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


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.27 MB)
 
 Travels JIm Mattis SecDef
 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
From: Steven Montoya

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Sunday, August 07, 2011 5:20:13 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,

Steven Montoya
Danville, California
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

Nos. 97-60216 & 97-60719

Conference Calendar

 

NICHOLE NICHOLS; JIMMY D. NICHOLS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK,

 Defendant-Appellee.

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

JIMMIE D. NICHOLS; LINDA F. NICHOLS,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK, ITS BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, ET AL.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

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

JIMMIE D. NICHOLS; LINDA F. NICHOLS,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK AND ITS

BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

 Defendant-Appellee.

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

IN THE MATTER OF: JIMMIE D. NICHOLS;

LINDA F. NICHOLS,

 Debtors,
No. 97-60216 & 97-60719

- 2 -

 

*This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

 

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

JIMMIE D. NICHOLS; LINDA F. NICHOLS,

 Appellants,

versus

FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION,

 Appellee.

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

JIMMIE D. NICHOLS; LINDA F. NICHOLS,

 Appellants,

versus

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS BANK,

 Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC Nos. 3:95-CV-252 WS, 253 WS, 332 &

 USDC No. 3:95-CV-167WS, 168 WS, 169WS 

- - - - - - - - - -

February 9, 1999

Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Because both of these appeals may be determined on the same

ground, they are CONSOLIDATED. FED. R. APP. P. 3(b)(2). The

Appellants have filed several unauthorized briefs that are

STRICKEN. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a), (c), (j); 5TH CIR. R. 28.4. Only

the initial appellate briefs and the initial reply briefs are
No. 97-60216 & 97-60719

- 3 -

properly before us. In these filings, the Appellants purport to

challenge the district court's summary judgment in favor of the

Appellees (97-60216) and the dismissal of their three bankruptcy

cases (97-60719); nevertheless, they have, through their failure

to brief adequately any appellate issue, failed to prosecute

their appeals. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.

1993); Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). The

appeals are frivolous, and they are DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The Appellants' motions are DENIED, as they are moot.

The Appellees' FED. R. APP. P. 38 motion for the imposition

of costs is GRANTED. The Appellees are awarded double costs. 

The matter is REMANDED to the district court for the

determination of the amount of attorneys' fees due the defendants

for responding to these frivolous appeals and motions.

APPEALS CONSOLIDATED; BRIEFS STRICKEN; APPEALS DISMISSED;

APPELLANTS' MOTIONS DENIED; APPELLEES' MOTION FOR DOUBLE COSTS

GRANTED; REMANDED.
From: Linda Messick

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Acceptance of recommendations of IOM for women"s preventive health care with no exemptions

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:25:41 PM

To U.S. Health and Human Services Department,

As a 74 year old woman, both mother and grandmother, it is abhorrent and outrageous to

me that in this day and age women would be denied preventive health care services

because of someone else's personal beliefs against contraception and other care. For 54

years, I have witnessed women fight for and win their "inalienable rights" that already

belonged to them by the Constitution of the United States of America. Men have not had to

do this. So do we women have to fight for our rights all over again? It simply is

not reasonable or justifiable for some "outer power" whose personal beliefs conflict with the

majority of women to deny them access to legal preventive health care services. This "outer

power" would not like to have its rights denied by some one else, would they?

Would not the 8th Amendment which gives citizens "Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and

unusual punishment" apply here whereby denying women preventive health care services is

a cruel and unusual punishment" because the citizens affected are women?

Thus, I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to

accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertaining 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.

I thank you in advance for using good judgment by supporting of women in their access to quality

preventive care.

Linda Messick

lindamessick@sbcglobal.net
From: Linda Shrewsbury

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:44:01 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,

Tulsa, Oklahoma
From: Bob Bonomi

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Reconsideration of the definition of "religious employer"

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011 8:40:23 PM

Please record the following in protest to the new mandate to include sterilization and contraception in

medical insurance and health care plans.

In addition to my opposition of the new mandate which includes sterilization and contraception in all

medical insurance and health care plans, I particularly object to the current restrictive definition of

religious employer as it does not provide true conscience protection for those committed to preserving

life. Health care plans should not be forced to violate the moral and religious convictions of providers or

employees in order to participate in the health care system. Requiring such an unacceptable demand

threatens both universal access to health care and religious freedom of conscience.

I ask that you please reconsider this section of the mandate.

--

Best regards and God's blessings,

 Bob Bonomi

 President

 Ambervace Inc

 (469) 387-6824

"Remember to play after every storm!" -- Mattie Stepanek

"This email, including any attached files, may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole

use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution, or others is strictly prohibited. If you are

not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information for recipient), please contact the sender

by reply email and delete all copies of message. Thank you."
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of REV Holdings Inc.
     (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
     Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
     Ronald O. Perelman, Chief Executive 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, that, to the best of my knowledge:


              (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.


     /s/ Ronald O. Perelman
     ----------------------
     Ronald O. Perelman
     Chief Executive Officer
     November 14, 2002

     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
     the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
     of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### United States Wood Preserving Company, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

*U. S. Wood Preserving Co.*v. *City of New York,*138 App. Div. 841, affirmed.

(Argued February 14, 1913;

decided March 4, 1913.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 13, 1910, upon an order reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for labor performed and materials furnished.

*John J. Cunneen*and *William W. Niles*for appellant.

*Archibald R. Watson, Corporation Counsel (Terence Farley*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Willard Bartlett, Chase, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Not sitting: Miller, J.
1\ ALBEMARLE® 

Albemarle Cooporation 

451 Florida Stret't Telephone: 225-388-SOll 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801-1765 Facsimile 225-388-7686 

June 20, 2014 

Via CDX 

Document Control Office (7 407M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Taxies (OPPT) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA East Room 

1201 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-3302 

Attn: TSCA Section 4 

RE: Benzenediamine, ar, ar-diethyl-ar-methyl-, CAS#68479-98-1 

In compliance with the final rule, "Testing of Certain High Production Volume 

Chemical; Second Group of Chemicals", 76FR1067, January 17, 2011, 

Albemarle Corporation and Lanza submit this Request for Modification ofT est 

Standards for "Benzenediamine, ar, ar-diethyl-ar-methyl-", CAS#68479-98-1. 

For end point F1 -Mammalian Toxicity: Repeated Dose, 

Reproductive/Developmental Screen, Albemarle and Lanza have submitted 

numerous repeated dose studies. With those submittals Albemarle and Lanza 

requested derogation of this testing requirement. EPA agreed that the repeated 

dose test would no longer be necessary. The prenatal developmental toxicity 

test, however, would still be required. Since that decision, there have been 

several back and forth submissions on the methodology for conducting first the 

preliminary range finding study and then the final study. The range finding study 

is complete and the final protocol has been reviewed by EPA. EPA forwarded 

comments on the definitive test protocol to Albemarle on January 31, 2013. 

The definitive prenatal developmental toxicity test has been conducted and the 

draft report has been reviewed by EU REACH consortium members. The draft 

report is under revision at the testing laboratory and the final report should be 

available by July 31, 2014. This testing has taken longer than expected to 

conduct and finalize. Thus Albemarle and Lanza request a further extension of 

the time for submittal of the final report until August 15, 2014. This additional 

two weeks will provide time to prepare the robust summary after receiving the 

final report from the testing laboratory. 
If you have any questions about our request or would like to discuss alternatives 

to our requested modification, please call me at 225-388-7776. 

Kim Boudreaux ~ ' 

Director, Regulatory Affairs 

cc: John Shaeffer 

Chemical Control Division (7 405M) 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1201 Constitution Ave., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004-3302
https://fdms.erulemaking.net/...component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=Print&PrintId=0900006480b325e8&Comment=true[8/17/2010 10:06:29 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: August 17, 2010

Received: August 16, 2010

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 80b325e8

Comments Due: August 16, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0014

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0014-0001

Interim Final Rules for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered

Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Document: EBSA-2010-0014-DRAFT-0019

Comment on FR Doc # N/A

Submitter Information

Address: United States,

Organization: Group Comments Submitted by 17 Consumer and Patient Advocacy Organizations

General Comment

The undersigned organizations, representing millions of patients and consumers, thank you for the opportunity to

comment on the recent regulations pertaining to the grandfathering provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

We understand the challenges of drafting these particular regulations. The American people have been promised

that if they like their insurance, they can keep it and expectations are high. At the same time, simple changes to

an insurance plan can result in a plan that provides entirely different coverage for an individual or a group. 

We appreciate the strong stance the interim final rule takes on changes to cost sharing. Americans depend on

their health insurance to make access to health care affordable. If the cost of their health insurance benefits --

copayments or coinsurance -- increases, it clearly changes the nature of the coverage. Employers and plans have

repeatedly tried to rein in the cost of health benefits by slowly chipping away at those benefits with increased cost

sharing. Those plans that continue to chip away at benefits should not be able to circumvent the new patient

protections afforded under the ACA.

We propose: I. Certain changes in plan structure, provider network and prescription drug formularies should

result in cessation of grandfathered health plan status.

II. Certain substantial changes to the overall benefit design should result in cessation of grandfathered health

plan status, including imposition of non-dollar value limits, elimination of benefits and reductions to or elimination

of the appeals process.

III. Some aspects of the regulations should be clarified, including what happens if a plan stops offering dependent

coverage and how the grandfathering regulations interact with the non-discrimination and wellness provisions of

the ACA.

IV. Notice and enforcement mechanisms need to be strengthened. 

(Cont’d in attachment)
From: Susan Shiels Matias

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Monday, August 15, 2011 10:36:22 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 Shiels Matias

8503 W. 97th St. Cir

Bloomington, MN 55438