alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Meals for Schools and Childcare

Nutritious school meals help America's children learn, grow, and stay healthy.

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

#### Contact your local school district today to see if your family is eligible for free or reduced price meals!

----

##### There are a lot of fun and innovative activities happening in lunchrooms across the country to serve your kids nutritious, tasty foods.

 

                          - Community Eligibility Provision
CEP is a simplified meal service option that allows schools in high-need areas to provide meals at no cost to all students, without requiring families to apply for free and reduced-price meals. USDA recently announced a final rule that could bring CEP to an additional 3,000 school districts.
Press releaseLearn more
                          - Healthy Meals Incentives for Schools
FNS has established the Healthy Meals Incentives Initiative to improve the nutritional quality of school meals through food systems transformation, school food authority recognition and technical assistance, the generation and sharing of innovative ideas and tested practices, and grants.
Learn more
                          - Back to School 2023-24
Students thrive in a healthy school nutrition environment. Strengthen, energize, and renew your school’s efforts to support healthy choices with these ready-to-go resources.
Team Nutrition ResourcesMedia Toolkit
                          - Child Nutrition Success Stories
Get inspired by school districts across the nation who are serving up delicious and creative school meals!
Success Stories

Stay in the Know

Subscribe now!

### Learn More About Our Programs in Schools and Childcare

National School Lunch Program

School Breakfast Program

Farm to School

USDA Foods in Schools

Child and Adult Care Food Program

Food Safety

Team Nutrition

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

Special Milk Program

Page updated: January 09, 2024
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Tuesday, June 6, 2023

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                      The Commission will consider and act upon the following inopen session: *Perry County Resources, LLC*,**Docket No. KENT 2022-0024.(Issues include whether the Judge abused his discretion in denying the approvalof the settlement motion based on the Secretary of Labor’s refusal to provide asection 104(b) order that was associated with a citation that was a subject ofthe motion to approve settlement.)

 

Any person attending this meeting who requires specialaccessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING:                             1-(866)236-7472

                                                Passcode:678-100

 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

 

Dated: May 23, 2023

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel

 

BillingCode 6735-01
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1812

To amend the Food for Progress Act of 1985 to clarify the application

of other laws to the agricultural commodities furnished under that Act

pursuant to the Vancouver Package.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 22, 1993

Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Agriculture

A BILL

To amend the Food for Progress Act of 1985 to clarify

the application of other laws to the agricultural commodities furnished under that Act pursuant to the Vancouver

Package.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF

4 OTHER LAW TO AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES FUR5 NISHED UNDER THE FOOD FOR PROGRESS ACT OF 1985

6 PURSUANT TO THE VANCOUVER PACKAGE.—Section 1110

7 of the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o)
2

•HR 1812 IH

1 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub2 section:

3 ‘‘(p)(1) Sections 901(b) and 901b of the Merchant

4 Marine Act, 1936, (46 U.S.C. app. 1241(b), 1241(f) shall

5 not apply to the transport or carriage of any agricultural

6 commodities furnished under this section pursuant to the

7 Vancouver Package.

8 ‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘‘Vancouver Pack9 age’’ means the United States food aid assistance for Rus10 sia that the President of the United States outlined in this

11 meetings with the President of the Russian Federation in

12 Vancouver, British Columbia in April 1993.

Æ
|   | (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, 2009 | /s/      Thomas B. Akin          |
|                                   | Thomas      B. Akin              |
|                                   | Principal      Executive Officer |
|                                   |                             |
|                                   |                             |
| Date:  November      9, 2009 | /s/      Stephen J. Benedetti    |
|                                   | Stephen      J. Benedetti        |
|                                   | Principal      Financial Officer |
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 Interlink Electronics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul D. Meyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of 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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/s/    PAUL D. MEYER                 
|                                     
|Paul D. Meyer Chief Financial Officer
|                                     
|May 14, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDIS TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,833,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,074,000
<PP&E>                                         909,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              93,338,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          924,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       168,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  92,085,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                93,338,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,173,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,154,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,154,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,154,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.36)


</TABLE>
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ISELA PENA GARCIA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00 129

- C R

Appeal from the

1 43 rd District Court

of Reeves County , Texas

(TC# 17

- 07

- 08169

- CRR )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion requesting appointment of counsel. The

trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant on appeal, and that attorney filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that Appellant’s appeal is frivolous.

In accordance with the procedures established in Anders , counsel also filed a motion to withdraw

as appellate counsel. The Court will not rule on the motion to withdraw until it has had an

opportunity to comp lete an independent review of the record and the briefs. Appellant is entitled

to review the record and file her own brief with the Court (referred to as Appellant’s pro se brief).

The pro se brief is currently due to be filed on March 9, 2019. Appellan t is not entitled to have

another attorney appointed to assist her in preparing the pro se brief. Appellant’s motion for

appointment of counsel is DENIED.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of February

, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O. ,Circuit Court

Jan. Term, 1898.)

Before Cox, Swing and Smith, JJ.

#### THE C., H. *&*D. RY. CO. v. JOHN SHRODER and THE CINCINNATI STREET RAILWAY CO.

*Liability for injury by a steam, railway to a street railway pas*senger—

. Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county*

This is the case where an electric car was obstructed and stopped cn the C.,H. & D. tracks at Brighton,by the balking directly in front of it of a team of horses, which belonged to the street railway company and were hitched to a wagon. Before the horses could be gotten out of the way so as permit the car to be moved, a train came round the curve and crashed into the street car. Schroder was a passenger on the car, and sued both companies for $5,000 for injuries. It was claimed on the part of the street railway company that the accident was unavoidable on their part, having been brought about by an uncontrolable agency, to-wit, the two balky horses. The jury accepted this view,and returned a verdict against the steam railroad company for $225.

Swing, J.

We think the judgment in-this-case should be affirmed,op *637the ground that there was evidence sufficient before tbe jury to authorize it in finding that the railway company could have avoided the accident if proper care had been used, even after the street railway car had been placed in its perilous position. And we think the jury had a right to find that the street railway company was not negligent in going on the track of the O., H. *&*D. R’y. Co.

*Thos. L. Michie,*and *Wm. Schmidt, Jr.*for, Schroder.

*Poraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior,*for the Street Railway Company.

*Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey,*for C., H. *&*D. R’y. Co.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 at and for
the periods indicated.
  /s/ Robert L. ButchofskyRobert L. ButchofskyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
c~e_ \\)C, uuce·-bo2l ~-~lb) 

C..~ ~.~-o\l8~ ~~. FKJ-o\\8Lf
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Of Uni-Marts, Inc.
State College, Pennsylvania


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-69136, No. 33-9807, No. 333-07697, No. 333-75107 and No. 333-24903 of
Uni-Marts, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated November 1, 2002, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Uni-Marts, Inc. for the year ended September
30, 2002.

Our audits of the financial statements referred to in our aforementioned report
also included the financial statement schedule of Uni-Marts, Inc., listed in
Item 14(a)(2). This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of
Uni-Marts, Inc.'s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based
on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

December 19, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1617 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1617

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               April 19 (legislative day, April 11), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the establishment on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., 
Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, of a facility 
to provide temporary accommodations for family members of severely ill 
     children being treated at a nearby university medical center.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR USE OF PROPERTY AT 
              EDWARD HINES, JR., DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
              HOSPITAL.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may enter into a 
long-term lease or similar agreement with the organization known as The 
Caring Place at Loyola, Inc., a not-for-profit organization operating 
under the laws of the State of Illinois, to permit that organization to 
establish on the grounds of the Edward Hines, Jr., Department of 
Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois, a facility to provide 
temporary accommodations for family members of severely ill children 
who are being treated at the Loyola University of Chicago Medical 
Center and other hospitals.
    (b) Conditions.--An agreement under subsection (a) shall ensure 
that there shall be no cost to the United States as a result of the 
property use authorized by that subsection and may permit the use of 
the property without rent.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1714

___________

United States of America, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellee, * District Court of the Northern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Adam Sharkey, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 22, 2003

Filed: January 29, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Adam Sharkey appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the thirtymonth imprisonment sentence imposed by the district court1

 upon revocation.

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in acting within the statutory

guidelines, we affirm. 

In 1996, Sharkey pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possession with

intent to distribute over five grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), 846. The district court sentenced Sharkey to 70 months' imprisonment and
-2-

five years' supervised release. He served his prison sentence and was placed on

supervised release in 2001. During Sharkey's supervised release revocation hearing,

he admitted that he was unsuccessfully discharged from several drug treatment

programs; he failed to comply with drug testing by missing five scheduled urinary

analyses; he used illegal drugs, testing positive eight times for cocaine and four times

for marijuana; and was arrested twice–once for driving while license under

suspension and disorderly conduct, and once for interference with official acts and

driving while license under suspension. 

The district court revoked Sharkey's supervised release and sentenced him to

thirty months' imprisonment followed by twelve months' supervised release. Sharkey

appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by revoking Sharkey's

supervised release rather than extending it and modifying its conditions.

Alternatively, Sharkey contests the length of imprisonment imposed. 

When a district court imposes a revocation sentence within the statutory limits

of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the appellate court will not disturb that sentence absent an

abuse of discretion. United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995).

Sharkey does not dispute that the district court's sentence is within the statutory

maximum allowed for revocation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The district court did

not abuse its discretion by revoking Sharkey's supervised release and imposing a

thirty-month sentence. Sharkey's violations of the terms of his supervised release

provide ample support for the court's action. The court recognized that there were no

further resources in the community to offer Sharkey and the best thing to do for him

was to get him back into the Bureau of Prisons residential drug abuse treatment

program. The court's hope was that this sentence would help Sharkey hone his skills

in treatment in order to stay clean and sober. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of earnings, consolidated balance sheet and consolidated
statement of cash flows included in the Company's Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ending January 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 0.6515
<CASH>                                         690,331
<SECURITIES>                                   238,674
<RECEIVABLES>                                  451,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,236
<INVENTORY>                                    192,890
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,642,754
<PP&E>                                       1,046,053
<DEPRECIATION>                                 554,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,483,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          391,003
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       528,548
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,014,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,483,767
<SALES>                                        450,753
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               450,753
<CGS>                                          187,962
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  382,783
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,702
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                183,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                    62,019
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            120,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   120,119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
        

</TABLE>
**FEDERALMINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION**

 

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

 

BAC 6735-01

 

March 30, 2016

 

 

TIMEAND DATE:                10:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 20, 2016

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Washington, DC 20004 (enter from  F Street entrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERSTO BE 

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommission will hear oral argument in the matter *Secretary of Labor v. TheAmerican Coal Company,*Docket Nos. LAKE 2011-701, et al.**(Issuesinclude whether the Judge erred by not requiring that the Secretary prove by apreponderance of the evidence that the amounts of proposed penalties based onspecial assessments were appropriate.)

 

 

Any person attending this oral argument who requiresspecial accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign languageinterpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACTPERSON 

FOR MORE INFO:                EmogeneJohnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

                                                Relay/ 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                __________________________________

                                                SarahL. Stewart

                                                DeputyGeneral Counsel