alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT
                             TO
         AMERITECH CORPORATE RESOURCE DEFERRAL PLAN
                              

     Pursuant to authority reserved to Ameritech Corporation
(the "Company") by the provisions of the Ameritech Corporate
Resource Deferral Plan (Effective as of December 1, 1995)
(the "Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended effective as of
July 1,1996 as follows:

To insert the following after the term "Company's common
shares" in subsection 3.4: ", or as Stock Units distributed
to Participant as a Final Distribution with respect to
stock options granted on or after January 16, 1996, under
the provisions of the 1989 Long Term Incentive Plan."



Dated:  July 3, 1996


                              AMERITECH CORPORATION


                              By: /s/ Walter M. Oliver
                                  Senior Vice President -
                                  Human Resources


Concur:


/s/ T.P. Hester
Executive Vice President and
General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1996 FORM 10-K OF HILLS BANCORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,036
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,107
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    110,537
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,098
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            22,232
<LOANS>                                        375,575
<ALLOWANCE>                                      7,311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 539,452
<DEPOSITS>                                     450,061
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,071
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,190
<LONG-TERM>                                     25,795
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,997
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 539,452
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,724
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                7,307
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   485
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                37,516
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              17,762
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,951
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,565
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      754
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (57)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,622
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,144
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.86
<LOANS-NON>                                        339
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,092
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  6,689
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,740
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      971
<RECOVERIES>                                       438
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,311
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             7,311
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,085
        

</TABLE>
From: Lindsey Herron

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 5:09:46 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.

Personally, I am delighted with this decision. I feel extremely proud and thankful to live in a country

where our policies protect the basic needs and freedoms of our citizens. This is absolutely a step in the

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

Sincerely,

Lindsey Herron

1401 S Holgate St Apt 203

Seattle, WA 98144
From: loren@lorenf.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:07 PM

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,

Loren Foster

Turlock, CA 95382
From: ARLENE ZIDE

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: "Religious refusal exemptions

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:17:22 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.

Remember the separation of Church and State! If hospitals want exemptions to feceral

law then they should have to give up any federal support as well....

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.
BEE -(:2039/-/0 Page 1 of 1

LEGAL PROCESSING DIVISION SEP 02 2
PUBLICATION & REGULATIONS On
BRANCH As of: September 02, 2011

Received: August 15, 2011
‘Status: Posted

PUBLIC SUBMISSION Posted: September 02, 2011

Tracking No. 80ce18a7
Comments Due: September 30, 2011
[Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of Preventive

Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services under Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: IRS-2010-0017-0168
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

n BO : ‘
Uneroun Submitter Information
Address;

Powell, 43065-7951
Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

I strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth contro] without a copay,
CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

T also want you to know that I am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to opt out of
the requirements. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they work.

To prevent this would be discriminatory. To allow religious employers
to impose their lifestyle choices on others is discriminatory. Both
violate the foundation on which this country was founded.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
a reality for all women who use it. Regardless of employers religious
or political views.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for making women's health a priority, I trust you will
represent our rights appropriately.

http://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000... 9/2/2011
From: simeon108@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Contraceptive Mandate?

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:00:11 PM

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,

John Davis

Cedar Crest, NM 87008
# Uradni list C 64A/28.

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 64A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Letnik 6028. februar 2017 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 64A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Letnik 6028. februar 2017

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Objave |
| | UPRAVNI POSTOPKI |
| | Evropski parlament |
| 2017/C 64 A/01 | Izbirni postopek PE/195/S – Začasni uslužbenec – vodja enote (AD 14) – Seznam primernih kandidatov | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

V   Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropski parlament

2017/C 64 A/01

Izbirni postopek PE/195/S – Začasni uslužbenec – vodja enote (AD 14) – Seznam primernih kandidatov

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

V Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropski parlament

| 28.2.2017 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 64/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2017

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 64/1

---

IZBIRNI POSTOPEK PE/195/S

Začasni uslužbenec – vodja enote (AD 14)

SEZNAM PRIMERNIH KANDIDATOV

(2017/C 064 A/01)

| 1. | BORDEZ, Emmanuel |
| --- | --- |

1.

BORDEZ, Emmanuel

Seznam primernih kandidatov je bil sprejet 14. februarja 2017.

---
From: danpinckney@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:32:31 PM

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,

Daniel Pinckney

Quarryville, PA 17566
From: Susan James

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care & Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:38:03 PM

Dear HHS:

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.

Yours truly,

Susan James
From: Christine Wieseler

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

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

Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 11:40:51 AM

Dear Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services,

I commend the Department of Health & Human Services' landmark decision requiring health insurers to

cover the full cost of contraception, with no co-pay, beginning in August 2012.

This policy places a much-needed importance on women's health that is too-often not a priority in

health care policy. Birth control is a critical part of preventive care, and making contraception available

to all women, regardless of their insurance or ability to pay for it, will significantly reduce long-term

health care costs associated with unplanned pregnancies.

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

Sincerely,

Christine Wieseler

5151 Red Cloud Ct

Apt. #2

Oxford, OH 45056
From: Nicholas Park

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: definition of religious employer

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 3:20:50 PM

To whom it may concern,

The current definition of religious employer does not provide true conscience

protection for those committed to preserving life. Healthcare 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.

Please register my opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Park

1405 Fairfield Drive

Plano, TX
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.39 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
From: wynnetwo@earthlink.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: health care for women

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 3:09:12 AM

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

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

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. This is truly important for all women who wish to have access to total

health care services.

Thank you for listenting to the women of America.

Sincerely,

Ms. Wynne R. Corson

Chicago, IL 60657-3221