alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Home
  ABOUT US
  LEADERSHIP
  Bio Article View
 Biography
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 61

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Education and

the Workforce in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 27, 2001

Mr. BOEHNER (for himself and Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California) submitted

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House

Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce in the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Education and

4 the Workforce (hereafter in this resolution referred to as

5 the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff sala6 ries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries

8 and expenses, not more than $15,590,870.00 for the One

9 Hundred Seventh Congress.
2

•HRES 61 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $8,137,966.00 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2001, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2002; and

7 (2) not more than $7,452,904.00 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2002, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2003.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (2.57 MB)
 
 F-35 Aircraft Aviation F-35A F-35A Lightning II Take off Lightning Take-off
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                           18995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   837540
<ALLOWANCES>                                     25000
<INVENTORY>                                    3329337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5572887
<PP&E>                                         3808482
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2115795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8766290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1782300
<BONDS>                                         693279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          3097120
<PREFERRED>                                    3097120
<COMMON>                                      10190404
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8766290
<SALES>                                       14264663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12636491
<CGS>                                          7711138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7711138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3638536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              118599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1174428
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1160000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2334428
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2334428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
#### WEST SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. THE BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, DEFENDANT.

Submitted October 14, 1932

Decided March 1, 1933.

Before Justices Bodizste and Donges.

For the prosecutors, *Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence.*

For the defendant, *Frank H. Sommer*and *John A. Bernhard.*

Per Curiam.

This writ of *certiorari*brings up an order of the board of public utility commissioners, dated June 25th, 1931, modifying a previous order which directed the elimination of a grade crossing at Bogota. The West Shore Railroad Company, the owner of the tracks, and the New York Central Railroad Company, the lessee, attack the order. There is no contention that the crossing should not be eliminated but the controversy turns around the plan to be adopted.

On October 29th, 1930, after hearings, the board ordered the work done in accordance with a plan called B-2. Thereafter upon application of the borough and certain individuals, the matter was opened and reheard. On June 25th, 1931, a new order was made directing that a different plan be followed. This is known as P-5 revised, or the board’s plan. The railroads contend that the original plan, B-2, should have been retained.

Prosecutors claim that the cost of B-2 would have been approximately $498,500 and the plan adopted will cost *150$595,000, an increase of about $100,000, half of which they have to pay.

It is not contended that the board was bound to adopt the cheapest plan suggested, but that, in the circumstances of this case, the added cost is unreasonable. This is the question before this court.

The added cost arises out of the necessity, under the plan adopted, of acquiring certain properties not required by B-2. The estimate of $100,000 over the other plan is based upon the high appraisals of these properties. There is testimony of the value of these properties which would indicate an increase of only $28,000 over the previous plan. There is evidence of advantages of the plan adopted over the one replaced, namely, certain streets would be left open and the route would be a more direct one. The public will be better served by the plan adopted, and the additional outlay involved is slight, when compared with the advantages derived therefrom.

We conclude that the prosecutors have failed to establish that the determination of the board was not reasonably supported by the evidence, or that the order was unreasonable and in violation of prosecutors’ rights.

The writ is discharged, with costs.
Exhibit 32A

Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WidePoint
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (
the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ STEVE L. KOMARSteve L. KomarChief Executive
Officer

/s/ JAMES T. MCCUBBINJames T. McCubbinChief
Financial Officer

Date: January 19, 2006
#### § 633.13 Initiation of project management oversight services.

Project management oversight services will be initiated as soon as practicable, once the Administrator determines that this part applies. In most cases, this means that project management oversight will begin during the project development phase of the project, generally after the locally preferred alternative has been chosen (if applicable), unless the Administrator determines it more appropriate to begin oversight during another phase of the project, to maximize the transportation benefits and cost savings associated with project management oversight.
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

    I, J. Bruce Robinson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Zygo Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Zygo Corporation.

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

                                          By:     /s/ J. BRUCE ROBINSON
                                          Name:   J. Bruce Robinson
                                          Title:  Chairman, President and Chief
                                                  Executive Officer

    I, Richard M. Dressler, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Zygo Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Zygo Corporation.

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

                                          By:     /s/ RICHARD M. DRESSLER
                                          Name:   Richard M. Dressler
                                          Title:  Vice President, Finance,
                                                  Chief Financial Officer, and
                                                  Treasurer
Exhibit 10.32

TIME NOTE

For the value received, FORTEL Inc. promises to pay to the order of Robert E. Fortelka, the sum of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) dollars, payable with
interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum on the unpaid balance.

The
entire sum of principal and accrued interest shall be fully payable on September 21, 2001.

In
the event of default, FORTEL Inc. agrees to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection.

Signed
under seal this 23rd day of June, 2001.

| | FORTEL Inc.
| | -----------
| | By:        
| | By:        

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                 COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES



                      Exhibit 21 - Schedule of Subsidiaries


As of May 31, 2002, the Company had the following active subsidiaries:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Comprehensive Care Corporation:               State of Incorporation
     -----------------------------------------------------------                ----------------------
     <S>                                                                        <C>
     Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc.                                              Nevada

     Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc.:
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

     Comprehensive Care Integration, Inc.                                             Delaware
     Healthcare Management Services, Inc.                                             Michigan
     Healthcare Management Services of Michigan, Inc.                                 Michigan
     Behavioral Healthcare Management, Inc.                                           Michigan

     Affiliates sponsored by Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc.:
     ------------------------------------------------------------

     Comprehensive Provider Networks of Texas, Inc.                                   Texas
</TABLE>




                                       41
---

---

EXHIBIT 23.9



|TO:            | PricewaterhouseCoopers
      - Tel Aviv                    
|-------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------
|RE:            | Ampal American Israel
      Corporation  Subsequent Events
|COMPANY NAME.: | Hod Hasharon Sport
      Center Limited                    
|COMPANY NO.:   | 511675571                                                  

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**



As independent public accountants
  of Hod Hasharon Sports Center Limited , we hereby consent to the incorporation
  of our report dated as of March 21, 2004, included in Form 10-K of Ampal American
  Israel Corporation, previously filed Registration Statement File No. 333-61895,
  and No. 333-55970.



Somekh Chaikin
  Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

Tel Aviv March 28, 2004



---

---
# 99043. Pentagon Repeats: Anthrax Vaccine is Safe

```

By Linda D. Kozaryn
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON - Pentagon officials insist the mandatory 
anthrax vaccine has proven to be safe.

"It's safe and reliable," Pentagon Spokesman Ken Bacon 
said. "It works and has no side effects." 

Reporters queried Bacon about the vaccine Jan. 21 during a 
Pentagon briefing after eight pilots from Connecticut's Air 
National Guard 103rd Fighter Wing said they planned to 
resign rather than take the six-shot series. The unit, 
which flies A-10 Thunderbolts, is scheduled to deploy to 
the Gulf later this year. 

The anthrax vaccine is mandatory for all service members, 
active duty and reserve, but priority is being given to 
people going to Southwest Asia and Korea, Bacon explained. 
"After that, people who are likely to deploy to these or 
other hot spots are in line to get the shots," he said.

Bacon reported that during exit interviews, six of the 
eight Connecticut pilots said anthrax was only one of many 
factors that entered into their decision to resign. "Some 
may have found that the pressures of staying in the air 
guard and training were hard to balance with their family 
or business lives," he said. "Some may not have wanted to 
deploy to the Gulf for personal reasons." 

As of Jan. 12, Bacon said, 166,233 service members have 
received 463,226 shots. This includes the Defense 
Department's top civilian and military leaders, he added. 
"All of these people are fine," Bacon said. 

Anthrax shots are "a very safe and very important force 
protection measure" aimed at protecting people from the 
risks they could face on the battlefield, Bacon said. 
"Biological warfare is one of the emerging threats we 
face." 

The vaccine was certified by the Food and Drug 
Administration certified the vaccine in 1970. Since then, 
veterinarians, laboratory workers and livestock handlers 
have used the vaccine, Bacon said.

Every vaccine poses some risks, however, Bacon noted.  
"There have been some reactions to the vaccine. The 
reactions tend to be extremely minor - a little redness on 
the arm, for instance. A serious reaction is one that might 
involve a slightly elevated fever."

This has generally been an extremely successful program," 
Bacon said. "I think soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines 
understand this is for their own protection. We have found 
that almost all willingly take these shots."

For more information on the anthrax immunization program, 
go to the DoD web site "Countering the Anthrax Threat" at 
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/Anthrax/.

##END##
```
Coos,

June, 1895.

#### Jordan *v.*Atherton *& Tr.*

*Thomas F. Johnson*and *Drew, Jordan & Buckley,*for the plaintiff.

*Jason H. Dudley*and *George H. Bingham,*for the defendant.

Foreign Attachment. The question reserved was “how much the trustee should be charged.” The amount was adjudged to be $400.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
###### Editorial Note on Part 572

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 572.3 Application.

This part does not in itself impose duties or liabilities on any person. It is a description of tools that measure the performance of occupant protection systems required by the safety standards that incorporate it. It is designed to be referenced by, and become a part of, the test procedures specified in motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

[38 FR 20451, Aug. 1, 1973, as amended at 42 FR 7152, Feb. 7, 1977]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09** 
**- 1982** 

CHANTE’ N. HO DGE, Mrs.; HAROLD H. HODGE, JR. ,
Plaintiffs

– Appellants ,
and

B.S.H.; B.N.H.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

ST. MARY’S COUNTY SHERIFF’ S DEPARTMENT ; THOMAS HEDDERICH, First Class Detective; WILLIAM RAY, Detective; UNKNOWN DETECTIVE OR SHERIFF (at door first); CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF’ S OFFICE; R. COX, Deputy I.D. 4064; RICKY THOM AS, Lt.; CALVERT COUNTY SHERIFF’ S O FFICE SPECIAL OPERATIONS TEAM ,

De fendants

– Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:08

- cv
- 02522

- PJM )

Submitted : December 16, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011

Before GR EGORY , DUNCAN , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Chante’ N. Hodge , Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. Daniel Karp, KARPINSKI, COLARESI & KARP, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; John Francis Breads, Jr., Hanover , Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Chante’ N. Hodge and Harold H. Hodge, Jr., appeal the

district court’s order s granting summary judgment in favor of

D efendants in th eir 42 U.S. C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action
and denying the Hodges’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or
amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error in the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in Defendants’ favor. Accordi ngly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Hodge v. St. Mary’s Cnty.
Sheriff’s Dep’t , No. 8:08

- cv
- 02522

- PJM (D. Md. June 22, 2009 ).

We further find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s
denial of the Hodges’ Rule 59(e) motion and affirm that order.

See Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. , 148 F.3d 396,

402

- 03 (4th Cir. 1998)

. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are ad equately presented in the
materials before the court and argument w ould not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED