

Respectfully submitted, 

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 N. Hiatus Road Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Sunrise, FL 33351 4640 N.W. 7th Street

T. 954/362-3800 Miami, FL 33126-2309

954/362-3779 (Facsimile) T. 305/266-9780 

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com 305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

Email: pduran@pelayoduran.com

By____s/ Roderick V. Hannah __ By ___s/ Pelayo M. Duran ______

RODERICK V. HANNAH PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 435384 Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Case 9:22-cv-81347-DMM Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2022 Page 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RODNEY SCOTT,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-30310

D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00014-HRH-1

District of Alaska, 

Anchorage

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

H. Russel Holland, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 11, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Submission Withdrawn October 1, 2010

Resubmitted August 8, 2011

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

In light of the government’s confession of error, its motion for remand to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with Freeman v. United States, 131

S. Ct. 2685 (2011) is GRANTED so that the district court can consider Rodney

Scott’s motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

FILED

SEP 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
###### Editorial Note on Part 159

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 159.301 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement “Title XIV—Certain Alaskan Cruise Ship Operations” contained in section 1(a)(4) of Pub. L. 106-554, enacted on December 21, 2000, by prescribing regulations governing the discharges of sewage and graywater from cruise vessels, require sampling and testing of sewage and graywater discharges, and establish reporting and record keeping requirements.
EXHIBIT


31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, George R. Lefevre, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MotivNation Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010.





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.








/s/ George Lefevre




Dated:  October 18, 2010                                                       By:  ___________________


George R. Lefevre, Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MAURICE SHAZIER,

Defendant.

VERDICT

We, the jury, unanimously find as follows:

COUNT 1

As to Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, we find the Defendant, MAURICE 

SHAZIER:

G GUILTY G NOT GUILTY

COUNT 2

As to Count 2, conspiracy to launder money, we find the Defendant, MAURICE SHAZIER:

G GUILTY G NOT GUILTY

SO SAY WE ALL:

___________________________________ ______________________

Foreperson (please sign) Date

West Palm Beach, Florida

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 90-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2022 Page 1 of 1
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.

§ 165.1710 Port Valdez and Valdez Narrows, Valdez, Alaska—security zones. ( a ) *Location.* The following areas are security zones: ( 1 ) *Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) Valdez Terminal complex (Terminal), Valdez, Alaska and TAPS tank vessels.* All waters enclosed within a line beginning on the southern shoreline of Port Valdez at 61°05′03.6′′ N, 146°25′42′′ W; thence northerly to yellow buoy at 61°06′00′′ N, 146°25′42′′ W; thence east to the yellow buoy at 61°06′00′′ N, 146°21′30′′ W; thence south to 61°05′06′′ N, 146°21′30′′ W; thence west along the shoreline to the beginning point.
( 2 ) *Tank vessel moving security zone.* All waters within 200 yards of any TAPS tank vessel maneuvering to approach, moor, unmoor or depart the TAPS Terminal or transiting, maneuvering, laying to or anchored within the boundaries of the Captain of the Port, Prince William Sound Zone described in 33 CFR 3.85-20 (b).
( 3 ) *Valdez Narrows, Port Valdez, Valdez, Alaska.* All waters 200 yards either side of the Valdez Narrows Tanker Optimum Track line bounded by a line beginning at 61°05′15′′ N, 146°37′18′′ W; thence south west to 61°04′00′′ N, 146°39′52′′ W; thence southerly to 61°02′32.5′′ N, 146°41′25′′ W; thence north west to 61°02′40.5′′ N, 146°41′47′′ W; thence north east to 61°04′07.5′′ N, 146°40′15′′ W; thence north east to 61°05′22′′ N, 146°37′38′′ W; thence south east back to the starting point at 61°05′15′′ N, 146°37′18′′ W.
( b ) *Regulations.* ( 1 ) The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.33 apply to the security zones described in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) Tank vessels transiting directly to the TAPS terminal complex, engaged in the movement of oil from the terminal or fuel to the terminal, and vessels used to provide assistance or support to the tank vessels directly transiting to the terminal, or to the terminal itself, and that have reported their movements to the Vessel Traffic Service, as required under 33 CFR part 161 and § 165.1704, may operate as necessary to ensure safe passage of tank vessels to and from the terminal.
( 3 ) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port and the designated on-scene patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a vessel displaying a U.S. Coast Guard ensign by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed as directed. Coast Guard Auxiliary and local or state agencies may be present to inform vessel operators of the requirements of this section and other applicable laws.
[COTP Prince William Sound 02-011, 71 FR 2154, Jan. 13, 2006, as amended by USCG-2024-0157, 89 FR 33232, Apr. 29, 2024]