alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         802
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               30,345
<PP&E>                                         8,454
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 56,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,209
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       95
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   56,788
<SALES>                                        32,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               32,550
<CGS>                                          20,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,376
<INCOME-TAX>                                   879
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,497
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.23
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated March 10, 2005, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. and subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
reports in the (i) Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
(Forms S-8 No. 33-35915) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option Plan and the
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plans of Healthcare Services Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries, (ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-92835) pertaining to
the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Deferred Compensation Plan of Healthcare
Services Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, (iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-101063), (iv) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-46656) (v)
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-58765) (vi) Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-107467) and (vii) Registration Statement (Form S-3D No. 333-108182).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Edison, New Jersey
March 10, 2005

                                        1
<PAGE>

                     REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERD PUBLIC
                           ACCOUNTING FIRM ON SCHEDULE

Board of Directors and Stockholders
 HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC.


In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. and subsidiaries, referred to in our report
dated March 10, 2005, which is included in the 2004 Annual Report to
Shareholders and is incorporated by reference in Form 10-K, we have also audited
Schedule II for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2004.
In our opinion, this schedule presents fairly, in all material respects, the
information required to be set forth therein.


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Edison, New Jersey
March 10, 2005

                                        2
#### JOHN HONEOSZYN, PLAINTIFF-PROSECUTOR, v. LOTTIE GARBOWSKI AND DISTRICT COURT OF PASSAIC, DEFENDANT.

Argued January 17, 1933

Decided January 31, 1933.

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Hehee.

For the prosecutor, *J. Bernard Saltzman.*

For the defendant, *Casimir A. Silslci.*

Pee Cueiam.

The suit was in a District Court, and the court opened the judgment for a new trial on an application made more than thirty days after judgment was entered, and not based on newly discovered evidence. *Comp.*Stat., *p.*1959, § 17. See *Schubert*v. *District Court of Bergen*County, 10 *N. J. Mis. R.*414; 159 *Atl. Rep.*615. The answer to this apparent illegality is that the application for new trial was delayed beyond the thirty days by fraudulent misrepresentation by the plaintiff’s attorney, whereby defendant’s attorney was misled. *Geithner*v. *Paechiana,*8 *N. J. Mis. R.*384; 150 *Atl. Rep.*240. This is contradicted; but the matter is before us on *ex parte*affidavits and the facts may as well be fully developed before a commissioner. A writ will be allowed, with leave to both sides to take depositions and submit any documentary evidence that is relied on.
EXHIBIT 23.1







                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We  consent  to  the   incorporation  by  reference  in  V  Band   Corporation's
Registration Statements Nos. 2-94923, 33-7540, 33-19146 and 33-62458 on Form S-8
of our report dated March 2, 1999 (which  expresses an  unqualified  opinion and
includes an explanatory  paragraph relating to the Company's ability to continue
as a going concern)  appearing on page F-1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the year ended October 31, 1998.


/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
March 12, 1999
#### CENTRAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. PAUL GEIRSKY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued January 18, 1933

Decided August 19, 1933.

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Heher.

For the prosecutor, *Frank G. Turner.*

For the respondents, *Brody •& Weisberg (Joseph Kraemer,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The *certiorari*in No. 209 is to review a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Essex county in a workmen’s compensation case and in No. 232 we have a motion to dismiss the writ.

The motion to dismiss is denied and we proceed to consider the reasons urged for reversal of the judgment. The first and third of these are that the court below was without jurisdiction to award judgment against the insurance company because its policy did not cover the loss sustained by the respondents.

The policy was issued to respondents’ employer and covered employes in “chicken coop assembling and carpentry shop only including lumber yard and storage” and in connection therewith drivers and their helpers, chauffeurs and their helpers.”

The claimant was a farm hand working on the farm of the insured and while leading a farm horse which the employer *717had bought for farm purposes he was hit by an automobile and injured.

Our examination of the policy convinces us that it did not cover the loss. The policy is evidently intended to insure a mechanical business employment only.

Item three of the coverage refers to all factories, shops, yards, buildings, premises or other work places, 95 Bragaw avenue, Newark., Included in this are all business operations conducted at this place; (1) all industrial operations on the premises; (2) all office forces; (3) operations not on the premises.

Item four declares that this enumeration and description of employes includes all persons employed in the service of the employer in connection with the business operation above described, meaning, of course, the chicken coop assembling. There is no proof in the case that the farm or its operation had anything to do with the business of building or assembling chicken coops or the buildings connected therewith.

There are other reasons urged on reversal, among them that the right of trial by jury was denied to the appellant. There is much to be said in support of this reason. The question in this case is not whether the claimant was entitled to recover against his employer by a finding on which under the statute providing for bringing the answer in by rule, &c., the insurer would be bound, but whether the appellant’s policy had insured against the loss which had occurred. As, however, we think the policy by its terms did not cover the farm employes of the insured, it is not necessary to decide this reason for reversal.

The judgment is reversed.
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 (1.38 MB)
 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
Page | of |

FGAL PROCESSING DIVISION - _
PUBLICATION N & REGULATIONS SECS 210 As «> np

As of: August 16, 2010

PUBLIC Status: Posted

Ss U B M I SS I Oo N Irracking No. BObscSb2.
Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0010
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered
Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as
a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0104
Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488

Submitter Information

Name: Kim Hoffman
Address:
Hilo, HI,

General Comment

I'm pleased that the new health care reform law enacted by Congress
(Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) requires health insurance plans to adhere to a broad
new set of consumer protections. However, some health insurance plans will be allowed to
“escape” having to provide these new consumer-friendly protections because they will be granted
what is called “grandfathered” status under recently released regulations.

I support the position taken by the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) which encourages

the adoption of regulations that would restrict the use of this “loophole” and extend the important
consumer protections to as many patients as possible.

http://fdms.erulemaking net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/16/2010
#### Louis M. Starr et al., as Executors of Theodore B. Starr, Deceased, Respondents, *v.*Harriet E. Selleck, Appellant, and Louis M. Starr et al., Individually and as Executors of Theodore G. White, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

*Starr*v. Selleok, 145 App. Div. 869, affirmed.

(Argued March 18, 1912;

decided April 2, 1912.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 7, 1911, affirming an interlocutory judgment of Special Term in an action for an account*546ing and for the construction of certain provisions of a will.

The following questions were certified:

“I. Do the provisions contained in the paragraphs marked c Thirdly ’ and *‘*Third5 of the will of Theodore O. White, deceased, create a valid and effectual trust ?

“II. Is the defendant-appellant Harriet E. Selleck - estopped or precluded from asserting in this action the invalidity of the trust attempted to he created by the paragraphs marked ‘ Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third’ of the said will of Theodore Gr. White, deceased, by reason of the instrument executed by her and annexed to the complaint herein as Exhibit *‘*B ’ and by the other facts expressly found by the trial court and the facts not expressly found, but undisputed and tending to support the express findings ?

“III. Are the said provisions contained in the paragraphs marked *‘*Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third ’ of said will of Theodore Gr. White, deceased, void as against public policy ?

“IV. Did the defendant, Harriet E. Selleck, by taking the benefits given her by paragraph * Eirst ’ of Theodore Gr. White’s will elect to renounce the right to contest the validity of the paragraphs marked ‘ Thirdly ’ and ‘ Third ’ of the said will ? ”

*F. B. Minrath*and *Henry Siegrist*for appellant.

*Eugene H. Hatch*for respondents.

*Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General {Henry Selden Bacon*of counsel), for Attorney-General, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs. Eirst question certified answered in the affirmative; the other questions not answered. No opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook, Cease and Collin, JJ.
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 (2.43 MB)
 
 JOEP JAF New Jersey National Guard Task Force Spartan interoperability Soldiers Army Guard ceremony Jordan USARCENT National Guard Army National Guard ARCENT coalition ASG-J 102 CAV Jordan Border Guard Force JTC-J Joint Operational Engagement Program
 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
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 90

Designating minority membership on certain standing committees of the

House.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 14, 2001

Mr. TURNER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating minority membership on certain standing

committees of the House.

1 Resolved, That the following named Member be, and

2 she is hereby, elected to the following standing committee

3 of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT:

5 Mrs. Jones of Ohio.

Æ
From: Carlson, Sara <Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com>

Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 12:16 PM

To: Fortin, Kelly; Land, Eva

Cc: Maness, Katie; Rahul Pendse (rpendse@trinityconsultants.com); Grygar, 

Bill

Subject: RE: Anadarko Permit and Modification Processing Priority

Hey Kelly,

As we discussed in the meeting on August 4th, Anadarko would like to make the BlackHawk and 

BlackHornet air permit applications the priority and put the Noble Bob Douglas air permit application on 

hold.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

Sara Carlson

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation

EHS Representative II, Gulf of Mexico

Sara.Carlson@anadarko.com

832-636-1273 (office)

832-506-0888 (cell)

Click here for Anadarko’s Electronic Mail Disclaimer
**Archive**SERVING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:BEST PRACTICES IN CUSTOMER-DRIVEN STRATEGIC PLANNINGFEDERAL BENCHMARKING CONSORTIUM
CERTIFICATIONS*



EXHIBIT 10.9


Amendment to


Continental Airlines, Inc. Officer Retention and Incentive Award Program



This Amendment (this "Amendment") to the Continental Airlines, Inc. Officer Retention and Incentive Award Program (as amended and restated through August 10, 2001) (the "Program") is dated as of March 12, 2004 and has been adopted by the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Continental Airlines, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on March 12, 2004.



1.  Pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Program (which provides for amendments to the Program), the Program is hereby amended as follows: 



Section 2.1(e) of the Program is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 "(e)'Change in Control' shall have the same meaning as is assigned to such term under the Incentive Plan 2000, as in effect on March 12, 2004 after giving effect to amendments thereto through such date."







2.  The Program, as amended by this Amendment, shall apply to all Awards made under the Program on or after the date hereof and to all outstanding Awards made under the Program prior to the date hereof inasmuch as the changes to the Program effected hereby do not impair the rights of any Participant.  In all other respects, the Program shall continue in full force and effect with respect to all Awards made thereunder.



3.  Capitalized terms used in this Amendment without definition are defined in the Program and are used in this Amendment with the same meanings as in the Program.



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment on behalf of the Company as of March 12, 2004.

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC.


 

By:_/s/ Jeffery A. Smisek_______________

Jeffery A. Smisek

Executive Vice President
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Page 1 of 1 

AUG 2 6 2010 

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION 


PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS 


BRANCH 
 As of: August 26, 2010 

Received: August 10, 2010 

Status: Posted 

Posted: August 26, 2010 

Tracking No. 80b2da48 

PUBLIC 

SUBMISSION Comments Due: August 16, 2010 

Submission Type: Web 

Docket: IRS-2010-0010 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Rules Relating to Status as a Grandfathered 

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act 

Comment On: IRS-2010-0010-0001 

Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage: Interim Final Rules for Relating to Status as 

a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Document: IRS-2010-0010-0436 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

Submitter Information 

Name: Carolyn M. Parker 


Address: 


Prescott, AZ, 


Organization: American Chiropractic Association 


Government Agency: HHS 


----------------------------------------------------------------_.... 


General Comment 

The Chiropratic field is a much needed medical field for the well being of thousands of individ Jals. 

These people can be productive with the assistance of chiropractic care vs. being unable to 

function on the job or in their personal lives without chiropractic care. Obviously, those who are 

able to function strengthen their personal lives as well as the lives of those around them, which in 

turn strengthens the morale and economy their communities, states and the country. For the 

sake of all, do not allow the benefits of chiropractic care to be restricted by the greedy insurance 

industry. 

Attachments 

IRS-2010-0010-0436.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-14488 

https:llfdms.erulemaking.netffdms-web-agency/componentfsubmitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 8/26/2010 
August 10, 2010 

Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 

Attention: OCIIO-9991-IFC 

P.O. Box 8016 

Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 

Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

As a consumer I wish to take this opportunity to formally comment on 

the interim final rule regarding health plans and "grandfather" status (Document ID IRS-2Ot 0­

0010-0001). 

I believe the consumer protections included as part ofthe new health care law are vitally 

important and should be extended to as many people as possible. Accordingly, every effort 

should be made to increase the number of individuals covered by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) via the above regulations. The triggers or conditions that would 

extend these protections to consumers under currently existing "grandfathered" plans should not 

be weakened or reduced in any way. I specifically support the position and detailed comments 

offered by the American Chiropractic Association with respect to the implementation ofthese 

regulations. ' 

Carolyn M. Parker 

Prescott, Arizona
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6968

TIMOTHY GENE HARPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHERIFF SUSAN JOHNSON; ALBERT BESS; DAVID CASTELOW,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:08-ct-03033-D)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Gene Harper, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Gene Harper appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harper v.

Johnson, No. 5:08-ct-03033-D (E.D.N.C. May 27, 2008). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED