alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hamilton *v.*The State.

Beck, J.

1. It was not reversible error for the court, in giving- to the jury a charge requested by defendant’s counsel, to state that it was given by request. The better practice, however, would be for the court, under such circumstances, to omit any reference to the fact that counsel had requested the charge. *Comer*v. *Allen,*72 *Ga.*1.

2. There being evidence from which the jury might have found that the. accused shot at Owens, but killed Robinson, it was not error for the court to charge as follows: “It would make no difference, gentlemen of the jury, whether the deceased was the man he really intended to kill or *748not, provided that you find that he did shoot at some member of that crowd with a felonious intent, and without being justified or excused under the law, — lie would be held accountable. In other words, if a man attempts to kill another without justification, without provocation and not under circumstances of mitigation, and in pursuance of that effort shoots, and, instead of hitting the man at whom he shoots, hits and kills another, he is guilty. The killing of the other is measured by the same standard as though he had killed the one originally intended.” *Charlon*v. *State,*106 *Ga.*400 (32 S. E. 347).

Submitted November 18,

Decided December 20, 1907.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Seabrook. Wayne superior court. September 20, 1907.

*James E. Thomas,*for plaintiff in error.

*John O. Hart, attorney-general, John W. Bennett, solicitor-geneaal,*and *W. W. Lambdin,*contra.

3. The facts of the case authorizing such instruction, it was not error for the court to charge the jury thus: “Suppose he [defendant] had not intended to kill any specific member of that crowd that was standing there, if you find there was a crowd standing there, and he shot into that crowd and killed one of them, it would make no difference, because, in its jealous regard for human life, the law holds a man accountable for the result or consequence of his acts, provided he acts without justification, provocation, or mitigation. For instance, if a man feloniously, with reckless disregard for human life, takes a loaded weapon and deliberately points into a crowd and fires and kills a member of the crowd, why the law would hold him accountable for murder, independently of whether he intended to kill any individual member of that crowd or not.” *Smith*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*213 (52 S. E. 329).

4. The request to charge which the court refused was fully covered by the charge given, and a new trial will not be granted for a refusal to charge as requested. *Battle*v. *State,*105 *Ga.*703 (32 S. E. 160).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices .concur.*
From: Logan Perkes

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:41:07 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

Thank you for making birth control free and available to women who want it. I hope that you will not

have a religious exemption because women should not be held subject to the values of their employer.

Please provide free access to all women. But, great job overall! I am a huge fan of the health care bill

and thank all the Democrats who voted for it.

Sincerely,

Logan Perkes

1805 E 13th St

Austin, TX 78702
Order entered March 5, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01118-CV

LV HIGHLAND CREDIT FEEDER FUND LLC, ET AL., Appellants

V.

HIGHLAND CREDIT STRATEGIES FUND, LP, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-08521

ORDER

We GRANT appellees’ March 4, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. Appellees shall file their brief on or before April 15, 2014. We caution 

appellees that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19156]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-6401-N-02A]


Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 
Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program, and Other 
Programs; Fiscal Year 2024; Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and 
Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
published a document in the Federal Register of August 31, 2023, a 
notice of adjustment to Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for the fiscal year. 
The notice established FMRs for fiscal year 2024, but mistakenly 
identified October 1, 2024, as the effective date of the revised FMRs. 
This notice corrects the effective date to be October 1, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information on the 
methodology used to develop FMRs or a listing of all FMRs, please call 
the HUD USER information line at 800-245-2691 or access the information 
on the HUD USER website at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 31, 2023, in FR Doc 2023-18402, 
on page 60223, in the third column, in the DATES caption, revise the 
last sentence to read as follows: Effective Date of Revised FMRs: 
October 1, 2023, unless HUD receives a valid request for reevaluation 
of specific area FMRs as described below.

Aaron Santa Anna
Associate General Counsel, Office of Legislation and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-19156 Filed 8-31-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
document.write("Last updated: " + document.lastModified + "<br>");
|                                                                                                                                                              |  |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                                                                                                                                                              |  |
| footer>**Contacting EPP | EPP HomeOPPT Home | EPA Home | Search | Comments
Last Revised:  November 5, 1998URL:  http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/epp/about.html** |
H. Res. 8

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 3, 2001.

Resolved, That pursuant to the Legislative Pay Act of

1929, as amended, the six minority employees authorized

therein shall be the following named persons, effective January 3, 2001, until otherwise ordered by the House, to-wit:

Steve Elmendorf, George Kundanis, Moses Mercado, Sharon

Daniels, Dan Turton, and Laura Nichols, each to receive

gross compensation pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 119, Ninety-fifth Congress, as enacted into permanent law by section 115 of Public Law 95–94. In addition,

the Minority Leader may appoint and set the annual rate of

pay for up to three further minority employees.

Attest:

Clerk.
From: Jessica Campbell

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:47:19 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,

Jessica Campbell

2106 Timber Lodge Rd

Apt 4

Cordova, TN 38016
From: Austin Lynch

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:10:15 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,

Austin Lynch

15722 Blaine Ave

Bellflower, CA 90706
From: Karen Cajka

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 1:15:31 PM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I am writing to commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring

health insurers to attend to a variety of women's health needs, particularly the mandate to cover the

full cost of contraception, without a required co-pay.

For too long women's health issues have been undervalued or ignored, to the detriment not just of the

affected women but to their children, partners, colleagues--to society as a whole. Making contraception

available to all women regardless of their financial means is a significant step toward improving women's

health and concomitantly reducing the health care costs of unplanned pregnancies. My additional hope

is that these policy changes will result in prescriptions for contraception becoming more easily

attainable, particularly to women who live in areas (like my home state of Tennessee) where

geographic and social factors too often prevent women from seeking the health care they need.

Sincerely,

Karen Cajka

102 W Poplar St

Johnson City, TN 37604
[Civ. No. 10709.

First Appellate District, Division One.

May 5, 1938.]

#### L. J. McQUEEN, Respondent, v. CHARLES L. FRODING, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellant.

Knight, Boland & Riordan for Respondent.

THE COURT.

Respondent having served and filed notice of motion to dismiss appeal herein, and no appearance having been made on behalf of appellant at the hearing of the motion and no opposition having been filed thereto, it is ordered that the motion be and the same is hereby granted upon the grounds stated therein, and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
From: Hippocratic Resource W A Krotoski MD

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: HHS "Preventive Health Service" Mandates

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:44:25 PM

Dear Sir or Madam:

 On August 1st, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued new mandates

concerning preventive health services to be covered by insurance plans. These mandates require that

all insurance plans provide coverage for all prescription contraceptives approved by the FDA, as well as

abortifacients such as the "morning after" pill and "Ella" (a drug similar to RU-486 which, as an

embryocide, can also induce an abortion some weeks into pregnancy).

 There are a few exceptions to these mandates including those group health plans which were in

effect before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Health Care Reform) was enacted, and

those offered by employers who are deemed by HHS to qualify as a "religious employer." However, the

definition of "religious employer" is so narrow that its applicability negates most religious employers

within the United States. A major religious body, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

(USCCB) has voiced its strict opposition to and disappointment with this final, unethical Act of HHS, due

to its failure to ensure respect for rights of conscience when developing such mandates. The National

Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) has also strongly opposed this mandate.

 Another key issue is that, from a medical point of view, these new coverage mandates involve drugs

and procedures that are not, in the strict sense, health care. For example, hormonal contraceptives

take a woman who is otherwise in a healthy, normal, hormonal balance, and hormonally force her into

an abnormal, unhealthful state. This is clearly not in the realm of traditional, ethical medicine, whose

first principle is "do no harm." Similarly, abortifacients cannot be considered health care, as their sole

goal is the literal killing of an unequivocally human being, even if at an early stage of the development

we all undergo from fertilization until natural death. These are absolute perversions of the ethical

mandate of medicine, and are simply modern abominations, used for the sake of convenience or

supposed social change.

 As President of The Hippocratic Resource, an organization of life-respecting physicians, dentists,

nurses, therapists, scientists and other health professionals, I wish to add my name to the growing list

of organizations and health professionals that strongly object to this totally unwarranted and unethical

abuse of government power, all the more abominable as it perverts human health into human

manipulation.

 Sincerely,

 W. A. Krotoski, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.

President

The Hippocratic Resource

 11620 Rue de Tonti

 Baton Rouge, LA 70810-4565
From: Susan Coggins

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 8:03:06 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,

Susan Coggins

6229 S. Ironwood Lane

Lantana, FL 33462
## , Devs'ny, Dennis JGSTl

'*.



### . Subject:

J.',

### J~r9rije'**Dav~emvis4** 791 @charter.net]**,'s,~t\Jrday,** February 13, 2010 8:35 PM

### ~S~~nson,**!3~** (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST) Cape Air Issue--

,**~.** 

## ,fr

# °ln :**i:,:;q,:~em;,·**


# . to;: '**,~";::""< ~**  ...I!I

... ,.<

Gentlemen, 

### :: :..: 

### ""'" My name is Jerome 

### A. Bavis, M:g.:andl am writing you after reading a letter (In My Opinion) in our Plattsburgh Press Republican today, Saturday**Feb~13,** 2010. I presumethatthe writer, Andrew Schonbek has sent you a copy. If not please read iUIl the paJ?6ror I

### w~lme'h?-ppy to send you a copy.

. . " I believe that Mr. Sehonbek hasmade.many excel.lent points which I will not all repeat. I would like to comment on a faw. The fact that Colgan1s:.asking"fbr"more tax payer money" in these very difficult financial times, makes no sense to me. I also question if this**s6::CaH~d M~?I-**  Canadian survey was worded appropriately. Phraseology in a survey can be very difficult and, if it is (lot

### extreme~lear,may be misleading. How many of these forms were sent-out and to whom? Montreal is a**large'city;w'ber~lir~100** forms ormulti.:thousands and how were these survey people chosen? To be honest I have hearda nu'ffi,bE'nof people state that they feel more secure and safe in a larger airplane. I thank you for**Iistening.·;t~7=~··<: ~:.:**  ..... . ,. . . Jerome 

### A. Davis M. D.



# - • .,'1 '

1
From: Kathleen Clarke

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:29:54 PM

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,

Kathleen Clarke
Fort Pierce, Florida
Eockingham,

June, 1894.

#### Leavitt *v.*Locke *& a.*

It is error for a committee to make partition without taking into consideration the claim of one of the cotenants to certain buildings erected by him upon the common property.

Petition for partition. Pacts found by the court. The petition was filed at the October term, 1892, when the defendants were defaulted and a decree for partition was made, and a committee appointed to make the division. One of the defendants, John W. Locke, while in the occupation of the common estate, built upon it a portion of the buildings at his own expense, by which the property was enhanced in value. He did this without obtaining the plaintiffs consent and without her knowledge until after the work was done. At the hearing the committee informed him that they had no authority to consider his claim for these buildings or their value, but must divide the property as they found it, and a division was made upon this basis.

The report of the committee was filed at the April term, 1893, when the defendant, Locke, moved to set it aside for the reason, among others, that the committee, by a mistake of law, understood they were bound to make, and did make, partition of the land without regard to his right or title to the buildings erected by him. Judgment was ordered on the report, to which the defendants excepted.

*John S. H. Frink, Eastman, Young f O'Neill,*and *Thomas Leavitt,*for the plaintiff.

*Charles II. Knight,*for the defendants.

Wallace, J.

The committee erred in ruling that they had no authority to consider the claim of the defendant, Locke, to certain buildings erected by him on the common property, and in making the division in accordance with that ruling. *Ford*v. *Knapp,*102 N. Y. 135, 140; *Crafts*v. *Crafts,*13 Gray 360; *Holbrook*v. *Bowman,*62 N. H. 313, 321; *Gage*v. *Gage,*66 N. H. 282, 288.

The defendants were not negligent in not objecting to the report of the committee before the first term at which it was returned to court. The report of the committee is set aside.

*Exceptions sustained.*

Chase, J., did not sit: the others concurred,
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 (1.36 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