alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## THEATTORNEYGENERAI~ OFTEXAS GROVER

SELLERS

Honorable BenJ. Dean District Attorney Stephens County -~ Breckenrldge, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-6904 Re: Whether H.B.YNo. 247, Acts 49th Leg.9 1945, affects the compensation of jury commissioners. Weare in receipt of your letter of recent date requesting the opinion of this department on the above stated matter. Wequote from your letter, as follows:

“I would appreciate it If you would kindly advise mewhether under H.B. No. 247, Chapter 239, passed by the 49th Regular Session of the Leglslature, relating to the compensation to be paid jurors, venlremk and tailsmen, serving in the courts of this State if jury commlssloners are entitled to be paid $4.00 per day instead of 

### $3.00per day,” In Oplnlon No. 

### 0-6648, this department passed on certain questions relative to the construction of HouseBill NO. 247, andweare encloslng herewith a copy of sald opinion for your convenience.

Wenote that H.B. No. 247 amends Artloles 

### 625and 1056of the Code of Criminal Procedure andArticle 2122, Revised Clvll Statutes, and repeals Artlole 

### 1057of the Cod'6of Criminal Procedure. Theabove mentioned Articles, which are amendedby H.B. No. 247, are applicable to the oompensatlon of petlt and grand jurors 

### and do not govern the oompensatlon of jury 

### commlsslonera. It Is therefore our opinion that H.B. No. 

### 247does not authorize an Increase ln the compensation of jury oommlsslonera D

Wetrust that the foregoing satlsfaotorllg answers your inquiry.Honorable BenJ. Dean, page 2 

### o-6904,

Yours very truly, ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS By s/J. A. Ellis J. A. Ellis Assistant JAE:LJ:wc encl.
APPROVED

NOV 

### 3, 1945 s/Carlos C. Ashley FIRSTASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL Approved Opinion Committee by s/BWBChalrman
No. 11-395.

#### Andrew J. Whittaker, Jr., Petitioner v. Jewell K. Whittaker.

565 U.S. 1061, 132 S. Ct. 775,

181 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8653.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.

Same case below, 228 W. Va. 84, 717 S.E.2d 868.
Douglas 

,J. 

fixing punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably 

disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. 

State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson v. 

State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22(1979)); see also Harmelin v. 

Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion) (explaining 

that the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality 

between crime and sentence; it forbids only an extreme sentence that is 

grossly disproportionate to the crime). The recommendation of the 

Division of Parole and Probation has no binding effect on the courts. 

Etcheuerry v. State, 107 Nev. 782, 786, 821 P.2d 350, 352 (1991). 

At sentencing, the district court imposed a prison term of 24- 

60 months, noting Johnson's lengthy criminal history and the fact that 

Johnson had been revoked from parole and probation numerous times. 

The sentence imposed is within the parameters provided by the relevant 

statutes, see NRS 193.130(2)(c); NRS 453.401(1)(a), and Johnson does not 

allege that those statutes are unconstitutional. We are not convinced that 

the sentence imposed is so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to 

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

,J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A ea) 
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Nguyen & Lay 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) )947A
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40878]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20517]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 995]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 29, Louisville, KY

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the Louisville and Jefferson County 
Riverport Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 29, for authority to 
expand FTZ 29-Site 1 in Louisville, Kentucky, within the Louisville 
Customs port of entry area, was filed by the Board on August 12, 1997 
(FTZ Docket 65-97, 62 FR 44641, 8/22/97);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 29-Site 1 is approved, subject to the 
Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and subject 
to the standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone 
project.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of July, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20517 Filed 7-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
FIGURE 2. Percentage of public provider sites participating in a grantee

immunization information system-- United States, six cities§, and eight Territories†, 2006

No Report

0-33%

34-66%

67-94%

95-100%

Source: CY2006 IISAR

§Chicago, Illinois (34%-

66%); District of Columbia 

(67%–94%); Houston, 

Texas (34%–66%); New 

York City, New York 

(95%–100%); Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania (67%–94%); 

San Antonio, Texas (95%–

100%).

National Coverage: 71% (excluding Territories)

†American Samoa, (No Report), 

Guam (No Report) , Marshall 

Islands (No Report), Federated 

States of Micronesia (No 

Report), N. Mariana Islands 

(95%-100%), Palau (No Report), 

Puerto Rico (34%-66%) , Virgin 

Islands (67%-94%).
SERVED: OCTOBER 2, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

-IN THE MATTER OF 

VINCENT R. BROWN 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0906 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

.,!'11? 

l.t.l '· --2 p 1=30 

. This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2008-GL-13-0048) has been 

assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
·SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W: 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Vincent R. Brown 

563 7 Glen Oaks Drive 

Rocklin, CA 95765 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-8275 

FPCK: 847-294~7498 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

F PCK: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2012-0906 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
Vaccinations and Exemptions among Kindergartners

The Vaccination Trend tab shows vaccination estimates for multiple vaccines across multiple school years. Select one or more Vaccines, one 

Geography, one or more School Years to view estimates.

Hover to see 

specific

vaccination 

coverage 

estimates.

Right click to see

vaccination coverage 

estimates in table format.

Slide the 

Coverage bar to 

expand data.

Note: This icon 

will appear if a 

selected state 

does not assess 

coverage for 

individual 

vaccines, but 

instead all doses 

of all required 

vaccines.
The Exemption Trend tab shows trends in percentage of children enrolled in kindergarten for multiple exemption reasons across multiple school 

years. Select one or more Exemptions, one Geography, and one or more School Years to view coverage estimates. 

Hover to see specific

exemption coverage 

estimates.

Right click to see exemption 

estimates in table format.

Slide the 

Exemptions bar 

to expand data.

Note: This icon 

will appear if a 

selected state 

does not collect 

information on 

the number of 

kindergartners 

with exemptions, 

but instead the 

number of 

exemptions for 

each vaccine.
The Multi-Geography Trend tab shows in percentages of children enrolled in kindergarten for multiple exemption reasons across multiple 

geographies. Select one Exemptions, one or more Geographies, and one or more School Years to view coverage percentages. 

Slide the 

Percentages bar 

to expand data.

Hover to see specific 

exemption 

percentages.

Right click to see in table format.

Note: This icon 

will appear if a 

selected state 

does not collect 

information on 

the number of 

kindergartners 

with exemptions, 

but instead the 

number of 

exemptions for 

each vaccine.
The Map tab shows vaccination and exemption coverage estimates across multiple geographies for a single vaccine/exemption and school year. 

Select one Vaccine or Exemption, one or more Geographies, and one School Year to view coverage estimates.

Hover over a state

on the map to see 

additional 

information.

Click legend 

group to 

highlight 

specific 

states/cities.

Hover to see 

additional 

coverage 

estimates.

Click City & Territory 

Abbreviations for 

additional 

information.

Note: This icon will 

appear if a selected state 

does not assess coverage 

for individual vaccines or 

does not collect 

information on the 

number exemptions.
The Data Table tab shows vaccination and exemption data in a table format. Upon arriving on this tab, the table will be blank. Make selections 

using the dropdown filters on the left. Select one or more Vaccines/Exemptions, Geographies, and School Years to view data.

The Data Notes tab provides information about the data, methodology, and contact information.

Click a table header to sort 

the list by the specific topic.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
132105-6 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PATRICK PATTERS ON and SUSAN Stephen J. Markman, PATTERSON, Justices Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 132105-6 COA: 260728; 265672 Bay CC: 04-003358-NS GREGORY BRYA N CABALA, Defendant-Appellee,

and

ROBERT TREVINO,Defendant/Cross-DefendantAppellee,

and

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE OF MICHIGAN, d/b/a SOARING EAGLE CASINO, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e August 8, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0425 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 2, 2007

Clerk
≥95% (8 awardees)

75% - 94% (30 awardees)

50% - 74% (13 awardees)

25% - 49% (2 awardees)

<25% (1 awardee)

No IIS (1 awardee)

No data (1 awardee)

Percentage of adolescents aged 11 – 17 years participating in an immunization 

information system -- United States, five cities§, and D.C., 2018

National Participation: 80% (excluding Territories)

Source: CY2018 IISAR

§ Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; New York City, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Antonio, TX.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3481 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3481

   To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to 
require air carriers to disclose to consumers the actual wheels-off and 
wheels-on times for certain domestic passenger flight segments, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2019

 Mr. Payne (for himself and Mr. Sires) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations to 
require air carriers to disclose to consumers the actual wheels-off and 
wheels-on times for certain domestic passenger flight segments, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CONSUMER INFORMATION ON ACTUAL FLIGHT TIMES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall modify 
regulations contained in section 234.11 of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, to ensure that--
            (1) a reporting carrier (including its contractors), during 
        the course of a reservation or ticketing discussion or other 
        inquiry, discloses to a consumer upon reasonable request the 
        projected period between the actual wheels-off and wheels-on 
        times for a reportable flight; and
            (2) a reporting carrier displays, on the public internet 
        website of the carrier, information on the actual wheels-off 
        and wheels-on times during the most recent calendar month for a 
        reportable flight.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``reporting carrier'' 
and ``reportable flight'' have the meanings given those terms in 
section 234.2 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on 
the date of enactment of this Act).
                                 <all>
```
### 1

From: "Coomes, Jamie (RTA)" <jamie.coomes@riotinto.com>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Carroll, Danny (RTA)" <Danny.carroll@riotinto.com>

Date: 06/23/2011 11:40 AM

Subject: FW: Follow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

David, Rio Tinto Alcan Sebree plants pitch tanks are not subject to Subpart LL (installation date 1977)

and therefore are not controlled.

Jamie Coomes

From: Carroll, Danny (RTA)

Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:34 AM

To: Coomes, Jamie (RTA)

Subject: FW: Follow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:01 PM

To: Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com; ksands@centuryky.com; kisnerj@noralnm.com;

jvanmatre@centurywv.com; Carroll, Danny (RTA); kisnerj@noralnm.com; John.Reggi@ormet.com;

Henk.VanDerMeyden@alcoa.com; Kathryn.Mitchell@alcoa.com; Patricia.Bilskis@alcoa.com;

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com; Terry.Blodgett@alcoa.com; chris.allen@alcoa.com; david.hulse@alcoa.com

Cc: cjohnson@aluminum.org; bahner@rti.org

Subject: Foll ow up on pitch storage tanks at PAL facilities

Hello all,

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to the information collection request (ICR) dated April

25, 2011 concerning the primary aluminum operations conducted at your facility. The inf ormation you

provided will be instrumental in the ongoing associated residual risk/technology review. I have been going

through the ICR responses I received and have a couple of follow

- up questions concerning pitch storage

tanks:

1. The ICR did not directly ask whether or not your facility utilizes any new pitch storage tanks (i.e.

tanks installed after the proposal of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LL on 09/26/96)? Do you have any new

pitch storage tanks that are subject to Subpart LL at your facility? If so, what controls do you use to meet

the 95% POM reduction requirement in 40 CFR §63.844(d) [please submit this information on Table(s) 1

through 5 found in the ICR for the associated control device(s), if applicable]?

2. It appears, based on the ICR responses I received, that the ICR may not have been clear in

regards to submitting information on any controls that may be installed on existing pitch storage tanks at

your facility that are subject to Subpart LL. If you have any existing pitch stora ge tanks at your facility that

are subject to Subpart LL and that have emissions controls installed on them (even though those controls

are not required under Subpart LL) please provide the information necessary to evaluate those controls

### 2

[i.e. submit Tabl e(s) 1 through 5 found in the ICR for the associated control device(s), if applicable].

I am sorry for the need for this follow

- up email. Your time is valuable and I appreciate you taking time out

of your busy days to provide this information.

Thanks a gain,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 2016 Fax: (919) 54 1

- 3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2017,by and among BANC OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE, INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as GeneralSpecial Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer andas NCB Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PARKBRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset RepresentationsReviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2017-BNK6 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein nototherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. 

 

Pursuant toSection 11.09 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that: 

 

1. A reviewof the activities of the General Master Servicer during the period from July 1,2017 through December 31, 2017, (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and 

 

2. To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period. 

 

 

IN WITNESSWHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28thday of February 2018. 

 

 

/s/ DanielBober

Daniel Bober 

ExecutiveVice President

Wells Fargo Bank 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo)  Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
P.1 

OAR Box 1875 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

15) ll-E-33 

Docket Number: 

A-90-19 

Printed 12/1/200811:12:44 AM Sheet 15 of 86 
P.2 

• I i> i ,—-—••> * I I 

JAC A Corp. DEC 18 1992 / 

A-90-19 

ll-E-33 

\ P:. :\; fr "•- -

550 Pinetown Rd. 

!. \ Ft. Washington, PA 19034 

\i.„215/643-5466 Fax: 215/643-2772 

- ' 

Project Name: 

Person Contacted/TitI 

Phone Numbei 

| Company 

| Representing: 

JACA Representative 

Discussion: 

* Telephone Log v^r ^^r i^:;&f 

HON 

e: 

1 1-800-321-8242 

The C. P. Hall Co. 

: Christopher Holmes 

I called C. P. Hall fo r 

Date: February 26. 1992 

Time: 

Proiect No.: 014308 

Fax: 

Drice Quotes fo r diisooctvl Phthalate. 

The followina Drices were aiven: 

QUANTITY 

1-2 440 lb . drums 

3-9 440 lb . drums 

10-24 440 lb . drums 

40 ,000 lb. minimum 

PRICE 

.82/lb 

.79/lb 

.77/lb 

.52/1b
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3418 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reinstate the authority 

of the Secretary of Education to make Federal Direct Stafford Loans 

to graduate and professional students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2019 

Ms. JUDY CHU of California (for herself, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, 

Ms. DELBENE, Mr. SOTO, Mr. PETERS, Mr. VARGAS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, 

Mr. GRIJALVA, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. BROWNLEY of California, Mr. 

SWALWELL of California, Ms. MOORE, Mr. KILMER, Ms. TITUS, Ms. 

SA ́NCHEZ, and Ms. LEE of California) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to reinstate 

the authority of the Secretary of Education to make 

Federal Direct Stafford Loans to graduate and professional students. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Our Stu5 dents by Terminating Graduate Rates that Add to Debt 

6 Act’’ or the ‘‘POST GRAD Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3418 IH

1 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE FED2 ERAL DIRECT STAFFORD LOANS TO GRAD3 UATE AND PROFESSIONAL STUDENTS. 

4 Section 455(a)(3) of the Higher Education Act of 

5 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)(3)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the paragraph heading, by inserting 

7 ‘‘TEMPORARY’’ before ‘‘TERMINATION’’; and 

8 (2) in subparagraph (A), in the matter pre9 ceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘, and ending on or 

10 before June 30, 2019’’ after ‘‘2012’’. 

11 SEC. 3. INAPPLICABILITY OF RULEMAKING REQUIRE12 MENTS. 

13 Sections 482(c) and 492 of the Higher Education Act 

14 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c); 1098a) shall not apply to 

15 the regulations under this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
No. 10-11126.

#### Leo Smith, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 868, 132 S. Ct. 218,

181 L. Ed. 2d 119,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6721.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 419 Fed. Appx. 241.
NUTRITION: A FORCE MULTIPLIER

ent levels in the MRE are based on the Recommended Dietary Allowances (Daily Values) which are

adapted to meet operational requirements.

tification Maximizes the Nutrition of the Ration by Adding or Increasing Vitamins and Minerals

within some Ration Components.

Fortification Provides you the Additional Edge to Maximize Your Performance.

e table below shows fortified MRE components. The X shows which vitamins and minerals have

been added to a specific component. These components should always be eaten.

VITAMIN AND MINERAL FORTIFICATION

RATION COMPONENT VITAMINS MINERALS

Beverage Base

Cocoa Beverage

Cheese Spreads

Peanut Butter

Crackers

Dairyshakes

Wheat Snack Bread

Fruits

A C B1 B2 Niacin B6 D Calcium

X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X

X X

X X X X X

TRITION CONNECTION

RFORMANCE

X