alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: andrea hernandez

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:28:06 AM

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,

andrea hernandez

843 s. longmore

mesa, AZ 85202
From: Maggie Smallwood

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:54:47 AM

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,

Maggie Smallwood

6788 Leaf Crest Dr

Apt 2-D

Whitsett, NC 27377
From: Dawn Franklin

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: preventative care and contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:16:49 PM

Importance: High

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. This is a PERSONAL choice that no one else should have the power or

authority to enforce against a woman. No one is forcing the person who doesn't approve of birth

control; therefore, that person is free to make his/her own choice, so why is that right being

withheld from an employee? And why should that woman's job and economic survival be at risk?

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,

Dawn Franklin
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 552 (Sub-No. 27)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Notice of decision.

# SUMMARY:

On September 5, 2023, the Board served a decision announcing the 2022 revenue adequacy determinations for the nation's Class I railroads. Five Class I railroads (BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad Company) were found to be revenue adequate.

# DATES:

This decision is effective on September 5, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a)(3), the Board is required to make an annual determination of railroad revenue adequacy. A railroad is considered revenue adequate under 49 U.S.C. 10704(a) if it achieves a rate of return on net investment (ROI) equal to at least the current cost of capital for the railroad industry. For 2022, this number was determined to be 10.58% in                     *Railroad Cost of Capital—2022,*                     EP 558 (Sub-No. 26) (STB served Aug. 3, 2023). The Board then applied this revenue adequacy standard to each Class I railroad. Five Class I carriers (BNSF Railway Company, CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad Subsidiaries, Soo Line Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad Company) were found to be revenue adequate for 2022.                

                    The decision in this proceeding is posted at                     *www.stb.gov.*

Decided: August 30, 2023.
      ( print page 61005)    
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.

Kenyatta Clay,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2023-19173 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
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 (1.93 MB)
 
 ASP ASC debut warehouses host nation 401st AFSB third army material command ASP-5 sustainment command 401st Army Prepositioned Stocks Army Field Support Brigade Fight tonight Combat Ready us Army Central Sustainment Warehouse Ribbon cutting equipment Soldiers Service members AMC Army Centcom Logistics ceremony readiness Deployed USARCENT Kuwait Camp Arifjan MILITARY deployment
 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
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00119

- CV

INFINITY COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellant

v.

Michael TATSCH

, Appelle e

From the 216th Judicial District Court

, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12977 Honorable N. Keith Williams , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

After the submission panel denied Appellee’s motion for rehearing, Appell ee timely filed

a motion for en banc reconsideration

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49. 7

. The c ourt requests that Appell ant file a response to Appell ee ’s motion

. See id. R. 49.2.

If Appell ant choose s to file a response , Appell ant must file the response, or a motion for extension of time to file a response, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of October, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
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 (0.24 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7568

BRANDON LEE SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00613-JRS)

Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: June 19, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Brandon Lee Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3
From: Linda Admire

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 4:33:32 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,

Linda Admire

1502 N. Camino Mateo

Tucson, AZ 85745
From: Rosalee Clarke

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Please Do Not Deny Women Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:14:40 PM

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 they 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,

Rosalee Clarke

876 Spinosa Drive

Sunnyvale, CA 94087
From: Linda Morgan

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: In support of women"s health care

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:20:37 AM

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.

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.

Linda Morgan
EXHIBIT 32 SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY DWIGHT O.
SEEGMILLER In
connection with the Annual Report of Hills Bancorporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dwight O. Seegmiller,
Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: 1.          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2.          The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 11, 2009
By: /s/ Dwight O.
 SeegmillerDwight O. Seegmiller,
 Director and President SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY JAMES G. PRATT In
connection with the Annual Report of Hills Bancorporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James G. Pratt,
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: 1.          The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 2.          The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: March 11, 2009
By: /s/ James G. PrattJames G. Pratt, Treasurer
 and Chief Accounting Officer Page 107 of 107
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.4


                                DELOITTE & TOUCH


                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants of Bay Heart Ltd, we hereby consent to the
incorporation Of our report dated March 21, 2002, included in Form 10-K of
Ampal-Ampal-American Israel Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2001
(relating to financial statements of Bay Heart Ltd not included herein), into
Ampal-American Israel Corporation's previously filed Registration Statements
file No. 333.-61895 and No. 333-55970.


                                 Brightman, Almagor & Co.
                               Certified Public Accountants

March 21, 2002



                                       4
H. Res. 375

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 20, 2002.

Resolved, That the following Member be, and is hereby,

elected to the following standing committee of the House of

Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE: Mr. Fletcher.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: Leo Bray

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:05:21 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.

Leo Bray

53 Alban St

Dorchester Center, MA 02124-3762
From: corinne Van Houten Anselme

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventive care for women

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:47:00 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 am truly stunned to think that there could be any consideration of “religious refusal exemptions”

regarding women’s healthcare and women’s choices. No one should be able

to alter doctor's prescriptions in accordance with some personal belief system that has NO

connection with the health of the woman or the diagnosis made by her doctor. There is absolutely

NO justification for persons of any religious orientation to determine the personal health choices of

doctors and their patients.

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.

Corinne Van Houten http://www.corinnevanhouten.com