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


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.53 MB)
 
 Kazakhstan Soldiers Army Arizona National Guard State Partnership Program HMMWV
 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
# Europeiska unionens C 151/8 ju

| | ISSN 1725-2504 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 151 |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 47 årgången8 juni 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2504

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 151

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

47 årgången8 juni 2004

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Meddelanden |
| | Kommissionen |
| 2004/C 151/1 | Eurons växelkurs | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

I   Meddelanden

Kommissionen

2004/C 151/1

Eurons växelkurs

1

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

I Meddelanden

Kommissionen

| 8.6.2004 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 151/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2004

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 151/1

---

Eurons växelkurs (1)

7 juni 2004

(2004/C 151/01)

1 euro=

| | Valuta | Kurs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US-dollar | 1,2319 |
| JPY | japansk yen | 135,36 |
| DKK | dansk krona | 7,4335 |
| GBP | pund sterling | 0,67025 |
| SEK | svensk krona | 9,1333 |
| CHF | schweizisk franc | 1,5242 |
| ISK | isländsk krona | 87,33 |
| NOK | norsk krona | 8,1860 |
| BGN | bulgarisk lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | cypriotiskt pund | 0,58300 |
| CZK | tjeckisk koruna | 31,270 |
| EEK | estnisk krona | 15,6466 |
| HUF | ungersk forint | 251,75 |
| LTL | litauisk litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lettisk lats | 0,6638 |
| MTL | maltesisk lira | 0,4266 |
| PLN | polsk zloty | 4,6492 |
| ROL | rumänsk leu | 40 803 |
| SIT | slovensk tolar | 239,1400 |
| SKK | slovakisk koruna | 39,950 |
| TRL | turkisk lira | 1 816 967 |
| AUD | australisk dollar | 1,7521 |
| CAD | kanadensisk dollar | 1,6592 |
| HKD | Hongkongdollar | 9,6024 |
| NZD | nyzeeländsk dollar | 1,9569 |
| SGD | singaporiansk dollar | 2,0996 |
| KRW | sydkoreansk won | 1 427,96 |
| ZAR | sydafrikansk rand | 7,9842 |

Valuta

Kurs

USD

US-dollar

1,2319

JPY

japansk yen

135,36

DKK

dansk krona

7,4335

GBP

pund sterling

0,67025

SEK

svensk krona

9,1333

CHF

schweizisk franc

1,5242

ISK

isländsk krona

87,33

NOK

norsk krona

8,1860

BGN

bulgarisk lev

1,9558

CYP

cypriotiskt pund

0,58300

CZK

tjeckisk koruna

31,270

EEK

estnisk krona

15,6466

HUF

ungersk forint

251,75

LTL

litauisk litas

3,4528

LVL

lettisk lats

0,6638

MTL

maltesisk lira

0,4266

PLN

polsk zloty

4,6492

ROL

rumänsk leu

40 803

SIT

slovensk tolar

239,1400

SKK

slovakisk koruna

39,950

TRL

turkisk lira

1 816 967

AUD

australisk dollar

1,7521

CAD

kanadensisk dollar

1,6592

HKD

Hongkongdollar

9,6024

NZD

nyzeeländsk dollar

1,9569

SGD

singaporiansk dollar

2,0996

KRW

sydkoreansk won

1 427,96

ZAR

sydafrikansk rand

7,9842

---

(1)

Källa: Referensväxelkurs offentliggjord av Europeiska centralbanken.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6328

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID M. MCCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; JON OZMINT, Director of South 

Carolina Department of Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:11-cv-00398-HMH-JDA)

Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 11, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

South Carolina prisoner Julian Rochester appeals the 

district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of his 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition. To the 

extent that Rochester contends that he is being confined beyond 

the expiration of his criminal sentence, his claim is subject to 

dismissal because Rochester has not demonstrated exhaustion of 

state remedies, as required by § 2241. See Braden v. 30th 

Judicial Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973). Rochester’s 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel challenge the 

validity of his convictions and should be brought, if at all, in 

a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, see Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 

U.S. 74, 78 (2005), if Rochester obtains authorization from this 

court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006) to file such a 

petition. Finally, Rochester’s claims of denial of mail and 

phone privileges and beatings sound under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2000). We therefore affirm. We deny the motions for copies of 

documents and to expedite consideration of the appeal. 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
#### Carl Schefer et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Schefer, Schramm & Vogel, Respondents, *v.*Andrew B. Carton et al., Appellants.

*Schefer*v. *Carton,*145 App. Div. 918, affirmed.

(Submitted January 27, 1913;

decided February 11, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 23, 1911, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of thé court at a Trial Term without a jury in an action to recover a balance alleged to be due for merchandise sold and delivered.

I. *Gainsburg*for appellants.

*Abram I. Elkus*and *Joseph M. Proskauer*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on authority of *Hadley Falls Nat. Bank*v. *May*(29 Hun, 404; affd., 99 N. Y. 671); no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Werner, Chase, Collin and Cuddeback, JJ. Not sitting: Miller, J.
```

[Federal Register: February 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 38)]
[Notices]               
[Page 10571]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25fe11-37]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, March 2, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 22, 2011.
Todd A Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4400 Filed 2-23-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
**EXHIBIT      3.2**
IV 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 614

Providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules and Manual 

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Eighth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 14, 2002

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

agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of a revised edition of the Rules 

and Manual of the House of Representatives for the 

One Hundred Eighth Congress.

1 Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and 

2 Manual of the House of Representatives for the One Hun3 dred Eighth Congress be printed as a House document, 

4 and that three thousand additional copies shall be printed 

5 and bound for the use of the House of Representatives, 

6 of which nine hundred copies shall be bound in leather 

7 with thumb index and delivered as may be directed by the 

8 Parliamentarian of the House.

Æ
#### Germania Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. John Rae and another, Defendants.

Order modified as directed in opinion, without costs to either party. Opinions by

Brady, J., and by Davis, P. J.,

dissenting.
No. 302, Misc.

#### Beamon *v.*Illinois.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                       AND
                          PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


                In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB (the "Report") of Cimnet, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006, I, John D. Richardson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information contained in the Report, fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.



                                       BY: /s/ JOHN D. RICHARDSON
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John D. Richardson
                                           Chairman of the Board,
                                           Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Principal Accounting Officer

May 15, 2006



                                       15
From: Brenner, Mike

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative healthcare

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:55:46 AM

Hi:

My health plan being United Health Care has informed me that a routine annual blood test that includes a

cholesterol test cannot be preventive if I am now taking a prescription for high cholesterol. Even a blood

pressure test to confirm the need for a blood pressure pill is no longer preventative healthcare for my entire life.

Same goes for my wife’s pap test. It would appear that I can get the preventative coverage back if I stop taking

my medications and then go for a physical where my readings would be higher. So is a woman’s birth control

pills no longer considered preventive medication if she was once pregnant?

Is there anything that can be done or are we stuck with a half hearted approach to preventative care being free?

MIKE Brenner

973 324-1238-home number

**********************************************************************

The content of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may

be legally privileged, intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended

recipient, be advised that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the

sender immediately by reply email and destroy the message and its attachments.

**********************************************************************
From: Anna BEdford

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:48:00 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,

Anna BEdford

10 Laurel Hill

Greenbelt, Md 20770
0

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 2006 2007 2008 2009 20102011 2012 2013 Crestline Redlands
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**813 CAF 13-01036**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MELISSA A. FERRUSI, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHARIFF K. JAMES, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

EMILY A. VELLA, SPRINGVILLE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

SOUTHERN TIER LEGAL SERVICES, A DIVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE OF WESTERN NEW YORK, INC., OLEAN (JESSICA L. ANDERSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

WENDY A. TUTTLE, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, ALLEGANY.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered May 24, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order determined that respondent violated the terms of an order of protection.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8 alleging that respondent father willfully violated an order of protection directing him to stay away from the mother and the parties’ child except during scheduled visitation. In appeal No. 1, the father appeals from an order finding, inter alia, that the mother met her burden of establishing the allegations in the petition and, in appeal No. 2, the father appeals from an order committing him to a jail term of six months, to be served consecutively to a jail term imposed upon his violation of a prior order of protection. Contrary to respondent’s contention in appeal No. 1, the mother established by clear and convincing evidence that the father willfully violated the terms of the order of protection ( see Matter of Ferrusi v James , 108 AD3d 1083, 1083; Matter of Mary Ann YY. v Edward YY. , 100 AD3d 1253, 1254). With respect to the order in appeal No. 2, the father’s challenge to the commitment is moot inasmuch as it has expired by its own terms ( see Ferrusi , 108 AD3d at 1083), and we therefore dismiss the appeal from that order.

Entered: July 3, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 24-1010

___________

IN RE: RAJ K. PATEL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-00797)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21

on January 18, 2024

Before: BIBAS, MATEY, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 2, 2024)

____________________________________
2

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Raj K. Patel seeks a writ of mandamus. Because Patel has not 

demonstrated that he is entitled to such relief, we will deny his petition.

In July 2023, Patel filed a complaint in the District Court bringing claims against Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC. On January 4, 2024, the District Court dismissed his case 

after screening it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), without leave to amend.

That same day, Patel filed a mandamus petition in this Court, requesting that we order 

the Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware to enter a default judgment in his case. He 

repeatedly requested a default judgment from the District Court before his case was dismissed and claims that the Clerk of Court for the District of Delaware should have entered a default judgment without needing the District Court’s approval. Patel also requests that we reverse and vacate the District Court’s decision dismissing his case. Patel 

has since filed an appeal of the District Court’s decision.

A writ of mandamus is a “drastic remedy” that may be granted “only in extraordinary 

circumstances in response to an act amounting to a judicial usurpation of power.” In re 

Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) no other adequate 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is 

clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Patel may raise on appeal any issues 

with the District Court’s adjudication of his requests for a default judgment or its dismissal of his case, mandamus relief is not appropriate here. See In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 

353 F.3d 211, 219 (3d Cir. 2003) (“If, in effect, an appeal will lie, mandamus will not.”); 

Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 77 (3d Cir. 1996) (explaining that mandamus is not a 

substitute for an appeal).

Accordingly, we will deny Patel’s petition.1

1

 In light of our disposition, Patel’s pending motion is denied.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Home
  MEDIA
  NEWS ARTICLES
  News Article View
 Download
 Details
 Share
 News
 International Maritime Security Construct Main Planning Conference concludes aboard HMS Cardigan Bay U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
 ARABIAN GULF - Representatives from member states of the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC), along with representatives from 25 additional countries, gathered on September 16 for a Main Planning Conference aboard HMS Cardigan Bay (K630). In light of recent threats to international shipping, representatives reaffirmed their nations’ continued commitment to safeguarding freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al Mandeb, and discussed multinational efforts aimed at enhancing maritime security throughout key waterways in the region. The IMSC is enabling nations to work cooperatively to promote the free flow of commerce, deter threats to shipping, and enhance maritime domain awareness and surveillance. The IMSC Task Force is headquartered in Bahrain. Current members include the United Kingdom, Australia, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the United States.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 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
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 3

- 2697

_____________________________
E RIC A. W ELCH , Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , and S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C

. Dempsey , Judge

.

February 13, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Eric A. Welch
, pro se, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee s

.
From: Orli Cotel

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:40:21 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,

Orli Cotel

491A Dolores

San Francisco, CA 94110