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

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1250

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve transitional medical

and dental care for members of the Armed Forces released from active

duty to which called or ordered, or for which retained, in support of

a contingency operation.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 26, 2001

Mrs. CARNAHAN (for herself, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr.

JOHNSON, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve transitional medical and dental care for members of the Armed

Forces released from active duty to which called or ordered, or for which retained, in support of a contingency

operation.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1250 IS

1 SECTION 1. IMPROVED TRANSITIONAL MEDICAL AND DEN2 TAL CARE FOR MEMBERS RELEASED FROM

3 ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED IN SUPPORT OF

4 CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS.

5 (a) INCREASED PERIOD OF COVERAGE.—Subsection

6 (a)(1) of section 1074b of title 10, United States Code,

7 is amended by striking ‘‘30 days’’ and inserting ‘‘one

8 year’’.

9 (b) TRICARE BENEFITS.—Subsection (c)(2) of such

10 section is amended by striking ‘‘contracted for under the

11 authority of section 1079(a) of this title and’’ and insert12 ing ‘‘under the TRICARE program,’’.

13 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

14 Section 1 and the amendments made by section 1

15 shall take effect on the first day of the first month that

16 begins more than 180 days after the date of the enactment

17 of this Act and shall apply with respect to releases of

18 members of the Armed Forces described in section 1074b

19 of title 10, United States Code, from active duty that are

20 effective on or after that effective date.

Æ
#### Anna McGrath, Respondent, v. Timothy Harty and others, Administrators, etc., Appellants.

Order and judgment affirmed, witn costs, on opinion of Kennedy, J., delivered at Special Term ; Kennedy, J., not sitting.
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

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Bataan Amphibious Ready Group Transits Strait of Hormuz 

By 5th Fleet Public Affairs - NAVCENT

                Strait of Hormuz   –              
The Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and embarked 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), along with guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf (CG 72) and the dry cargo and ammunition ship USNS William McLean (T-AKE 12), conducted a routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Gulf April 3, 2020. 

The Bataan ARG consists of amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5), amphibious transport dock ship USS New York (LPD 21) and dock landing ship USS Oak Hill (LSD 51). The 26th MEU is a Marine Air-Ground Task Force supported by three major subordinate elements – the Ground Combat Element, Aviation Combat Element and Logistics Combat Element. 

The Bataan ARG/26th MEU previously operated in the Arabian Gulf Feb.12-27.

The Bataan ARG/26th MEU is operating in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations in support of maritime security operations to reassure allies and partners, and preserve freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce in the region. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Charter SchoolsEducational ChangeEducational PolicyEducational ResearchElementary Secondary EducationExperimental SchoolsInstitutional CharacteristicsRural EducationSchool Community RelationshipSmall Schools

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6673

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LLOYD B. CARR, a/k/a Lloyd Carr , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Parkersburg

. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 6:12

- cr - 00210

- 1 )

Submitted : June 24, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before WYNN and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Lloyd B. Carr , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Lloyd B. Carr appeals the distr ict court’s order granting the Government’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k) to adjust his restitution payment schedule. When a defendant is ordered to pay restitution, and a “‘material change in the defendant ’ s economic circumstances [] might affect the defendant ’ s ability to pay restitution,’” the district “court is authorized to adjust the payment schedule ‘ as the interests of justice require. ’ ” United
States v. Grant , 715 F.3d 552, 554 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U .S.C. § 3664(k)). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion in the court’s determination to modify
Carr’s restitution payment schedule based on a material change in his economic circumstances

. See United States v. Sweatt , 85 F.4th 1240, 1241

- 42 (7th Cir. 2023) (stating standard of review). On appeal, Carr also contends that the district court judge should have recused himself. Because Carr did not move the district court for recusal, we review his claim only for plain error. See United States v. Chastain , 979 F.3d 586, 594 (8th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review). Carr fails to establish that recusal was required. See Belue v. Leventhal , 640 F.3d 567, 572

- 74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid bases for bias or partiality motion); see also United States v. Lentz , 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The presiding judge is not required to recuse himself simply because of unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.” ( cleaned up )). Accordingly, we deny Carr’s motions to appoint counsel , and we affirm the district
court ’s order

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6673 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
### NU M BER 13- 08- 0012 6-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ DA VI D SOTO, A PPE LLA NT,
v . TE XAS STA

TE B A NK , A PPEL LE E.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ On A pp eal f rom th e C ou nty C ou rt atL aw N o. 2 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Ro dr i guez, G ar za, and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Appel lan t, Dav id Soto, attempt ed to per fect an appeal from an order entered by the Cou nty C our t at Law No. 2 of H ida lg o, Cou nty , Tex as, in caus e no. CL- 06- 2160- B. U pon re v iew of the d ocument s b efore t he C our t, the noti ce of appeal is not in c ompli ance w it h Tex . R . Ap p. P. 25.1( d) (7 ). The Cl er k of thi s Cour t notifie d appell ant of this defect so that2

ste ps coul d be tak en to co rrectthe defect, if i t c oul d be done. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 7.1, 42.3. Appel lan t was adv is ed th at, if the defect was not c or re cte d w it hin ten day s from the date of rec eip t o f

thi s n oti ce, the appeal woul d be dis mis sed for want o f jur is dicti on. Appel lan t fail ed to respon d to the C our t’ s n oti ce. T he Cou r

t, h aving conside red the docu me nts on f ile and app ellant 's fa ilure to correct the defect in this m atter , is of the opini on that the appeal shoul d be dis mis sed for want o f j u r i s d i ct i o n. See i

d. Ac cordin g ly , t he appe al is D ISM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF JU RI SD IC TION

. See i d. 42.3 (b),(c). P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Aug ust , 200 8.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 457

Paying tribute to the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey on the

occasion of the association’s 90th anniversary, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 25, 2002

Mr. PALLONE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Energy and Commerce

RESOLUTION

Paying tribute to the Visiting Nurse Association of Central

Jersey on the occasion of the association’s 90th anniversary, and for other purposes.

Whereas the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey,

originally referred to as the Monmouth County Organization for Social Service, was founded on June 24, 1912,

in Lincroft, New Jersey;

Whereas the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey

was founded with a commitment to improve living conditions and address the health and social services needs of

community residents, particularly women and children;

Whereas in its first decade, the Visiting Nurse Association of

Central Jersey launched child welfare programs, established outreach clinics, provided school health services,
2

•HRES 457 IH

and opened a district health office in Monmouth County,

New Jersey;

Whereas the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey has

been in the vanguard of community health in New Jersey

and the Nation, introducing mobile health clinics in the

1920s, outreach services to migrants in the 1940s, field

training for graduate nurses in the 1950s, expanded

home care in the 1960s and 1970s, hospice services in

1980, primary care services in the 1990s, nurse-practitioner-managed, school-based services in 2000, and advanced home care technology in 2001; and

Whereas the Visiting Nurse Association of Central Jersey

serves the community health needs of more than 100,000

residents of central New Jersey each year, providing inhome health care services and community-based health

programs for people of all ages in all walks of life: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House, on the occasion of the 90th

2 anniversary of the Visiting Nurse Association of Central

3 Jersey, pays tribute to the association, to Judith Stanley

4 Coleman for her 25 years of dedicated service as chair of

5 the association, to the 1,000 employees of the association

6 for their caring, expertise, and loyalty, and to the many

7 dedicated volunteers at the association for the precious

8 gift of their time.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Support for Research 
Excellence (SuRE) Program (R16).
    Date: November 20-21, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: John J. Laffan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 
45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18J, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-594-
2773, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.859, 
Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 31, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19254 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
From: Char Bever

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 8:11:39 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,

Char Bever
Vero Beach, Florida
#### Ross v. Wigg.

— Motion denied, without costs and without prejudice.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 4, 2004      |  | By:   | /s/ THOMAS J. MAY       |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |  |                 | Thomas J. May                                         |
|                                                     |  |                 | Chairman, President and                               |
|                                                     |  |                 | Chief Executive Officer                               |
From: Teresa Scherzer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception - do NOT expand "religious refusal" exemptions

Date: Friday, August 12, 2011 6:23:40 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.
#### Witham *v.*Stewart, tax-collector.

Argued November 19, 1906.

Decided August 10, 1907.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Pendleton. Fulton superior court. July 2, 1906.

Beck, J.

1. .Section 2, par. 2, of the act of the General Assembly, approved December 16th, 1902 (A. ’02, p. 19), provides that a “specific-tax” of $10, for each of the fiscal years 1903 and 1904, shall be levied “upon the presidents of each of the express, telegraph, steamboat, railroad, street-railroad, telephone, electric-light, sleeping and palace-car companies, banks, building and loan associations, and gas companies doing business in this State.” *Held,*that under the provisions of said act, where it appears that the same person is the president of two or more banks, a tax of $10 may he collected from such person for each bank of which he is president. It appearing in the present case that the plaintiff in error was the president of several banks doing business in this State, he was liable to be taxed in the amount specified in the above act for each bank of which he was the president.

2. The tax in question is not repugnant to par. 1, sec. 2, art. 7 of the constitution of this State; nor is such tax obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment to the Federal constitution, as denying to any person “the equal protection of the laws.” *Singer Mfg. Co.*v. *Wright,*97 *Ga.*114, 35 L. R. A. 497, 25 S. E. 249.

3. It appearing that the president of the banks, from whom the taxes were sought to be collected, was a resident of Fulton county, it was proper for the tax-collector of that county to collect the amount. due by the said president as taxes under ' the provisions of the act above referred to; and the court did not err in refusing to enjoin the collection of the same.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*49Cited by counsel: *Ga. R.*8/23; 9/253; 13/309; 14/438; 16/102; 21/59; 27/357; 33/623; 34/310; 35/124; 36/460; 40/201; 42/424, 596; 45/85; 49/195; 50/530; 51/252; 52/257; 53/44, 588; 54/330; 59/535, 806; 60/99, 137, 597; 62/645; 64/128, 789; 69/583, 686; 76/263; 82/138; 84/685; 87/400; 89/642; 97/116; 101/293; 105/567; 109/63, 77, 90, 103; 113/595; 114/397; 118/59; 121/412. Cooley on Tax. (2d ed.) 571, 586, (3d ed.) 5, 28, 29, 573, 586, 595, 1147, 1412, 1415; Cooley’s Con. Lim. 201, 479, 609; 2 Story, 359; 3 Hun, 84; 45 Am. D. 593; 52 Am. D. 331; 20 Am. E. 654; 21 Am. R. 765; 4 Wheat. 430; 9 Wall. 353; 18 Wall. 5, 10, 36, 37; 8 Wall. 538; 16 Wis. 136; 15 Kan. 627; 62 Pa. St. 491; 39 Ind. 429; 13 Gratt. 767; 16 Cal. 119 ; 139 U. S. 591; 46 Fed. 221; 65 Fed. 856; 70 Fed. 1; Dill. Mnn. Cor. §367.

*Ellis, Wimbish & Ellis,*for plaintiff.

*John G. Hart, attorney-general,*and *PL. M. Patty,*for defendant.