alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1


         Certification of Chief Executive Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
     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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FirstBank
NW Corp. ("the Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
Clyde E. Conklin, 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:

     o    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     o    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the Company's financial condition and results of
          operations.



/s/ CLYDE E. CONKLIN
-----------------------
Clyde E. Conklin
Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 16, 2004

                                                                              27
From: Sallie Light

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Religious Refusal

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 10:47:16 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 urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

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 

HomeMEDIANEWS ARTICLESNews Article View

# Chairman: defensive measures prevented casualties in Iranian attack

By xxxC. Todd LopezDOD News

                WASHINGTON  –              

                U.S. Soldiers of the 663rd Ordnance Company, 242nd Ordnance Battalion, drive military vehicles to the explosives range at Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, Nov. 29, 2019. The Explosive Ordnance Disposal Soldiers utilize these ranges to provide controlled disposal of explosive Ordnance. The Coalition is in Iraq by invitation of, and operates in close coordination with, the Government of Iraq. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Derek Mustard)            

                Defensive Measures Prevented Casualties in Iranian Attack            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Spc. Derek Mustard

VIRIN: 191128-A-DS044-101

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
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 (0.34 MB)
 
 votel third army thetford 77th CAB buehring KNB kuwait naval base blc Mechanics Coin us Army Central Soldiers Service members Army Centcom CSM Deployed USARCENT Kuwait MILITARY
 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: Erin O"Reilly

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA; Erin O"Reilly

Subject: breast services/supplies coverage

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:32:13 PM

YES and Hallelujah! I am in favor of breastfeeding supplies/services

being covered at no copay, no deductible for ALL breastfeeding women

immediately after birth including pumps which are unaffordable for

many of the women I work with. Pumps should be a 2 phase, double,

electric pump with suction variability up to 200. A cheap pump can be

more of a hindrance than a help so please supply a high quality pump!

If women in this country are doing the work of breastfeeding (around

80% initiation rate as of 2011) then we can at least support them with

needed services and supplies for no money out of their pocket. Most

other countries support breastfeeding with paid maternity leave for

months. Our breastfeeding continuation rates are still low in USA---

we can help women to breastfeed for longer by giving all breastfeeding

women the services/supplies they need in a timely manner! Please also

consider some prompting/funding for more IBCLC's to cover the uptick

in demand for services--we need around 8/1000 births and currently

there are only around 3-4/1000 births in most states. Thank you for

the opportunity to give input. Sincerely, I am a RN,MSNR, IBCLC, La

Leche League Leader and Breastfeeding Coalition member.
From: James Soderna

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 6:38:48 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,

James Soderna
West Allis, Wisconsin
Exhibit 32.1  Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    The undersigned hereby certifies, in my capacity as an officer of NSTAR, for purposes of 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:(i)the enclosed Quarterly Report of NSTAR on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and(ii)the information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of NSTAR.  Dated: May 1,  2007By:/s/ THOMAS J. MAYThomas J. MayChairman, President andChief Executive Officer
From: JNTryson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Cover preventive care for women; reject exemptions for "religious" employers

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:40:45 PM

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

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) 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.
From: atonementlife@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:45:08 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jason Hartman

Wilmington, DE 19809
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3


                        FAHN, KANNE & CO. GRANT THORNTON


             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As the independent certified public accountants of Ampal Industries (Israel)
Ltd., we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into this registration
statement on Form S-8 of our report, included in the Company's Form 10K for year
ended December 31, 1999, and to all references to out firm in this registration
on Form S-8, registering 4,000,000 shares of the Company's Common Stock.


                                                Fahn, Kanne & Co.
                                       Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)


March 21, 2002



                                       3
From: Janice

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Keep Women"s Preventative Medicine as Science-Based, Not Ideologically Driven

Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:29:55 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.

An expanded exemption would allow an employer to deny their employees

access to care that doctors, medical associations, and the IOM consider

necessary. Besides, with or without an employer exemption, if an employee is

opposed to contraception on religious grounds, she’s unlikely to fill a prescription

for birth control. But these exemptions are also a little sinister.

Religious refusal provisions allow the decision makers at “religious employers” to

determine what sort of contraception, if any, their female employees will have

access to. If the existing religious refusal exemption is expanded, it would create

a broad definition for “religious employers,” and could impact all employees at

some schools, hospitals, charities, and elsewhere – even if the employee does

not share the faith of their employer.

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.

Janice M. Foss

2435 Colusa St.

Pinole, CA 94564
TS-ASLT60

Attachment #4

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 1d 

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substances at 

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter 
Attachment #4

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical 

Substances at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter – Manufacture and Processing

TS-ASLT60
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Central Command

Search
Search

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 
                            - Community Relations 
                            - Other 
                            - PreviousCommanders 

                            - Upload Date
                            - Photo Date
                            - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (2.72 MB)

Tags:AAVs, Battalion Landing Team 3/1, Kilo Company, VMM 166, Lima Company, Weapons Company, CH-53, ARG, Command Element, USS Anchorage, BLT 3/1, Arty, Heuy, Motivate, Seamen, F-35B Lighting II, VMFA 211, Sailors, U.S. Marines, U.S. Navy, Osprey, F-35, Marine Corps, Marines, BLT, MV-22, CE, Pacific Ocean, Super Stallion, 7th Fleet, UH-60, 13th MEU, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, USS Rushmore, Anchorage, Motivation, India Company, Tanks, Bravo Company, Rushmore, Essex, USS Essex, Amphibious Ready Group, Navy Marine Corps Team, Wake Island, 13th MEU CE, 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit Command Element, Assault Amphibious Vehicle Detachment, Artillery Detachment, Bravo, Tank Detachment, Combat Logisitics Battalion 13, CLB 13, Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 166 Reinforced, Marine Fighter Attack Detachment 211, Motivating, Good Photos, The Essex ARG, The Essex Amphibious Ready Group, Petty Officers, Tactical

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
From: Eugene Johnson

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 1:51:54 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I am outraged that we, the people, have once again been steamrolled by the Obama

administration and Planned Parenthood. Our right to give input on rules promulgated

by the government has been set aside and our religious freedoms have been thrown

under the bus.

We will be required to pay for other people's contraception through our insurance

premiums, and Catholic institutions and employers will be required to provide and

participate in insurance programs that include abortifacient birth control.

As Planned Parenthood "applauds the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) decision requiring new insurance plans to fully cover FDA-approved

contraceptive methods without co-pays or other out-of-pocket costs," those who

oppose paying for abortifacient birth control are left without even a forum to object.

That is why I turn to you today.

The Obama administration, through its various departments, unilaterally set aside

the required period for public comments and implemented the requirements as of

the date of publication in the Federal RegisterAugust 3, 2011.

The reason given for setting aside statutory provision for public comment? "The

Departments have determined that such a delay in implementation of the statutory

requirement that women receive vital preventive services without cost-sharing would

be contrary to the public interest because it could result in adverse health

consequences that may not otherwise have occurred."

This reasoning is ridiculous and the regulations are an affront to my religious

liberties.

As a member of your constituency, I ask you to please take any and all steps

available to rectify this situation, and notify me of the steps that are being taken to

right this horrible wrong.

Sincerely,

Eugene Johnson

Stafford, Virginia