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

    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 (5.71 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
ISAF Statement on Reopening of Supply Lines
 By None  , ISAF Public Affairs Office
  KABUL, Afghanistan (July 3, 2012) — The Commander of the International Security Assistance Force, Gen. John R. Allen, welcomes Pakistan’s decision to reopen the Ground Lines of Communication as a demonstration of Pakistan’s desire to help secure a brighter future for both Afghanistan and the region at large. Gen. Allen has traveled to Pakistan several times in recent weeks to meet with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff. The purpose of these trips is to continue building the increasingly important and positive military-to-military relationship between Pakistan and ISAF. “These continuing discussions underscore the importance of working together on the challenges facing our two countries in the days, months, and years to come.  I look forward to future opportunities to work together toward our common goals, by taking coordinated action against terrorists,” Allen said.  The two commanders also discussed the growing value of the relationship and the tactical and operational efforts and measures being taken to defeat the terrorists that threaten the region. Both leaders also recognized the tremendous sacrifices made by Afghan, Pakistani, and ISAF service members to ensure the brutal tactics of our common enemies no longer harm innocent people. “At times like these, my thoughts and prayers turn to the sacrifices of our honored partners, the Afghan National Security Forces, and to the sacrifices of the noble people of Afghanistan who have given so much to the cause of freedom,” Allen said on returning to Kabul.
From: Carol D Norberg

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Re: no exemptions for religious employers

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:04:52 PM

I heartily endorse 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.

These groups are trying to make these odious exemptions even larger and we

have seen that far from reducing unwanted pregnancies, they only prevent

women exerting their rights to determine how many children they will have.

They misrepresent their mission to innocent girls and trap them into having

babies they are in no condition to bear or support, More and more women are

held hostage to Catholic run hospitals who are free to make these decisions for

them.

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: Thierra Nalley

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:06:34 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,

Thierra Nalley

1041 W. Carter Drive

Tempe, az 85282
From: Mary Reckamp

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:41:30 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,

Mary Reckamp

4501 Lindell Blvd

Apt 6B

St. Louis, MO 63108
#### JOHN H. BORGER & COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. EMANUEL GOFFMAN AND REUBEN ZIMMERMAN, APPELLANTS.

Submitted May 12, 1933

Decided October 3, 1933.

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Peeskie.

• Por the appellants, *Nat N. Kranzler {Herman W. Kurtz,*of counsel).

Por the respondent, *David Bernheim {Joseph J.*Corn, of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The appeal in this ease is from a judgment awarded the plaintiff in the Pirst District Court of Newark. The case was heard by the judge sitting without a jury and was on a written guaranty made by the defendants for the purchase of goods to be made by Goffman & Kochman, and reading as follows:

“We, the undersigned, in consideration of John H. Borger & Company, a New York corporation, and or HeinemanHaman Inc., a New York corporation, giving merchandise to Paul Goffman and Alex Kochman, trading as Goffman & Kochman, for a sum not to exceed four hundred ($400) dollars, agree to pay to John H. Borger & Company, Inc., *835and or Heineman-Haman Inc., provided that Paul Goffman and Alex Kochman, trading as Goffman & Kochman, do not pay for merchandise so received by them within ten days after receipt of said merchandise.

This liability on our part shall be joint and several and shall continue for a period of six months from date hereof.

Dated March 15, 1932.

Kate Goeeman,

Emanual Goeeman,

Hyman Kaplan,

Al Kochman,

Reuben Zimmerman, M. D.”

The defenses were that there was no sale to Goffman & Kochman and that the guaranty was never accepted by the plaintiff.

The appeal is without merit. The paper-writing, as the trial judge said, partakes more of the nature of an original undertaking rather than a guaranty. Assuming, however, that it is the latter, it was given to one Ohesler and Paul Goffman, one of the guaranteed firm, and was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sold the bill of goods to Goffman *&*Kochman and they failed to pay. Hence this suit. That the goods were sold was admitted at the trial; also that there was a balance of $250, less a credit of $55.50 due.

In arguing the second point citation is made by appellants of numerous cases holding that an offer of guaranty must be accepted by the other party before it becomes binding, and no criticism can be made of them, but the present contract was more than an offer; it was a direct guaranty by the defendants of purchases to be made by the firm of Goffman *&*Kochman of the plaintiff corporation or another corporation therein named; it was made for the benefit of whichever of the two should make the sales, and when it came into the hands of the plaintiff and was acted upon by it in the sale of the goods, we think it became binding on the defendants and they were rightly held bound by it.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WARREN STOKES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 95 EM 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2021, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Counsel is ORDERED to file a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
From: BJ Carola

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 11:10:59 AM

Dear Department of Health and Human Services;

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.

Sincerely,

BJ Carola

12 White Oak Drive

Colts Neck, NJ 07722

iluvmcega@gmail.com
Cheshire,

June, 1894.

#### Davis *v.*Whitney *& a.*

The reasonable use of one’s property is not an actionable nuisance, although injurious to another.

Case, for maintaining a private nuisance. Facts found by a referee. The defendants owned and operated a shoddy mill, situated eighty-six feet from the plaintiff’s dwelling-house, and equipped with machinery indispensable to the business and similar to that used in other shoddy mills. When the wind was in the right direction, lint, dust, and smoke, the latter of a sickening odor, were driven toward the plaintiff’s house, obliging her to close the doors and windows on that side. On two or three occasions she had to absent herself from the house for several weeks, because chronic diseases from which she suffered were made worse by the objectionable materials and odors. The defendants have not intended to injure her, and have tried to construct their plant so that she would not be annoyed. The use they made of their premises was found to be reasonable. The plaintiff’s damages were assessed at $300. Both parties moved for judgment on the report.

*Don D. Woodioard*and *Charles H. Hersey,*for the plaintiff.

*Batchelder*Faulkner, for the defendants.

Smith, J.

The referee has found that the use made by the defendants of their premises was reasonable. According to the decisions in this state, the defendants are entitled to judgment. *67
      *Bassett*v. *Salisbury Co.,*43 N. H. 569; *Hayes*v. *Waldron,*44 N. H. 580; *Swett*v. *Cutts,*50 N. H. 439; *Eaton*v. *Railroad,*51 N. H. 504, 533; *Brown*v. *Collins,*53 N. H. 442; *Haley*v. *Colcord,*59 N. H. 7; *Green*v. *Gilbert,*60 N. H. 144; *Rindge*v. *Sargent,*64 N. H. 294.

*Judgment for the defendants.*

All concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7511

In Re: ANTHONY FEURTADO,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-99-2582-3-17)

Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 13, 2001

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Feurtado, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Feurtado, a South Carolina prisoner, filed a petition

for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to have this court direct the

district court judge to recuse himself. Feurtado’s initial motion

to recuse was denied. He then filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for relief from the judgment denying the motion to recuse, which

also was denied. In addition, he filed motions to reconsider the

denial of the motion to recuse and to reconsider the denial of the

Rule 60(b) motion, both of which were denied. All four rulings

were recently affirmed on appeal. Feurtado v. McNair, No. 00-7253,

2001 WL 125289 (4th Cir. Feb. 13, 2001) (unpublished).

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a

clear right to the relief sought. See In re: First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). A district judge’s

refusal to recuse himself is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See

United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 283 (4th Cir. 1998), cert.

denied, 526 U.S. 1137 (1999). Mandamus applies to ministerial, but

not discretionary, functions of federal officials. See 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1361 (West 2000). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and

should only be used in extraordinary situations. See Kerr v. United

States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re: Beard, 811

F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is only available

when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be

granted. See In re: Beard, 811 F.2d at 826. Because the motion to
3

recuse and subsequent motions for relief from judgment and reconsideration have been denied in the district court and the denial

has been affirmed on appeal, Feurtado has not shown a clear right

to the relief sought. Therefore, we deny his petition for mandamus

relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
From: Laura Guzman

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Institute of Medicine recommendations

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:48:18 PM

To whom it may concern:

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.

Best,

Laura
#### Edwin R. Hawkins and another, Appellants, v. Joseph Langloss and another, Respondents.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Mem. by Learned, P. J.
Exhibit 4.39







FAMILY TRADING INC


MARSHALL ISLANDS
















Private and Confidential


The Board of Directors


Top Ships Inc.


1 Vas. Sofias &Meg. Alexandrou Str.


151 24 Maroussi







For the attention of Mr. Vangelis G. Ikonomou (Chairman of the Board of Directors)












December 23, 2015


Subject: Final offer letter for the provision of finance and assumption of liabilities


Dear Sir(s)


Further to our exchanges on the subject matter, please find below our final offer letter outlining the financial support that we are willing to provide to Top Ships and the respective terms.


Family Trading or its nominee will:



		1.	Provide an unsecured revolving credit facility up to USD 15,000,000 (fifteen million). Funds will be available for immediate drawdown following the execution of this letter agreement and relevant loan documentation.






		2.	Assume the liability due to Koufonissi Shipping Company Limited resulting from the Termination Agreement dated October 15, 2011 as per the attached Notice of Default. The amount that will be assumed is USD 3,796,287.30 (three million seven hundred and ninety six thousand two hundred and eighty seven dollars and thirty cents).

























FAMILY TRADING INC


MARSHALL ISLANDS 















  












Following the confirmation from Koufonissi Shipping Company Limited that it no longer has any claim towards the Top Ships group in relation to the Termination Agreement dated October 15, 2011, and that all amounts are considered as having been settled, Top Ships Inc will issue to Family Trading Inc or its nominee, 13,558,169 (thirteen million five hundred and fifty eight thousand one hundred and sixty nine) Top Ships Inc common shares of, par value of USD 0.01.


Top Ships Inc will have the right to buy back up to 60% of the shares issued to Family Trading Inc or its nominee, at its option at any time until 31 December 2016, at a price of USD 0.37 per share (price to be adjusted for stock splits and reverse stock splits).


All expenses relating to this letter agreement will be paid by Top Ships Inc.


Acknowledgment and Acceptance


Please acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of our offer by signing the confirmation below. After its acceptance, this offer letter shall be binding upon the parties hereof.







	
Yours faithfully,

	 	 
	 	 	 
	
/s/ Illegible

	 	 
	
Family Trading Inc.

	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	
Accepted: Top Ships Inc.


	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	
Signature: /s/ Vangelis G. Ikonomou


	 	 	
Name:  Vangelis G. Ikonomou


	 	 	
Title: Director


	 	 	
Date: 23 Dec. 2015
From: Meredith Dunlap

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventive care services

Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:45:16 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.

--

Mitsy
**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE**     I, Stanley J. Talbi, certify that (i) MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut’s Annual Reporton Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) theinformation contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of MetLife Insurance Company of Connecticut.Date:April 2, 2007      /s/ Stanley J. Talbi Stanley J. Talbi
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearin g.

________________ No. 3D18-2621 Lower Tribunal No. 16-20205

________________ 

### Jerartis D. Icon, Appellant,

vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2 ) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. Jerartis D. Icon, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.2 Jerartis D. Icon appeals the trial court’s order summarily den ying his motion for additional credit time served, filed pursuant to Florida Ru le of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Even if (as Icon asserts) the three-year pris on sentence imposed in the instant case was ordered to run concurrently with a pris on sentence previously and separately imposed in the circuit court for Palm Beach Coun ty, 1 this would not entitle him to receive any additional credit for county jail ti me served in the instant case. Icon was awarded a total of 577 days of jail credit, and has failed to allege or establish an entitlement to any additional jail credit. See, e .g., Brito v. State, 194 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); James v. State, 721 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Keene v. State, 500 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Affirmed.

1 The record on appeal, including the judgment, sentence and sen tencing guideline scoresheet, fails to reflect that the sentence imposed in the i nstant case was to run concurrently with any other sentence. Further, Icon failed to p rovide a transcript of the plea and sentencing h earing in this case.