alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Statement By the U.S. Central Command Commander on Afghanistan Run-Off Elections

/ Published June 14, 2014

**Media Release**

**HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND**

**7115 South Boundary Boulevard**

**MacDill AFB, Fla. 33621-5101**

**Phone: (813) 529-0220**

June 14, 2014

RELEASE #20140503

**Statement By the U.S. Central Command Commander on Afghanistan Run-Off Elections**

**TAMPA, Fla. –** Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, U.S. Central Command commander, released the following statement today:

“I would like to congratulate the people of Afghanistan on the successful conduct of today’s run-off presidential election. Just like the April elections, millions of Afghans headed to the polls to participate in this most essential of democratic rights, the right to choose their leaders. Likewise, the Afghan National Security Forces are to be commended for the outstanding job they did securing polling stations and providing for the safe transit of the Afghan people throughout the country. The strong performance of the ANSF, under what were very challenging circumstances, is further testament to their growing capability, and sends a clear message of resolve to potential adversaries and those who would seek to disrupt Afghanistan’s chances for a brighter future.”
<PAGE>
                                                                  EXHIBIT 12.2

                                   PACCAR Financial Corp.

                      COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                              PURSUANT TO THE SUPPORT AGREEMENT
                                BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND PACCAR
                                   (Thousands of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             Year Ended December 31
                                    -----------------------------------------------
                                     1995      1994      1993      1992      1991
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
<S>                                  <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
FIXED CHARGES
     Interest expense               $89,796   $62,851   $45,815   $48,914   $62,520
     Facility and equipment
         rental                         714       678       655       650       834
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                 $90,510   $63,529   $46,470   $49,564   $63,354
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
EARNINGS
     Income before taxes            $46,730   $42,147   $30,449   $18,645    $5,654
     Depreciation                    10,605    10,168    10,701    10,524    11,057
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                     57,335    52,315    41,150    29,169    16,711

FIXED CHARGES                        90,510    63,529    46,470    49,564    63,354
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
EARNINGS AS DEFINED                $147,845  $115,844   $87,620   $78,733   $80,065
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
                                    -------   -------   -------   -------   -------
RATIO OF EARNINGS
     TO FIXED CHARGES                  1.63x     1.82x     1.89x     1.59x     1.26x


</TABLE>

                                      -30-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,291
<SECURITIES>                                     8,484
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,222
<PP&E>                                         227,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                (69,436)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 456,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           64,769
<BONDS>                                        149,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,501
<OTHER-SE>                                     159,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   456,782
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  203,289
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (9,343)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,277
<DISCONTINUED>                                   3,560
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.770
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.740
        

</TABLE>
From: Roli Wendorf

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:14:05 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.

 

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.

Roli Wendorf

AAUW Westchester, NY
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04237

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04237\04237_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04237\04237_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04237\04237_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04237\04237_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04237\04237_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04237\04237_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04237\Certification Statement Plant ID 04237.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_FGD-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_FGD-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04237\Supporting Documents\04237_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04237\Supporting Documents\04237_PJFF.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_POND-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_WWT-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_WWT-2.1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\Supporting Documents\04237_WWT-2.2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04237\04237_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04237\04237_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
From: Aurora Meneghello

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 6:09:52 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,

Aurora Meneghello

3739 Balboa St, #125

San Francisco, CA 94121
Exhibit 4.10







AMENDMENT NO.7 TO SILVER STREAMING AGREEMENT


 




  



















December 17, 2015







DELIVERED BY EMAIL







Mr. Clynton Nauman


Alexco Resource Corp.


Suite 1150 – 200 Granville Street


Vancouver, BC, V6C 1S4







Dear Clynt:








	Re:	Amendment Agreement No. 7 ("Amendment No. 7") to Silver Purchase Agreement dated June 16, 2014










This letter confirms our agreement to:








		(1)	replace the reference to "December 31, 2015" in the definition of "Outside Completion Date" contained in Section 6.1(a) of Amendment No.7 (which had been subsequently amended to "December 31, 2016" by letter agreement dated October 29, 2014) with "December 31, 2017".





If you are in agreement, please execute in the space indicated below and return a copy of this letter to my attention.  Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours truly,







SILVER WHEATON CORP.







Per:__________________________







Acknowledged and Agreed to:


ALEXCO RESOURCE CORP.







Per:_______________________







ELSA RECLAMATION & DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.







Per:_______________________







ALEXCO KENO HILL MINING CORP.







Per:_______________________
#### William M. Barrett, as President of The Adams Express Co., Plaintiff, *v.*William T. Russell, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

January, 1912.)

Injunction — Who and what may he enjoined — Actions and proceedings — Enjoining action in another State or country.

The institution of an action in Pennsylvania by a resident of New 'Jersey to recover on a cause of action assigned to him for loss of goods shipped by express from the State of New York to ■ a -southern State may not be restrained at the suit of the express company though it is alleged that the purpose of the defendant is to evade the limitation of the plaintiff’s liability for loss to fifty - dollars on shipments where no value is stated, which limitation is valid in the State of New York hut not enforceable in Pennsylvania.

Action for an injunction.

Guthrie, Bangs & Van Sinderen, for plaintiff.

Tipple & Plitt, for defendant appearing specially.

Bijub, J.

This is a motion for an injunction to prevent the defendant from instituting any actions in Pennsylvania against the plaintiff (as president of Adams Express Company) arising out of the loss of goods shipped to persons in Georgia and Alabama by shippers in blew. York.

The causes of action, it is • alleged, were assigned to defendant by the consignees at the request of the shippers, and the purpose of defendant in bringing or threatening to bring suit in Pennsylvania is alleged to be to evade the limitation of plaintiff’s liability for loss to fifty dollars on shipments where no value is stated, as provided on the receipt given by the express company. The courts.óf blew York recognize the limitation as valid, whereas those of Pennsylvania decline to enforce the limitation.

In substance, then, this is an attempt to enjoin the defendant from prosecuting foreign litigation known as *“*harassing ” because it is unconscionable in that it is brought in *227another State to evade the substantivo law of this State. I have had occasion recently to- examino this question. See Miller v. Meyers, 75 Misc. Rep. 297. I know of no case where actions of this kind now sought to be restrained will be enjoined except as between residents of the same State. It is not quite clear from the complaint and accompanying affidavits whether the original causes of action are held by the shippers in Hew York or the consignees in the Southern States, or both; but in neither event is the *bona fide*character of the assignments to the defendants impeached, nor indeed are the shippers or consignees made .parties to this action. We have then, at the best, a resident" of Hew York (although it is not clear that the unincorporated Adams Express Company is *to*he so regarded) praying that an injunction issue against a resident of Hew Jersey (upon whom service of process in this State has been obtained) preventing him from bringing suit in Pennsylvania.

Heither precedent (see also note to 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 26) nor the rationale of the doctrine warrants my granting the relief prayed for.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
From: Sheila Boltz

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 8:11:02 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I want to thank you for your recent decision to require health insurers to cover the full cost of

contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

It often feels like women's health and human services have had to sustain too many brutal cuts in this

recession. 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 longterm health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

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

Sincerely,

Sheila Boltz

2734 HURLEY WAY

2734 Hurley Way

SACRAMENTO, Ca 95864
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00481-CR

Robert Stewart MAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-03-00041-CRK

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 10, 2022

AFFIRMED, MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

In 2020, the State moved to revoke appellant Robert May, Jr.’s community supervision for 

violating certain conditions by which he was bound following his convictions for the seconddegree felony offenses of burglary of a habitation and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as 

well as the third-degree felony offense of assault on a public servant. After a hearing, the trial court 

found sufficient proof establishing at least one of the State’s allegations and revoked May’s 

community supervision and sentenced him to imprisonment. May appealed.
04-21-00481-CR

- 2 -

The court-appointed appellate attorney for May filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in 

which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief demonstrates a 

professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to May and informed him of his rights in 

compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This 

court notified May of the deadline to file a pro se brief. He did not file a pro se brief. See also 

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); 

Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). We have 

thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist 

and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by appointed counsel 

and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 

177 n.1.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should May wish to seek further review of this 

case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last 

timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition 

for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition 

for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See id.

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
From: Susan Racciato

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Thursday, August 04, 2011 9:44:17 AM

To Whom it May Concern,

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

the Affordable Care Act.

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

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

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

make ends meet is an outrage. 

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

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

enjoyed.

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

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

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

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

United States.

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

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

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

defund the abortion giant. 

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

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Susan Racciato
Bellaire, Texas
EXHIBIT 23
                                                                    ----------

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Zygo Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-44333, No. 33-62087, No. 33-57060, No. 33-20880, and No. 33-34619 on Forms
S-8 of Zygo Corporation of our reports dated August 10, 2001, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Zygo Corporation and subsidiaries as of June
30, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statements of earnings,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related schedule for each of the years
in the three-year period ended June 30, 2001, which reports appear in or are
incorporated by reference into the June 30, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K405
of Zygo Corporation.

KPMG LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
September 25, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 74 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 74

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in 
                   the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2001

 Mr. Nussle submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in 
                   the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on the Budget (hereafter in this 
resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the expenses of 
all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 
of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, 
not more than $11,221,912.71 for the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,513,304.71 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2001, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2002; and
            (2) not more than $5,708,608.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2002, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2003.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### James H. Hume and another, Respondents, v. James A. Barrus, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-105650 on Form S-3, Registration Statement
No. 333-122758 on Form S-4 and Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-108974, 333-98773, 333-83298,
333-121175, and 333-43316) of our reports dated March 31, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of McDATA Corporation
and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of McDATA Corporation for the year ended
January 31, 2005.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Denver,
Colorado
March 31, 2005



QuickLinks
Lleypet Labere LOI'W [10 ~ BIZ 549
Ailinkeer— | Life Ertl Jrernt CFV

og ELAS —