alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 22, 2015 

 

Jared Nelson 

4627 Addison Street 

Boca Raton, FL 33248 

Dear Mr. Jared Nelson: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 26, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-775), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information 

you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to 

consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
H. Res. 93

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 22, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 247) to amend the Housing and Community

Development Act of 1974 to authorize communities to use

community development block grant funds for construction of

tornado-safe shelters in manufactured home parks. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1

pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. That amendment in the
2

•HRES 93 EH

nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During

consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the

Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition

on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment

has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule

XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read.

At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment

the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the

amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as

original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: MARGARET HERLEY

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 8:42:05 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

It is vital that women have access to medically approved contraception.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

MARGARET HERLEY

19 MYRTLE ST

APT. 103

BOSTON, MA 02114
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED  MARCH 31,  1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                       256,188
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              1,641,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  40,000
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           2,214,490
<PP&E>                                                     6,161,711
<DEPRECIATION>                                             4,051,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             4,636,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      2,065,178
<BONDS>                                                    5,216,281
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                      33,099
<OTHER-SE>                                                (3,690,345)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               4,636,613
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           7,773,596
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              7,194,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           560,163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              383,492
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  71,882
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 311,610
<EPS-BASIC>                                                  (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (0.09)


</TABLE>
#### THE PROVIDENT INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS, RELATOR, v. JOHN D. CASTLES, BUILDING INSPECTOR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided September 15, 1933.

Before Justices Case, Bodine and Donges.

For the relator, *Thomas McNulty.*

For the respondents, *Arthur B. Archibald.*

Per Curiam.

This is an application for a writ of *mandamus*to compel the issuance of a permit by the building inspector of the town of Kearny for the repair of a store budding in that municipality. The building has been in existence for a number of years and is at present, as shown by the photographs, in such a condition of disrepair that it may not be used. The evidence is to the effect that the permit was refused solely upon the ground that the district in which the building is located is now a residence zone. The desire of the relator was to put the building in such condition that it might be rented for use as a store. No radical changes or alterations in the building were contemplated.

In *Durbin Lumber Co.*v. Fitzimmons, 106 *N. J. L.*183; 147 *Atl. Rep.*555, it was held that a non-conforming use instituted prior to the passage of the constitutional amendment permitting zoning, which has been actively and constantly *774maintained, is entitled to be continued. . In tbe instant case, the building has not always been occupied but it had always existed as a store property.

The enabling act, chapter 274, laws of 1928, provides that any non-éonforming use or structure existing at the time of the passage of an ordinance may be continued upon the lot or in the building so occupied, and any such structure may be restored or repaired in the event of partial destruction thereof. The evidence, particularly the photographs, indicates a partial destruction such as to make the building in its present condition unfit for the non-conforming use to which it was devoted at the passage of the zoning ordinance.

We are of the opinion that the relator was entitled to put the building in condition for the previously existing nonconforming use.

It is urged that the refusal of the permit was justified because of failure to file a proper plan. But there was testimony that a plan was tendered, and the defendant admitted in his testimony that no plan was usually required for repairs of this kind.

It is also argued that relator should first have appealed to the board of adjustment and is not entitled to *mandamus*without having first taken such an appeal. That is the ordinary course, but it is not necessary where the facts and the right are clear. *Conaway*v. *Atlantic City,*107 *N. J. L.*407; 154 *Atl. Rep.*6.

The facts are all fully presented and the right of the relator is clear. A peremptory writ will be allowed.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 8/23/15 

Received: August 21, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8koe-p1z9

Comments Due: August 28, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule- Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-4957

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: terrence berger

General Comment

I am a constituent and life insurance professional and am writing to express my conceren 

regarding DOL's proposed fiduciary rule.

There is no evidence that harm is being done to consumers in the industry today. Complaints 

filed by consumers are less than 1 in 10,000.

I personally own mutual funds fixed annuities and variable annuities inside my IRA accounts. 

The DOL has not addressed whether these existing accounts would be grandfathered.

Bernie Madoff was a fiduciary and we all know the end result.

The proposed rule could potentially end careers of financial advisors and put Broker Dearles and 

insurance companies out of business.

DOL should slow down and simplify the final regulation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEAN MARTIN KIDDER, II, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 15-55595 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-06218-SVW-E 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Dean Martin Kidder, II, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary 

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Balvage v. 

Ryderwood Improvement & Serv. Ass'n, Inc., 642 F.3d 765, 775 (9th Cir. 2011). 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-55595 

We affirm.

The district court properly entered a stipulated judgment in favor of 

defendants because Kidder failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to 

whether the deputy did not have reasonable suspicion to execute the traffic stop or

probable cause to conduct the automobile search. See United States v. Willis, 431 

F.3d 709, 714-16 (9th Cir. 2005) (no Fourth Amendment violation where officer 

has reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred); United States v. PinelaHernandez, 262 F.3d 974, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2001) (police may conduct a 

warrantless search of a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that it 

contains contraband).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
# AFCENT celebrates key partner FMS success

/ Published March 10, 2023
GREENVILLE, S.C., 
The Royal Bahraini Air Force, the United States Air Force and Lockheed Martin celebrated the first F-16 Block 70 delivery to Bahrain during a ceremony at Lockheed Martin’s Greenville, South Carolina site at 11 a.m. today.

The Kingdom of Bahrain is a key security cooperation partner for U.S. Central Command.

“Our focus is on partnership in the region,” said Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, commander of 9th Air Force (Air Forces Central), the air component of USCENTCOM. “There is no better way to secure partnership than with the roll out of the Block 70 F-16. It is not just a deliberate capability for Bahrain; it is now an investment with a long-term relationship. We will be able to cooperate and be interoperable with them for decades to come because of this purchase.”

The F-16 Block 70 jet, the first of 16 jets destined for the Royal Bahraini Air Force, took its first flight Jan. 24 and will undergo additional test flights at Edwards Air Force Base, California. Following Bahraini pilot training, the first planes are projected to arrive in Bahrain in 2024.

According to Lockheed Martin, Bahrain—one of six countries that have selected the Block 70/72 aircraft—has a unique history with the F-16. They were also the first F-16 operator in the Gulf Cooperation Council in the early 1990s.

For more than 50 years, Bahrain has been an important partner and invaluable ally for the U.S. The Kingdom of Bahrain’s relationship with the U.S. dates back to 1903 with the establishment of the American Mission Hospital, the first modern hospital in the country and region, said Maj. Gen. Shaikh Hamad bin Abdullah Al Khalifa, commander of the Royal Bahraini Air Force.

Bahrain is also the home for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters, which has been in the country since the 1940s. Established in 1977, the Royal Bahrain Air Force has participated in regional coalition operations, including over Yemen and Iraq against Islamic State group fighters.

“The Kingdom of Bahrain’s relationship with the United States is based on mutual respect, common interests, cooperation in both military and civilian fields and above all, the friendship between both nations,” said Al Khalifa.

James A. Hursh, Director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, further emphasized the importance of working with allies and partners in the region.  

“Events in history have taught us that our security interests don’t end at the water’s edge,” said Hursh, whose agency advances U.S. defense and foreign policy interests by building the capacity of U.S. allies and partners through oversight of programs such as Foreign Military Sales. “Our whole of government approach to leveraging ally and partner national capabilities helps us secure common interests and promote shared values. We’ve seen much more than the unveiling of an airframe. We’re witnessing the projection of defense capacity into the hands of a trusted partner and in the process, we’re advancing our security interests to align with the challenges of today, many of which are still well beyond our shores.”
From: Monica Ramos

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Thank you for supporting birth control access for all women

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:37:17 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

Thank you for prioritizing women's basic health care needs.

Sincerely,

Monica Ramos

11907 Autumnwood Lane

Fort Washington, MD 20744
**Archive**

**_________________________________________________________________________________**
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 (1.17 MB)
 
 OIF USAFCENT combat operations night flight cjtf-oir United States Central Command combined joint task force operation inherent resolve Al-Udeid Combat Ops Kobani flying operations U.S. Air Forces Central command Operation Inherent Resolve U.S. Air Force USCENTCOM pilot USAF C-17 Iraq Cargo aircraft flight Syria Qatar loadmaster AIR FORCE C-17 Globemaster III Globemaster
 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
From: Kathy Wood

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 3:00:06 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Kathy Wood
Arlington, Texas