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

The MyPlate icon reminds us that we need to eat and drink foods from the five food 

groups. Fruits, Vegetables, Dairy, Grains, and Protein Foods are important for good 

health. MyPlate shows the food groups in different sections of the plate. Does this 

mean that foods need to be separate on your plate? No way! Some of our favorite 

healthy foods are a mix of food groups. What food groups are in your sandwich or taco?

MyPlate Matching Game

Draw a line from each section of MyPlate to the correct foods below.

Did You Know?

Beans belong to both the 

Vegetable and Protein Food 

Groups. Some favorite ways 

kids like to eat beans are 

in burritos, tacos, chili, 

dips, and quesadillas. 

Parents

Make half your plate fruits and vegetables. 

It is an easy way to make sure you (and your family) 

are getting enough. More information on MyPlate

can be found at http://www.choosemyplate.gov.

FRUIT: orange. VEGETABLE: garden salad. Answers: 

PROTEIN FOOD: beans. GRAIN: rice. DAIRY: milk. May 2014 • FNS-471B • USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

http://teamnutrition.usda.gov
Example: Spaghetti Dinner; Fruits, peaches; vegetables, broccoli 

and tomato sauce; grains, whole-wheat pasta; protein foods, 

Lean (92% lean, 8% fat) ground beef; dairy, fat-free milk, 

parmesan cheese.

Help your family create a dinner menu for the week. 

Visit http://www.choosemyplate.gov to learn what foods belong to each food group.

Visit our online Recipe Box: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fncs-recipe-box.

Menu Planner for Families

Example: 

The Five Food Groups (Include all 5)

Monday

Sunday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

Fruits Vegetables Grains Protein Foods Dairy

Spaghetti Dinner Peaches Broccoli

Tomato sauce

Whole-wheat 

pasta 

Lean 

(92% lean, 8% fat) 

ground beef

Fat-free milk

Parmesan cheese

Parents

Milk Matters. Children of every age, and adults too, need the calcium, protein, and vitamin D found in milk for 

strong bones, teeth, and muscles. Remember to offer fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk at meals. If you offer soymilk, 

check the Nutrition Facts label to be sure your soymilk has about 300 mg of calcium (30% of the Daily Value).
Exhibit 10.2
  
  
 Board Company
  Effective Date
  Accrued Benefits
 Base Salary
 Cause




---



##### 



intentional intentional
 Change of Control
   Incumbent
Board
  Exchange Act Outstanding Company Stock Outstanding Company Voting Securities x
 2




---



##### 



Code
 Covered Employee
 Employee Benefits
 Employer
 Equity Compensation
 Good Reason
 Reference Date
      Good Reason
 Plan
 Severance Compensation
 3




---



##### 



Severance Pay
 Severance Period
 Target Bonus
  Trigger Date
      ;
 4




---



##### 



COBRA
  prime rate
  Payment contingent on a change in ownership or control Excise Tax
 5




---



##### 



Gross-Up Payment
      6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



top hat
     Good Reason
  8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



(1)
    
    The Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief
Operating Officer, General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer(2)
    
    Vice Presidents Level II and Country Presidents(3)
    
    Vice Presidents Level I and direct reports to Country Presidents.
 POSITION
    
    SEVERANCE PAYTop Management (1)
    
    250% of Base Salary and Target BonusSenior Management (2)
    
    200% of Base Salary and Target BonusManagement (3)
    
    100% of Base Salary and Target BonusThe above amounts shall, to the
extent permitted under (or such
amounts are not subject to) Section
409A of the Code, be reduced by any
severance pay or allowance mandated
by statute or other law or other
arrangement of or with the Company.
EX-99.B11-ggpwopin

                       Report of Independent Accountants


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
United Gold & Government Fund, Inc.


In our opinion, the accompanying statement of changes in net assets and the
financial highlights present fairly, in all material respects, the changes in
the net assets and financial highlights of the United Gold & Government Fund,
Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended December 31, 1995 and for each of the nine
years in the period ended December 31, 1995, respectively, in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.  This statement of changes in net
assets and financial highlights (hereafter referred to as "financial
statements") are the responsibility of the Fund's management; our responsibility
is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.  We
conducted our audits of these financial statements in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards which require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing
the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our
audits, which included confirmation of securities at December 31, 1995 by
correspondence with the custodian and brokers, provide a reasonable basis for
the opinion expressed above.  We have not audited the financial statements of
the United Gold & Governments Fund, Inc. for the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 1996.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
February 8, 1996
No. 68397.

protest 59/25102 (New York).

#### Balfour Guthrie & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

Iln accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issue is the same in all material respects as that the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 CCPA 47, C.A.D. 727), and the record showing that the merchandise consists of nylon gloves similar in use to silk gloves, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 Quarterly Report of VTEX Energy,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB/A  Amendment  No. 1 for the period  ending  October  31,  2004 (the
"Report"),  I, Randal B. McDonald,  Jr., Chief Financial Officer 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:

1)   The Report fully  complies with the  requirement 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 Company's  financial  position and results of operations for
     the periods presented.



/s/Randal B. McDonald, Jr.
--------------------------
Randal B. McDonald, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
December 20, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>0001036848                         
<NAME>AEROCENTURY CORP.                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999    
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         4,172,160
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    315,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,661,890
<PP&E>                                        46,124,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                16,018,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                34,987,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         20,218,030
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                           1,610
<OTHER-SE>                                    14,767,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  34,987,130
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,420,520
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 664,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               209,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  546,790
<INCOME-TAX>                                     206,470
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              340,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                     340,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.21
        


</TABLE>
#### William H. Mudge, Appellant, *v.*The West End Brewing Company, Respondent.

*Mudge*v. *West End Brewing Co.,*145 App, Div. 28, affirmed.

(Argued January 10, 1913;

decided January 28, 1913.)

Appeal from'a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, *697entered June 1, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action by landlord against tenant to recover damages for breach of the conditions of a lease and also to recover damages alleged to have been occasioned through the conviction of a sub-lessee of defendant of allowing gambling on the leased premises which prevented plaintiff under the Liquor Law of the state from leasing the premises for a saloon for a period of eleven months from the expiration of defendant’s lease.

*W. W. Wemple*and *Alonzo P. Strong*for appellant.

*Henry V. Borst*and *Edward D. Cutler*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase, Collin and Hogan, JJ.
From: RMDeal2@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:22:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Martha Deal

Clovis, CA 93611
From: Lmjs316@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:38:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Leah Rieckens

Stillwater, MN 55082
#### JOHN V. RECTOR, Respondent, *v.*THE RIDGWOOD ICE COMPANY, Appellant.

*Amendment to complaint*— must *be without prejudice to proceedings already had— Oode of Oml Procedure, see.*542.

In the summons and complaint in this action Albany county was designated as the place of trial. Neither party resided in that county. The defendant, which had its principal place of business in King’s county, demanded that the place of trial be changed to Kings county. The plaintiff, who resided in Rensselaer county, thereupon amended his complaint by designating Rensselaer county as the place of trial. Dp on the defendant’s motion coming on it was defeated upon the ground that the proper county was designated in the amended complaint.

*Held,*that this was error as the complaint could only be amended, without prejudice to the proceedings already had. (Learned, P. J., dissenting.)

Appeal from an order, made at a Special Term, denying a motion to change the place of trial of this action.

*294
      *Nathaniel 0.*Moah, for the appellant. .

*S. W.*Rosendale, for the respondent.

LaNDON, J.:

The summons must state the county in which the plaintiff desires the trial. (Code, § 417.) The complaint must contain the name of the county which the plaintiff designates as the place of trial. (Code, § 481.) Both summons and complaint named Albany county as the place of trial. Neither party resided in that county. Defendant demanded that the place of trial be changed to Kings county. (Sec. 985.) The defendant resided in that county. Plaintiff thereupon amended his complaint by designating Rensselaer county (his residence) as the place of trial. This he could do, of course, in the proper time, but without prejudice to proceedings already had. (Sec. 542.) Defendant brought on his motion to change the place of trial to Kings county. He was defeated because the proper county was designated in the amended' complaint. (Sec. 987.) If that order prevails then the plaintiff’s amendment of the complaint prejudiced proceedings already had by defendant looking to a change of the place of trial.

The order must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted with ten dollars.

Booses, J., concurred; LearNed, P. J., dissented.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements,' and motion granted.
From: settlessj@msn.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:05:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Stephen Settles

Absecon, NJ 08201
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1517 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 29, 2008.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3997) to amend the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the 
uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for 
other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
point of order, a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Financial 
Services or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the 
House amendment to the Senate amendment with the amendment printed in the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and 
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for three 
hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Financial Services. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening 
motion.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of the motion to concur pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of such motion to such time as may be 
designated by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: josephthorn22@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:16:29 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Joseph Thorn

Chino, CA 91710