alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Diana Bowen

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:04:51 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,

Diana Bowen

421 Neck Road

South China, ME 04358
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR
ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K.  
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                         0001035418
<NAME>                                       TELEHUB COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                       dollars
       
<S>                           <C>                       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-mos                    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999  
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999  
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1999   
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000     
<CASH>                                        10,563,457     
<SECURITIES>                                           0     
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,553,268     
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,266,623     
<INVENTORY>                                            0     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              20,549,112     
<PP&E>                                        30,397,199     
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,740,247   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                50,045,750     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         15,784,323     
<BONDS>                                       71,636,670   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0   
<PREFERRED>                                        3,500
<COMMON>                                          13,034     
<OTHER-SE>                                   (48,623,443) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  50,045,750     
<SALES>                                                0     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,767,631     
<CGS>                                                  0   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 19,160,325   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              11,245,567     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,295,834   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (28,934,095)    
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (28,934,095)     
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0 
<NET-INCOME>                                 (28,934,095)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (2.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (2.24)
                                       
           

                            

</TABLE>
From: donna

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: religious employer

Date: Monday, August 08, 2011 8:44:07 AM

Please reconsider the language and meaning of "religious employer" in the new mandates concerning

preventative health services to be covered by insurance plans. The definition is so narrow that its

applicability negates most religious employers within the US. It really lacks true conscience protection.

We must protect our religious freedom. It is what makes us the United States from our very birth of a

nation. Sincerely, Carl and Donna Silva
From: Lisa Lavoie

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: do not allow religious employer exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:23:47 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government

to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage

requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption

would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s recommendations

and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
From: Givens, Nancy

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Support for access to contraception and preventive health care

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:54:44 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the

exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would

be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and

ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Nancy Givens

Bowling Green, KY
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Gary Harling v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-22-00216-CR

Trial court case number: 87966-CR

Trial court: 300th District Court of Brazoria County

Date Motion filed: January 9, 2023

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that Appellant Gary Harling’s Motion for Rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

Date: February 7, 2023
From: Shawna Scott

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:41:49 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,

Shawna Scott

2345 S. Whipple St. #1

Chicago, IL 60623
From: Judy Brouillette

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RE: "Religious Refusal" Exemptions

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 7:21:56 PM

I am a member of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), and I am

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine which pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for

“religious employers.” These preventive services are crucial to the new law and would

provide countless women better access to health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions represent an unjust denial to

women’s access to contraceptive services, still others, who have an ideological dislike for all

contraceptive services, are attempting to push the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health

providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage

requirement, even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this

larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just because of where they

work. Contraceptives have never been illegal in my lifetime, and heaven knows we need

them more than ever, with the population crisis upon us.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Sincerely,

Judy F. Brouillette
Exhibit 10.02


 


Promissory Note


 


April 15, 2016


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
the undersigned, Gas Natural Inc., an Ohio corporation (the “Borrower”), hereby promises to pay to the order
of NIL Funding Corporation LLC (the “Lender”) the Four Million Dollar ($4,000,000.00) principal amount of the
Loan of the Lender outstanding from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Loan Agreement, of even date hereof,
between the Borrower and the Lender (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to
time, the “Loan Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the Loan Agreement.


 


(a) The Borrower promises
to pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of the Loan from the date of the Loan until such principal amount is paid in full,
at the interest rates and at the times provided in the Loan Agreement.


 


(b) This Note is the
Note referred to in the Loan Agreement, is entitled to the benefits thereof and may be prepaid in whole or in part subject to the
terms and conditions provided therein. Upon the occurrence and continuation of any Event of Default under the Loan Agreement, all
principal and all accrued interest then remaining unpaid on this Note shall become, or may be declared to be, immediately due and
payable, all as provided in the Loan Agreement.


 


(c) The Loan made by
the Lender may be evidenced by one or more records or accounts maintained by the Lender in the ordinary course of business as well
as by this Note. The Lender may also attach schedules to this Note and endorse thereon the date, amount and maturity of the Loan
and all payments made on the Loan; provided that any failure of the Lender to make any such recordation or endorsement shall
not affect the Obligations of the Borrower under this Note.


 


(d) The Borrower hereby
waives diligence, presentment, demand, protest, notice of intent to accelerate, notice of acceleration, and any other notice of
any kind. No failure on the part of the holder hereof to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right, power or privilege hereunder
shall operate as a waiver thereof or a consent thereto; nor shall a single or partial exercise of any such right, power or privilege
preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, power or privilege.


 


THIS NOTE AND THE OBLIGATIONS
OF THE BORROWER HEREUNDER SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF SOUTH
CAROLINA


 


	 	Gas Natural, Inc.
	 	 
	 	By 	/s/ James E. Sprague
	 	 
	 	Name: James E. Sprague
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
U.S. Navy, 50 Partners Start International Maritime Exercise 2023
 
  By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
  Known as International Maritime Exercise (IMX) 2023, the multinational event is combined with Cutlass Express, which is led by Naval Forces Europe-Africa. Both will involve more than 50 partner-nations and international organizations operating in the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and East African coastal regions.
Additionally, the combined exercise will include 7,000 personnel, 35 ships and more than 30 unmanned and artificial intelligence systems.
Participants will focus on five main areas: combined command and control, maritime security, mine countermeasures, unmanned systems and artificial intelligence integration, and global health.
IMX and Cutlass Express are scheduled to end March 16 and 17, respectively. This is the eighth iteration of IMX since the exercise was established in 2012.
The full list of participants is available here: www.dvidshub.net/image/7651844/imx-ce-2023-scheduled-participants-list
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2659

LT Case No. 2021-CF-000707-A

_____________________________

DUNTE CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________ 

Petition for Belated Appeal. 

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Dunte Campbell, Jasper, pro se. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock 

McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Respondent. 

January 9, 2024 

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. 

MAKAR, SOUD, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             915
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,813
<ALLOWANCES>                                       498
<INVENTORY>                                      4,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,282
<PP&E>                                           7,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,444
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,887
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,087
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,167)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,807
<SALES>                                         18,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,573
<CGS>                                           12,738
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,708
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   142
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (195)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,369)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,369)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.81)
        

</TABLE>
# Oct. 25: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Oct. 25, 2014

October 25, 2014

Release #20141030FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla., Oct. 25, 2014 -** U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Friday and today using bomber aircraft to conduct one airstrike.  Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted twenty-two airstrikes Friday and today using bomber, fighter and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists in Iraq.

In Syria, one airstrike near Kobani destroyed an ISIL artillery piece.  In Iraq, three airstrikes near Bayji struck a large ISIL unit, a small ISIL unit, destroyed an ISIL building, damaged an ISIL building and destroyed two ISIL fighting positions.  One airstrike southeast of the Mosul Dam struck a large ISIL unit while ten airstrikes west of the Mosul Dam struck four small ISIL units, one large ISIL unit, destroyed an ISIL building, six ISIL fighting positions and four ISIL staging locations.  Four airstrikes near Fallujah struck two small ISIL units, destroyed an ISIL vehicle and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.  Two airstrikes near Qurayat al Hajjaj struck a small ISIL unit and destroyed an ISIL building.  One airstrike east of Hayy Al Arabi destroyed an ISIL building.  Finally, one airstrike near Aynzalah destroyed an ISIL building.  All aircraft departed the strike areas safely.  Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports.

The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.  The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations.  Among the coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq are the U.S., France, United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STAFF LEASING INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          25,035
<SECURITIES>                                    35,123
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                       856
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,441
<PP&E>                                          37,718
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,510
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,989
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           218
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,450
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,927
<SALES>                                      1,311,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,311,605
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,250,272
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   350
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,444
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,603
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47


</TABLE>
From: Georgia Libbares

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:44:30 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,

Georgia Libbares

505 N. McClurg Court

#1403

Chicago, IL 60611
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-50761 Summary Calendar

Khidhr Sunna Muhammad, a/k/a/ Tommy Lee Powell Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus S.O. Wood, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

(W-95-CA-168)

January 15, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tommy Lee Powell, a Texas state prisoner, filed a complaint in the Western District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. Powell used the name “Khidhr Sunnah Muhammad” in an apparant attempt to circumvent an order, entered by Judge Steger of the Eastern District of Texas in response to Powell’s numerous previous lawsuits against various prison officials, prohibiting Powell from filing futher lawsuits without leave of the court. The2

district court dismissed the case, noting that Western District Chief Judge Hudspeth had issued a general order requiring Western District judges to enforce sanctions imposed by other district courts against Texas prisoners unless the sanctioned prisoner establishes a change in circumstances or otherwise demonstrates that enforcing the previously imposed sanction would be unjust. We affirm. Powell’s brief to this court recites a factual scenario that we find impossible to credit, to the extent we are able to understand the allegations. Powell makes no attempt to establish a change of circumstances or substantial injustice; indeed, his complaint in this case appears to be based on facts identical to those in an earlier action that resulted in the sanction order. Powell makes no allegation that he has obtained any court’s leave to file this complaint. See Green v. Carlson , 649 F.2d 285 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1087 (1981). For these reasons we affirm the district court’s dismissal order. For similar reasons, we deny any motions made by Powell in conjunction with this appeal.